Why does man, need a agreement?

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

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:34 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:32 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:59 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:49 pm



we do or there's no distinction known as human nature, that is separate from animal nature. but there is a distinction from human and animal nature isn't there? seeing the activity exercised here.

flesh may be flesh but the spirit within is quite different isn't it?
Your belief would require trying to define 'spirit' that is earthly versus begging it as 'a spiritual thing', and then prove that animals lack a 'spirit'.

The concept of "spirit" for the ancients was the literal air and anything that floated UP towards the sky. The mystery of it was that no one could 'see' this type of fluid (the biblical 'waters' of above was actually a word for fluids and "adam" the word for the earthly solids with "aten" the solid form or perfect shape of the sun.) The 'spirit' is the magic nature of this fluid from above versus the fluids of below (the air versus the water), is that they noticed if your nose and mouth were plugged, you'd panic and die. Thus it was a "good" thing to have this yet unable to determine for its invisibility. Scents and smoke were also considered spirits because the mystery of things burning to go up to the 'heavens' and that dead things smelled. The loss of matter as the body decayed or burned was understood to 'go to heaven' meaning literally, the sky.

Humans are only animals that have evolved with extreme flexibility to adapt to unpredictable environments. Other animals are conscious, feel, and reason too. They just lack a NEED to where the environment still favors them without.
nope and nope

man is distinct because he comes into agreements its not even a concept in the animal kingdom. besides I didn't ask if amoebas need agreements.

its apparent you might not get out much, go to a celebrated sporting event, such as football or soccer, go to a rock or cw concert, go witness a riot, then you will see the manifestation of spirit in mankind.


all that mystical jazz you just spewed out is a pack of lies, one shouldn't put any weight to it.
Yes, I am certain I know you: a better off Evangelical of some sort trying to skip a need to actually NEGOTIATE agreements because it is just to much easier to say that "God gave me my fortune." then to have to negotiate among real people to 'agreements'.

I apologize for the insult but what ends up happening is that the concept of religion to those with power USE this to impose upon those they are 'stealing' to justify why and is counter to 'negotiations' and thus agreement. And the origins of those original 'religions' were actually the past secular and POPULAR (democratic-like) forms that required collectives of people to assure their right to negotiate when the few in mere accidental inherent natures tend to prevent agreement from occurring unless it is on their side only.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:46 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:54 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Well, because by definition, "ethics" has to do with how we treat each other, and deciding how to treat each other requires an agreement.

Think of it this way: if you were the only human being on earth (and if God, animals and nature don't get to count as ethical concerns), you would never have a need to ask yourself "Am I ethical?" at all. You would simply do whatever you wanted to do, and that would not be either "ethical" nor "unethical," because the concept would have absolutely no referent.

So there's no such thing as ethicality or morality that is a completely individualistic issue. If I'm the only one who counts, then who is there to give me a reason to ask the question?
not bad, but why the need in the first place?> Surly man is a beast, and can continue as a beast, just as any other beast.
Yes we are. We only had the fortune to evolve features that enabled us to utilize the environment better and in ways that we can adapt to almost any environment if we keep collective. It's not 'necessary' but if we accept those who try to act on their own freely (without communal convention) we empower only those demanding their "own" right to claim unilateral powers over the masses. It is a constant contradiction. Once we are improving and can stand on our own, we act like those islanders who get used to getting what they want until others are forced to take it back. Likewise, when we are poor and desperate, we are isolated and this is encouraged by those in better powers should these forcefully isolated individuals begin to collectively 'agree' to overthrow the last cycle of inheritors.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:54 pm
Well, because by definition, "ethics" has to do with how we treat each other, and deciding how to treat each other requires an agreement.
No, you are confusing morality with ethics.

Morality is the established social norms. What we should do (right) vs what we shouldn't do (wrong).

Ethics is the social institutions/systems/processes by which we establish our morality.
Ethics focuses on large scale systemic issues and attempts to produce guidance as to the correct course of action.

For example. The 3rd leading cause of death in the USA is medical error.

The Ethical question which the process/system of ethics would then aim to address is thus: What is the moral thing to do if we are to minimize death-by-healer?

The goal of the ethics discourse is to uncover the various errors committed by doctors which result in patient death and develop the rules/norms which are to decree the moral way forward.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:35 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:54 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Well, because by definition, "ethics" has to do with how we treat each other, and deciding how to treat each other requires an agreement.

Think of it this way: if you were the only human being on earth (and if God, animals and nature don't get to count as ethical concerns), you would never have a need to ask yourself "Am I ethical?" at all. You would simply do whatever you wanted to do, and that would not be either "ethical" nor "unethical," because the concept would have absolutely no referent.

So there's no such thing as ethicality or morality that is a completely individualistic issue. If I'm the only one who counts, then who is there to give me a reason to ask the question?
not bad, but why the need in the first place?> Surly man is a beast, and can continue as a beast, just as any other beast.
Of course he "can" do that. The question is, "Is it desirable that he should do so?"

Beasts may live in communities coordinated by instinct. And instinct allows that coordination to continue generally without dysfunction. But man seems immediately capable of inducing dysfunction, the first minute he wants to. He can "break the rules" at will.

Now, he has conscience working against that, perhaps; but conscience is considerably less reliable in controlling that than operating by raw instinct is. Man seems uniquely able to do right and wrong at will.

Given our desire and need for human societies to continue, we find we need rules of engagement to prevent dysfunction.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:35 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:36 pm

not bad, but why the need in the first place?> Surly man is a beast, and can continue as a beast, just as any other beast.
Of course he "can" do that. The question is, "Is it desirable that he should do so?"

Beasts may live in communities coordinated by instinct. And instinct allows that coordination to continue generally without dysfunction. But man seems immediately capable of inducing dysfunction, the first minute he wants to. He can "break the rules" at will.

Now, he has conscience working against that, perhaps; but conscience is considerably less reliable in controlling that than operating by raw instinct is. Man seems uniquely able to do right and wrong at will.

Given our desire and need for human societies to continue, we find we need rules of engagement to prevent dysfunction.

that's all well and good but, why is man making agreements when animals don't? as a mentioned man is a beast but is that all he is? whereas animals are just that beasts.


animals do things that would be counterproductive to their well being survival and coexistence but they are not in any agreements with the living in their surroundings.
Last edited by DPMartin on Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:45 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:54 pm
Well, because by definition, "ethics" has to do with how we treat each other, and deciding how to treat each other requires an agreement.
No, you are confusing morality with ethics.

Morality is the established social norms. What we should do (right) vs what we shouldn't do (wrong).

Ethics is the social institutions/systems/processes by which we establish our morality.
Ethics focuses on large scale systemic issues and attempts to produce guidance as to the correct course of action.
Actually, in my own analyses, I do make a difference between the two. But it's what they call a "stipulative" distinction, not an "analytic" one, because we don't actually find that there is general agreement that a distinction is warranted there.

And there are reasons why they say that. For one thing "ethos" and "mores," the root words, are essentially synonyms -- one from Greek, and one from Latin, but both merely referring to "the customs of the people." If analytics and etymology are used, then there IS no difference.

But I think a distinction is worth making there. However, the one you describe won't work, I'm afraid, because "established social norms" and "social institutions" are plausibly the same thing: just one being theoretical, and the second being the practice of the first. And I would say a stronger distinction is useful there.
The goal of the ethics discourse is to uncover the various errors committed by doctors which result in patient death and develop the rules/norms which are to decree the moral way forward.
It's worth making a distinction as well between universal "ethics" and professional "ethics."

What I mean is that, say, "You shall not murder" is presented as a universal ethical duty, whereas "You shall not inject your patience without first obtaining written or verbal permission" is applicable to doctors, or "You shall not deliberately indoctrinate children" is applicable to teachers -- in each case, that "ethic" proceeds only out of their particular professional role, which other people may not have at all.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:50 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:43 pm
that's all well and good but, why is man making agreements when animals don't?
Because animals do not seem to need "ethics." They don't seem to have sufficient "will" to overcome their programming and instinct. But human beings definitely do. A small child shows almost instant ability to rage and fuss, to feel jealousy or act angrily. Probably, none of us was taught to steal or lie, but we all knew how to do it. And then we all actually did it.

The animals don't need ethics, because of that lack of will. But it seems we really do...and need them right away.
as a mentioned man is a beast but is that all he is? whereas animals are just that beasts.
Man is indeed an "animal" biologically, as you know. But I really think you raise the right question: "Is that ALL he is?"

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:45 pm
Actually, in my own analyses, I do make a difference between the two. But it's what they call a "stipulative" distinction, not an "analytic" one, because we don't actually find that there is general agreement that a distinction is warranted there.
The distinction is warranted.

Ethics refers to a real-world, physical process. Interaction and negotiation between humans. Hegelian dialectic if you will.

Morality refers to the output/conclusion of the process. Laws, rules, policies and regulations.

Slavery used to be right, after the dialectic it became wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:45 pm
And there are reasons why they say that. For one thing "ethos" and "mores," the root words, are essentially synonyms -- one from Greek, and one from Latin, but both merely referring to "the customs of the people." If analytics and etymology are used, then there IS no difference
Logocentrism. Look past the fucking language.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:45 pm
one being theoretical, and the second being the practice of the first. And I would say a stronger distinction is useful there.
A stronger distinction between a correspondence between theory and practice? Can you give us an example of what you might mean by such a claim?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:45 pm
What I mean is that, say, "You shall not murder" is presented as a universal ethical duty, whereas "You shall not inject your patience without first obtaining written or verbal permission" is applicable to doctors, or "You shall not deliberately indoctrinate children" is applicable to teachers -- in each case, that "ethic" proceeds only out of their particular professional role, which other people may not have at all.
In ethics we concern ourselves with consequentialism, not deontology.

Morality concerns itself with "deontology" , while we also understand that rules without exceptions in this universe are hard to come by.

As is clear by the on-going debate in the field. Q.E.D a "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" tattoo on one's chest is not a valid DNR request.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/d ... attoo.html

And any ethical practitioner will tell you that resuscitating a person with a DNR tattoo on his chest is the moral and ethical thing to do.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:50 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:43 pm
that's all well and good but, why is man making agreements when animals don't?
Because animals do not seem to need "ethics." They don't seem to have sufficient "will" to overcome their programming and instinct. But human beings definitely do. A small child shows almost instant ability to rage and fuss, to feel jealousy or act angrily. Probably, none of us was taught to steal or lie, but we all knew how to do it. And then we all actually did it.

The animals don't need ethics, because of that lack of will. But it seems we really do...and need them right away.
as a mentioned man is a beast but is that all he is? whereas animals are just that beasts.
Man is indeed an "animal" biologically, as you know. But I really think you raise the right question: "Is that ALL he is?"
it seems I may have added this after your response:
animals do things that would be counterproductive to their well being survival and coexistence but they are not in any agreements with the living in their surroundings.

thing is, is man really more than beast? animals have brains, animals have emotions (if you have a pet you know this) so is man more than beast, and what is it that is the distinction?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Is that ALL he is?"

Post by henry quirk » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:07 pm

Probably not.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:17 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:45 pm
Actually, in my own analyses, I do make a difference between the two. But it's what they call a "stipulative" distinction, not an "analytic" one, because we don't actually find that there is general agreement that a distinction is warranted there.
The distinction is warranted.
Well a distinction is warranted, I would suggest.
Ethics refers to a real-world, physical process. Interaction and negotiation between humans. Hegelian dialectic if you will.

Morality refers to the output/conclusion of the process. Laws, rules, policies and regulations.
This is not a generally-accepted distinction. There's no law against you stipulating it, but you have the disadvantage there of being alone in accepting it, at the moment -- unless you can convince others it's right.
Slavery used to be right, after the dialectic it became wrong.
Then you would have to say it was never objectively wrong to have slaves. Slavery, then, wouldn't be an "evil." It would be an "option": "wrong" only for people and local societies that happened to agree it was wrong, but neither right nor wrong for everyone else.

But why should "agreement" -- of any kind -- make anything "wrong"?
Logocentrism. Look past the fucking language.
...said the man who is trying to tell us the words "moral" and "ethical" are different.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:45 pm
one being theoretical, and the second being the practice of the first. And I would say a stronger distinction is useful there.
A stronger distinction between a correspondence between theory and practice? Can you give us an example of what you might mean by such a claim?
"...distinction between a correspondence"? Your phrase puzzles me there. I can't tell what you mean by it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:45 pm
What I mean is that, say, "You shall not murder" is presented as a universal ethical duty, whereas "You shall not inject your patience without first obtaining written or verbal permission" is applicable to doctors, or "You shall not deliberately indoctrinate children" is applicable to teachers -- in each case, that "ethic" proceeds only out of their particular professional role, which other people may not have at all.
In ethics we concern ourselves with consequentialism, not deontology.
Consequentialisms do not conceptual or practically work. They're very easy to prove unjustifiable, and unworkable in practice. And deontologies also have inherent problems, but they're different ones. But these are issues far too big...

I say this without irony or intent to embarrass: the first Ethics course at any university or college covers them, but we don't have length to rehearse them here. If you remain in doubt of the above statement, I can only recommend an Ethics 101 somewhere.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:22 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:04 pm
thing is, is man really more than beast? animals have brains, animals have emotions (if you have a pet you know this) so is man more than beast, and what is it that is the distinction?
Yes, this is the question. I agree entirely.

And we might also note that in asking it, you have done one more thing than your dog can, or ever will do.

Moreover, in believing yourself capable of answering it, you've done a further thing your dog will never do. And in typing on your keyboard...and in waiting for an answer...and in being concerned about it in the first place...and so on.

So really, the empirical evidence is overwhelming that whatever "beast" means, we're something more, something also somewhat different, from that.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:17 pm
This is not a generally-accepted distinction. There's no law against you stipulating it, but you have the disadvantage there of being alone in accepting it, at the moment -- unless you can convince others it's right.
Well actually, the entire field of applied ethics accepts that to be a correct description of the mechanism.

I am not the one who stands alone ;) I am simply amongst a crowd that doesn't understand ethics.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:17 pm
But why should "agreement" -- of any kind -- make anything "wrong"?
The same reason why agreement of any kind makes the sky 'blue'. It's just language.

It's the mechanisms we put in place as a result of our language is what matters.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:17 pm
...said the man who is trying to tell us the words "moral" and "ethical" are different.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Dude, of all the tings you can be on the internet, why have you settled for "stupid"?

I am not trying to tell you that the WORDS are different. I am using the WORDS to point you attention towards a material difference IN PRACTICE.
An actual consequence.

Do you even draw a distinction between signifiers (the words) and signifieds (the things words point TO).
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:17 pm
"...distinction between a correspondence"? Your phrase puzzles me there. I can't tell what you mean by it.
So you don't understand Semiotics?

No wonder you are so confused!
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:17 pm
Consequentialisms do not conceptual or practically work.They're very easy to prove unjustifiable, and unworkable in practice. And deontologies also have inherent problems, but they're different ones. But these are issues far too big...
Whether you like it or not, in a universe where we experience time as a vector everything IS consequentialism. Cause and effect.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:17 pm
I say this without irony or intent to embarrass: the first Ethics course at any university or college covers them, but we don't have length to rehearse them here. If you remain in doubt of the above statement, I can only recommend an Ethics 101 somewhere.
I didn't learn this in university. I learned it where it maters. Out here in the real world.

I highly recommend you study Ethics from practitioners. Doctors, pilots, firemen, policemen etc.
People who understand how real-world decision-making works.

Academics are idiots - they don't understand risk.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is...

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:58 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:35 pm
I didn't learn this in university. I learned it where it maters. Out here in the real world.
You learned the meaning and the critiques of Consequentialisms from "the real world"?

I see. Well.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:58 pm
You learned the meaning and the critiques of Consequentialisms from "the real world"?
The 'critiques' of consequentialism is armchair philosophy. Like I said - philosophers are idiots when it comes to complex domains.
Talk to practitioners, mathematicians and physicists who actually understand system dynamics and complexity theory.

There's a difference between talking ABOUT ethics, DOING ethics and TALKING about DOING ethics.

It's called Ergodic theory and it applies to human behaviour. The distinction between ensemble and time-averages is foreign to you.

The simplest way I can explain consequentialism to you is this:

A: There is a 1 in 10 chance your toaster will fail
B: There is a 1 in 10 chance an airplane will fail

Those who understand ergodic theory, understand WHY A and B are NOT the same thing. The nature of the beast matters.
1000 people get to experience 1000 toaster failures in their life time, but they only get to experience 1 airplane failure.

Since you aren't on good terms understanding the Mathematics behind it, then perhaps this article will explain it better for you:

https://medium.com/incerto/the-logic-of ... 7bf41029d3

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests