How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:48 pm

Age wrote:
What I would not do to be able to just say and express that what I want to share like all of you in this forum can do
I just post my thoughts because that is all I can do for how they are interpreted is not up to me
Every one here I think has more knowledge than me and so I try to learn from them where I can

prof
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:29 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:57 am
However, if any computer or any person is seen as an 'authority', then what you are proposing here on this page will just collapse.
What was actually written in the book is this:

With the aid of social media this computer’s noncontroversial output will be widely publicized by all sorts of media. If done right, these reported findings will come to feel rather authoritative. They may thus gain wide respect, at least by educated people. These findings could serve as guidelines for educators, policy-makers, and parents.

:) In suggesting that the output of the survey made by a super-computer "might come to feel rather authoritative," I did not mean, even for a moment, that it would trample on people, boss them around, or dominate over them :!:

Logik
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:48 am

prof wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:29 am
I did not mean, even for a moment, that it would trample on people, boss them around, or dominate over them :!:
Via what mechanism will we ensure that this doesn't happen?

surreptitious57
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:27 am

Does non controversial mean universal consensus ?
If not what be the specific criteria for deciding it ?
Is the super computer capable of thinking for itself ?
How can it be made to understand non logical concepts ?
Can it for example be programmed to understand the difference between good and bad ?
What guarantee is there that the media will report the non controversial without any bias ?
What happens when sub cultures do not want to assimilate but wish to retain their identity ?
Why do you think your philosophy has so far never been successfully applied to human society ?

Age
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:54 pm

prof wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:29 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:57 am
However, if any computer or any person is seen as an 'authority', then what you are proposing here on this page will just collapse.
What was actually written in the book is this:

With the aid of social media this computer’s noncontroversial output will be widely publicized by all sorts of media. If done right, these reported findings will come to feel rather authoritative. They may thus gain wide respect, at least by educated people. These findings could serve as guidelines for educators, policy-makers, and parents.


If "findings" are NOT agreed upon and NOT accepted by EVERY one, which is what is implied by saying, "at least by 'educated people', then the "findings/guidelines" will NOT want to be followed and adhered to by EVERY one.
prof wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:29 am
:) In suggesting that the output of the survey made by a super-computer "might come to feel rather authoritative," I did not mean, even for a moment, that it would trample on people, boss them around, or dominate over them :!:
I KNEW you did not mean it that way. But any 'feeling of authoritative' that comes from outside of one's own self does NOT jell well with that one.

I can fully understand, now that you have highlighted this for me here, that 'whatever', (the output of a computer, the findings, or whatever else,) may feel authoritative; because that authoritative feeling does arise when one KNOWS, for sure, some thing by them self, which would be in agreement with absolute EVERY one. This is the 'KNOWING' that I refer to, and which is the GUIDE that absolutely EVERY one will want to follow and want to adhere to voluntarily anyway.

If any "findings/guidelines" come from an outside source, other than from one's own self, and it is publicized but it does NOT make sense to a person, then it WILL BE 'controversial output'. The only 'noncontroversial output', which would feel authoritative is that what is agreed with and accepted by ALL. If it makes sense and is agreed with by ALL, then it will be respected, but if it has only got "wide" respect by some, even if it is at least by so called "educated people", then it will be CONTROVERSIAL. For any thing to be Truly 'noncontroversial' then it obviously would have the widest of respect, by EVERY one, and NOT just some. "Educated" or not.

What I would have been better writing, which would have been more correct is; If any computer, any person, or any thing, is seen as an 'authority', other than one's own self, then what you are proposing here on this page will just collapse.

In order for 'findings' to be able to Truly feel rather authoritative, then those 'findings', literally, have to be 'found' from within one's own self. Only when answers are 'found' by and from one's own self, which make absolute sense with EVERY thing else, are KNOWN 100% for sure to be True, Right, and Correct, then that is when that True authoritative feeling will be felt. It is NOT an authoritative feeling of control over "others" but only a sense of control over one's own self.

If there is any sense of an outside source feeling authoritative, (outside of one's own self), then what you are proposing will NOT work.

Any authoritative feeling other than what comes naturally from one's own self will only lead to resentment, revenge, revolt, rebelling, and eventually to a revolution. A reason why rules and law have never successfully worked is because they are made up by some, enforced by some others, in an attempt to over power and control some more. Rules and law and only work because of fear and judgement.

Some might now be thinking that if there was NOT, so called, 'law and "order" ', then there would be anarchy, mayhem, and/or chaos, but if those people are ONLY doing what is, so called "right" because of rules, then what would they say if asked, "Why is that?"

If those people who BELIEVE that there HAS TO be 'rules', but do NOT know WHY they, themselves, would go around doing wrong, hurting and harming others if there were no rules, then they still have some more to learn, BEFORE they start deciding 'what is right and what is wrong in Life' and choosing what is ethically best or not.

What is accepted and agreed upon by SOME is NOT the best for ALL. Only 'THAT' what is in agreement and accepted by ALL is what is best for ALL.

Only 'THAT' what is in agreement and accepted by ALL, as being right and wrong in LIfe, is what is Truly wanted anyway, and is what is wanted to be naturally followed and adhered to also. By just doing what one naturally wants to do, without any fear at all of blame, judgement, and punishment, then they will want to keep doing what they are doing voluntarily, and thus very happily also.

prof
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:10 am

Thanks for looking at the content of the book, Age.

At least you, doing what felt naturally right to you, had the courage and the trust to click on a link I offered to see what you could learn. And in fact it gave you the opportunity to express your own views on ethics, and teach me, a Professor of Ethics, a thing or two.

You have a healthy curiosity and I compliment you for that.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest