How to choose right from wrong
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Although this thread should be moved to the Ethics sub....
"Our universities are teaching students that there are no solid guidelines to life."
Disagree.
"Since everything is relative, they are totally free to create anything they want out of their lives."
Indeed; let's be thankful for that.
"Students are told that no one has a right to tell them how they ought to live. "
Quite correctly so.
"Decisions about right and wrong are strictly up to them."
Of course. How could it be otherwise?
"It makes no difference what they choose to make of their lives."
This doesn't follow from the previous. Quite the opposite in fact.
"Students are not encouraged to ask the traditional questions about the usefulness of life or the value of an exemplary life."
Again, we can be thankful for this.
"As the above graduate student pointed out, they don't even want you to take your own conclusions about life seriously."
I fail to see how this can be drawn.
"It is a philosophy of ambiguity. It is the philosophy of humanistic existentialism."
While the former may be true, the latter is not.
It's basically true. There are no universal standards of truth and ethics, but there are situational ethics, and you can try to weigh the consequences of your decisions relative to the situation. The real question is why we would want to accept some arbitrary standard for the sake of clarity? It robs us of the ability to make decisions.
There can be no standards of ethics, since there are always new kinds of situations that require interpretation of the rules anyway.
There can be no standards of ethics, since there are always new kinds of situations that require interpretation of the rules anyway.
Is not a guiding principle the only way to make those ethical and pragmatic decisions?
So the people of the USA hounded Senator Foley out of office on an ethics violation anyway? ...and most people seem quite proud to have done so?
I think you're wrong, Spider, and the constant ranting about ethics standards in the world is proof that damned few people think you're right.
Baron Max
Yes, absolutely. And in the early days, ones society laid out those guiding principles and the family provided the guidance for the young.
Today, the ideals of individualism have undermined any and all standards of society, and even those of the family. In fact, advertisers and tv shows even encourage an individual to consider themselves above all others, inculding their own society. And I think that's basically what the original post was attempting to discuss.
Baron Max
His fellow Republicans ushered him out because he made them all look bad. There can be standards of ethics, but they are relative to the people and situation in which they are crafted. Obviously we have rules and laws that represent what people think is ethical behavior, but there is no absolute standard.
Infallibly, absolutely correct.
In fact, legislation exists simply due to the very fact that there is no ethical standard. That's the whole point of the governed society.
If there were such a thing as an ethical standard, then there would be no need for any legislation, we could all simply live and let live. There's a name for this delusion: utopia.
I think the issue presented is that a lack of foundations for discrimination robs one of the ability to make decisions
Draqon:
Then everything empirically verifiable is wrong?
For the only thing logical, in a strict sense, is not open to empirical analysis, but analysis from a priori principles.
Baron Max:
It would seem that there is a necessity to return to that prior state as much as is possible. The erosion of such upbringing surely negatively impacts us all.
Glaucon:
I do not think one can say legislation exists because ethics are relative. Rather, it would seem legislation and enforcement of such is necessary because people can, and do, break with ethical and legal principles.
Then everything empirically verifiable is wrong?
For the only thing logical, in a strict sense, is not open to empirical analysis, but analysis from a priori principles.
Baron Max:
It would seem that there is a necessity to return to that prior state as much as is possible. The erosion of such upbringing surely negatively impacts us all.
Glaucon:
I do not think one can say legislation exists because ethics are relative. Rather, it would seem legislation and enforcement of such is necessary because people can, and do, break with ethical and legal principles.
Last edited:
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
This is the result of the naive, almost-intelligent, dealing with advancing paradigms. They think that moral-relativity means that they can believe or do anything without repercussion? Well they are strongly mistaken.
I am the strongest advocate of moral relativity, but only because it is the most rational way to solve any problem you are faced with. One should look at the situation, then decide what should be done and, before doing it, should predict what possible actions might cause possible effects and choose the action with the effect closest to that of the decision.
most people just don't take the time to think for themselves. when presented a problem, all they can think of are similar situations they've had in the past. but it's never the same. the best way to go about it is with a clear, unswayed mind, even by your own past.
I do think that the schools are breeding confusion, though. the students are becoming more and more smarter than the teachers. this is because the younger people have such quicker minds and more space to fill up and, above all, they live in a society wherein exponentially greater amounts of information are exposed to them than the previous generation.
Older adolescents, above anyone, should be able to choose their own beliefs and morals, because if they don't, then they'll be confused all their lives. but they must never be forced to any belief. I think that those of the ages between 18 and 30 are the most rational thinkers, as long as they observe the truth themselves, not through the eyes of any other.
I am the strongest advocate of moral relativity, but only because it is the most rational way to solve any problem you are faced with. One should look at the situation, then decide what should be done and, before doing it, should predict what possible actions might cause possible effects and choose the action with the effect closest to that of the decision.
most people just don't take the time to think for themselves. when presented a problem, all they can think of are similar situations they've had in the past. but it's never the same. the best way to go about it is with a clear, unswayed mind, even by your own past.
I do think that the schools are breeding confusion, though. the students are becoming more and more smarter than the teachers. this is because the younger people have such quicker minds and more space to fill up and, above all, they live in a society wherein exponentially greater amounts of information are exposed to them than the previous generation.
Older adolescents, above anyone, should be able to choose their own beliefs and morals, because if they don't, then they'll be confused all their lives. but they must never be forced to any belief. I think that those of the ages between 18 and 30 are the most rational thinkers, as long as they observe the truth themselves, not through the eyes of any other.
Interesting.
I would maintain the exact opposite.
Your position implies that some sort of ethical principle exists beyond the legal. This, I cannot possibly agree with, and have never seen any evidence of.
Well, you need to try to go back in time in your mind, imagine the very first humans on Earth, living together in caves and hunting and gathering food, and living close for mutual protection.
Now .....now that your mind has taken you there, look around, think about the actions of those people. There were no laws, no rules, no judges, no cops, no jails, etc. They were all perfectly free to do whatever they wanted to do, right? Now ...what do you think happened when one of those big male brutes stole food from a weak, defenseless female and her child? Or what do you think happened when one big male killed another male in order to take the food for himself?
You're not thinking far enough, and you're using modern ideals in order to try to understand human existence and civilizations. Think farther back, then work yourself through until you get to the modern world. I think you'll have some different ideas about it all.
Baron Max
Even apes have a sense of social justice, a selfish one will be ganged up on and probably killed.
Spidergoat:
Incorrect. Gorillas have a wolf-like social hierarchy with the silverback ruling all and bullying the rest.
Chimps (but not bonobos) also have a similar situation.
Glaucon:
Even if there is not, certainly legislation and enforcements doesn't exist simply -because- such ethics are relative. Only because people break with the law and social cohesion is necessary.
However, in regards to ethics, I shall eventually get around to writing an essay on my ethical system.
Incorrect. Gorillas have a wolf-like social hierarchy with the silverback ruling all and bullying the rest.
Chimps (but not bonobos) also have a similar situation.
Glaucon:
Even if there is not, certainly legislation and enforcements doesn't exist simply -because- such ethics are relative. Only because people break with the law and social cohesion is necessary.
However, in regards to ethics, I shall eventually get around to writing an essay on my ethical system.
It would be a mistake to automatically assume that non-human primate one-male-several-female groups are dominated by males. Among geladas, females largely control the social group. This is despite the fact that the males are larger, stronger, and more aggressive. Mothers, sisters, and aunts act as a team in chasing off other unrelated females. They also collectively select their mutual mate among a number of potential suitors roaming in and out of their territory. The male that is chosen usually is one that does not act abusively towards them and is willing to cooperate with them in defending their territory. The relationship with any particular male may be short term. The stable core of the community is the group of related females. This is a long way from stereotypical male domination.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm
Not at all. In fact, it's this very line of thinking that originally spawned my position on this. Regulations are nothing but the creation of an organized social system. Your description of the 'savage native' situation perfectly confirms my idea that there was no inherent ethical principle.
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
good advice
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
its inherent in our being--as humans or as living entities on this planet. its inherent in cause and effect of our actions.