Are ethics real or are there just winners and losers?

sniffy said:
Oh timetravellar you give me a headache!

Surely ethics is not something a person is good or bad at? Individuals who may or may not live by a certain set of 'life rules' would not even recognise these or define them as ethics. Ethical rules are different from one person to the next; from family to family and society to society. Lots of external things - families, peer groups, systems (such as capitalism), legislation, religions and life experiences may influence the development of such rules in any one individual. Also brain damage, mental illness, child abuse and substance abuse may impair (or enhance?) an individual's ability to develop such rules.

Life itself may lead individuals to change their particular ethics over time and obviously what may be 'ethical' to you may not be 'ethical' to others as people have different viewpoints and prejudices. Therefore it is quite possible to instruct people in ethics or particular sets of rules regarding right and wrong. What is far more challenging is to get people to AGREE to one set of rules (universal rights and wrongs, morals, ethics). You can also teach logic but what you cannot do is make people ACCEPT it.

If, for instance, you were to initiate a discussion around the moral issue; to kill people is wrong (which is often said to be a universal rule of ethics) before long you may discover that some people hold the view that it is wrong to kill regardless of the cirumstance; others may think it's OK to kill in self defence or to protect loved ones form harm; others may say it's ok to kill someone if they are near death and suffering; or to kill armed soldiers and so it goes on.

In the end whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another person depends on the beliefs of the individual and the particular circumstances facing them. Sometimes it will not even be a conscious decision to kill but more of a reflex action; an instinct (perhaps the human survival instinct 'kicking in' as mentioned in an earlier post).
Click to expand...

If someone wanted to kill all living things, and destroy the universe, would you consider this ethical/rational?

It's definately irrational, and even animals would agree it's unethical. Are you saying there are no universal or cosmic codes of conduct?
 
TimeTraveller said:
they just have faulty logic, they do not have good logic, or accuracy in decision making.
Click to expand...
Logic cannot be flawed or faulty. Check (or tell) your definitions.
1+1=2, according to definitions of 1, 2, + and =. Your logic, and everyone else's, will always reach the same conclusion. CHANGE, however, definitions of + so that it becomes a - and the summation is not true. Likewise, any qoal and means of achieving it could be ill-thought, but still present a logical answer. EVEN IF the equations and variables were ALL wrong, the answer would still be logical.

Logic only works given parameters. It cannot, in and of itself, give answers nor be wrong. This and
But you cannot teach ethics, some people are born with greater ethical ability than others.
Click to expand...
this is complete crap. The weak and the stupid try to explain that "I couldn't help it, it was impossible!", but that is just a weak excuse for his own failures. If YOU can't teach someone something, it just means you don't know how. Mistakes become stupid when someone starts saying it was impossible. That's where you get "Flawed logic", when you change the definitions. To me, religion and science falls to same cathegory, set laws of definitions. Granted, some are more outdated, but still essentially the same.

So,
I'd just teach math, and logic. You cannot teach a person right from wrong, but you can teach them the proper way to calculate right from wrong, and that's more valueable.
Click to expand...
You can't teach logic and assume this leads into some type of moral responsibility. Logic always works and reaches the conclusions based on assumptions. Assume the wrong things and you get wrong answers. It's called "garbage in, garbage out".

Also, I'm not really unethical, but you go on to assume ridiculous things, so I use ridiculous examples. No, people don't NEED people. People need power. Money is power, so are underlings and friends. But all these things pass. Knowledge and skills are not something easily taken away, however, and are a more constant power. To be social is beneficial to self; But it is not a must. Idiots oppose masses of people (or the universal order) and fail, wise and strong people understand how things work and prosper. But it is NOT A MUST OR A NEED.

(god damned order-worshippers...)
 
When the winners treat the losers better than the losers would have treated the winners had the losers won that is ethics.
 
candy said:
When the winners treat the losers better than the losers would have treated the winners had the losers won that is ethics.
Click to expand...

LOL

How insipid.

This position assumes that everything is a game.
 
Ogmios said:
Logic cannot be flawed or faulty.
...
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with your overall position in this thread Ogmios, but this is incorrect.

Logic can indeed be faulty.

Completely contra-factual premisses can lead validly to an untenable conclusion.

e.g.: If I eat a banana then I will transform into a unicorn.
I ate a banana.
________________
I am now a unicorn.

This argument is absolutely valid.

Nevertheless it is ridiculous to maintain that this argument has any agreement with our reality.

Logic is an incredible tool for the clarification of thought and ideas, but, like any human artifice, it is not, indeed cannot, be flawless.

What you really want to be pointing out in this thread has more to do with epistemology than logic.


I know, I'm just quibbling.... nevertheless... it's important not to mistakenly give those whose views you oppose any potential advantage.
 
glaucon said:
Completely contra-factual premisses can lead validly to an untenable conclusion.
Click to expand...
Granted willingly. But logic does not see reality as it stands. If we assumed that eating bananas would make you an unicorn, then it would be logical that you would be an unicorn (as I assume you didn't lie about eating that banana there..). I suppose it would not be logical to assume that bananas make unicorns, but this is based on other premises, mostly experience. Should something happen that makes you change said premises, it would yet again become logical that you are an unicorn.

So logic, sort of, washes its hands out of this mess. As long as you have premises, logic gives answers. If you give it flawes premises, it will give you flawed answers. But logic is always clean. It's when you don't use it (ie. when assuming premises) that you get false answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top