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

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:30 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:37 pm
the morals is the agreement, example; the Ten Commandment are a set of morals
Ah. No, this makes a mistake.

It's one thing to say, "A code of commandments exists."

It's quite a different one to say, "This is the RIGHT code of commandments, and we are duty-bound to obey it."

There are many "codes of commandments," and they often command us to different things. The Mayans, for example, thought human sacrifice was a religious and moral achievement and duty. We don't.
well who has the power to enforce the contract, is where the deal is in this case. borrow money from a loan shark he will force the other party to fulfill his end. hence for fear of the normally unethical might still fulfill the agreement.
Nietzsche thought this was true. He said that moral commands simple serve some aspect of the general human (specifically male) "will to power." In other words, they are just expressions of desire to control others, enforced by power not rightness or duty.

But is that moral? Are ethics no more than a power-play by ethicists and those they serve?
its an example of a set of rules or law, most understand as "morals". don't start squirming because I used the Ten Comments for a reference. its the law for Israel in the day it was given, just as Mayan's had their law back in the day.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6428
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:30 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:46 pm
its an example of a set of rules or law, most understand as "morals".
But it's not "most" who "understand" it "as morals."

Both historically and present-day demographically, it's only a minority -- not that that makes one stroke of difference, since "majority" is not the same word as "right."

For example, the historical and numerical majorities have always believed women to be inferior to men, and we have to realize that the modern West is an anomaly in that regard. So there's no "most" to which to appeal, and it wouldn't make a case for it if we did.
don't start squirming because I used the Ten Comments for a reference.

Oh, I'm not squirming at all. I'm fine with anybody pulling for the Ten Commandments: we'd all be well off if we did. However, I'm not confused about them being something "most" believe in, or about a majority even mattering to their legitimacy.
its the law for Israel in the day it was given, just as Mayan's had their law back in the day.
That doesn't work. Not only were the Mayans around at the time of the Jews, but also the The Ten Commandments are, for Judaism, permanent for all times. Those two things inevitably contradict, and in the strongest ways.

If these things are socially relative, then you would have to conclude that it was wrong for Jews to make any human sacrifices to God, but right for, say, the Aztecs to kill 10,000 prisoners at a time to worship multiple different gods. That sort of completely cold-blooded murder would be wrong for one people group, but totally right -- even religiously virtuous -- for the other, if we take your point there. And the very first of the Ten Commandments...the one that both The Law of Moses and Jesus Christ Himself said made all the others work, the one that says there's only one God and you worship only Him, would be violated as well.

So there's zero chance that the Ten Commandments are everybody's idea of "morality." That idea just doesn't float if we plug in any historical or contemporary particulars at all.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:30 pm

So there's zero chance that the Ten Commandments are everybody's idea of "morality." That idea just doesn't float if we plug in any historical or contemporary particulars at all.
that's an opinion not the truth and you know it. this isn't a thread for the argument of the validity of the Ten Commandments. if you want to rant about christian or related concepts and miss use of such in the world in your view, there is a religion section on this site.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6428
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:05 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:30 pm

So there's zero chance that the Ten Commandments are everybody's idea of "morality." That idea just doesn't float if we plug in any historical or contemporary particulars at all.
that's an opinion not the truth
Actually, it's a clear fact. Take any commandment, and you'll be able to find a belief-group that not only doesn't practice it but probably also insists it's a religious or ideological duty NOT to obey it.

One of the Big Ten is "Keep the Sabbath." Do you? Do you think it's a religious duty to do so? Do Hindus keep the Sabbath? Do Christians all keep the Sabbath, or do only some? Do Atheists ever keep it? Is there any sense at all in which a Muslim terrorist or a neo-Nazi "keeps the (metaphorical?) Sabbath?"
...if you want to rant about christian or related concepts and miss use of such in the world in your view, there is a religion section on this site.
I don't. I just want to point out, in keeping with the main thread, that ethical "agreement" doesn't automatically exist, and certainly does not get described (contrary to your suggestion) by The Ten Commandments. You'll note it wasn't actually me who suggested that: you said it. So once it's seen, I'm happy to move on.

What's the next point you think worth making?

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:05 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:30 pm

So there's zero chance that the Ten Commandments are everybody's idea of "morality." That idea just doesn't float if we plug in any historical or contemporary particulars at all.
that's an opinion not the truth
Actually, it's a clear fact. Take any commandment, and you'll be able to find a belief-group that not only doesn't practice it but probably also insists it's a religious or ideological duty NOT to obey it.

One of the Big Ten is "Keep the Sabbath." Do you? Do you think it's a religious duty to do so? Do Hindus keep the Sabbath? Do Christians all keep the Sabbath, or do only some? Do Atheists ever keep it? Is there any sense at all in which a Muslim terrorist or a neo-Nazi "keeps the (metaphorical?) Sabbath?"
...if you want to rant about christian or related concepts and miss use of such in the world in your view, there is a religion section on this site.
I don't. I just want to point out, in keeping with the main thread, that ethical "agreement" doesn't automatically exist, and certainly does not get described (contrary to your suggestion) by The Ten Commandments. You'll note it wasn't actually me who suggested that: you said it. So once it's seen, I'm happy to move on.

What's the next point you think worth making?
again you rant your opinions on the ten commandments but that has nothing to do with whether or not they are law and or a set of "morals" which they were back when they were written and still is by those who are in such a agreement. they are a agreement of which it states in the Torah that the Ten Commandments are a covenant which is an agreement according to the OED dictionary.

so despite your opinion the Ten Commandment were and still are recognized as a set of morals, and law by those who are in the covenant (agreement). doesn't matter what you think of them or those who are in that covenant (agreement) it a law and a set of morals, an agreement.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6428
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:30 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:16 pm
those who are in such a agreement...
All I am suggesting is that there are also "those who are not." Your wording also implies that you also recognize this fact now.
...a covenant which is an agreement according to the OED dictionary.
If you look closer at the definition, you'll also see that a "covenant" must be entered into, which means the parties involved must agree to it. Those who do not are not in any "covenant." At least, that's what the Torah, the source of the Ten Commandments, insists is the case.
...so despite your opinion the Ten Commandment were and still are recognized as a set of morals,
Again, I didn't say they weren't. I said not everybody "recognizes" them as a binding set of morals for them. And that's manifestly so.

But where were you going with that point? I thought you were perhaps not wanting to discuss it further, but had other points to make.

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by prof » Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:32 am

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t.
All the evidence points to the conclusion that man is just another animal. ...an animal with a more-developed cerebral cortex, able occasionally to reason, and to imagine the future and make careful plans to enhance his/her species.

Most normal people want [maybe even need] things to fit, to be in 'sync.'
In Ethics this translates as harmonizing, finding agreement, being compatible.

So I agree with DPMartin on the topic of agreement having a prominent place in Ethics.

Careful readers of THE STRUCTURE book - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf
will notice that in my Bibliography I give a plug to David Gauthier, listing his work:

David Gauthier, Morals by Agreement (Oxford University Press,1986)
You may want to look up the review of this book at the Amazon books site.

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Yes, there can be. When an individual engages in self-development ...unless we want to interpret that as his/her agreeing with an ethical principle, or a previously-made commitment he made to himself to grow in morality.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:22 pm

prof wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:32 am
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Yes, there can be. When an individual engages in self-development ...unless we want to interpret that as his/her agreeing with an ethical principle, or a previously-made commitment he made to himself to grow in morality.
"self-development" is simply goals no more then that, could be to run faster, jump higher its still "self-development" to do what is desired gain a reward. agreements are between two or more living entities conscious of the other and the agreement. but the concept of answering to one's self for morals is ludicrous, seeing there be no consequence for unethical behavior, if there is, one has a serious mental problem.

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by prof » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:09 am

DPMartin wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:22 pm
prof wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:32 am
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Yes, there can be. When an individual engages in self-development ...unless we want to interpret that as his/her agreeing with an ethical principle, or a previously-made commitment he made to himself to grow in morality.
...answering to one's self for morals is ludicrous, seeing there be no consequence for unethical behavior.
There are consequences for unethical behavior: one who is unethical then lives in a world that is more degraded, more stressful, more degenerate than it needs to be.

Everyone, as a result, then pays a price. There is less-likely to be a focus on developing ethical technologies which would improve the quality of life for one and all. The focus is likely on hiding the personal corruption, on cover-ups, on worshiping money and power.

The goal of personal development I was referring to is making and keeping a commitment to oneself to be ethical; and if one already is ethical, to be more ethical.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:07 pm

prof wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:09 am
DPMartin wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:22 pm
prof wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:32 am



Yes, there can be. When an individual engages in self-development ...unless we want to interpret that as his/her agreeing with an ethical principle, or a previously-made commitment he made to himself to grow in morality.
...answering to one's self for morals is ludicrous, seeing there be no consequence for unethical behavior.
There are consequences for unethical behavior: one who is unethical then lives in a world that is more degraded, more stressful, more degenerate than it needs to be.

Everyone, as a result, then pays a price. There is less-likely to be a focus on developing ethical technologies which would improve the quality of life for one and all. The focus is likely on hiding the personal corruption, on cover-ups, on worshiping money and power.

The goal of personal development I was referring to is making and keeping a commitment to oneself to be ethical; and if one already is ethical, to be more ethical.
na, no one "breaks their own rules", for goals sake, they change their personal rules or method, to achieve the goal. in a agreement between two or more the rules stay the same no matter the successes or failures of a personal goal desired, unless all involved agree to change the agreement. you must remember that agreements are in the interest of goals valued, just as personals goals valued, but one is an agreement and the personal goals are not.

jayjacobus
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:07 pm

But consider this TYPE of agreement:

Often employment law follows an employment contract and not fixed laws. This means that the employment contract takes precedent over principals governed by the state. In fact, a contract can set its own principals.

This can be a problem for an employee who wants to retain certain rights. The employee’s lawyer does not write the contract and the employee’s lawyer is not permitted to even change the contract unless the employee has some some clout before the fact.

The courts may judge the parties as equal when interpretting the contract or they may rule the terms of the contract are legally unfair to one of the parties. Most often, it is the employee who wants the court to rule it unfair.

In practice all employee contracts are unfair because they state unequal obligations, create deterrents for employees (but not for the future employer) and they are demands by and for the employer. Rejection is not possible unless the future employee rejects himself. (is he stupid?)

The law should recognize my arguments but what’s the chance of that?

Why do corporations need employment contracts? Isn't it because they find value without work?

The corporation has the right to hire and fire. If I had the power to hire and fire, I would have fired A-n.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests