The establishment of the Ethical Principle

[glaucon]

Snippets of an interesting sidebar between LG and I from the Abortion thread:

well sure ... and its the nature of discussions on ethics to establish one view as superior or another as inferior (regardless of the vox populi)

Well, again, I would have to disagree...

do you think by disagreeing you are vouching for a superior POV?

Firstly, in direct response to this question:

Nice try LG, but you should know that I wouldn't fall for such a transparent trick. lol

What I was expressing was my disagreement with you that ethical principles have anything whatsoever to do with jockeying for position.
Whether talking about the nature of an ethical discussion, or about the comparative nature of ethical principles themselves, in neither case is resolution achieved by some epistemological feat of persuasion with respect to hierarchy. Ethical decisions are always in situ. Ethical Principles are normative extrapolations therefrom.
____________________________________________________________________________________________


And so, in this thread, I would like to hear the thoughts of others on the establishment of Ethical Principles [EP].

With respect to their origins, are they innate (including 'divine', a priori, or evolutionarily determined), or are they purely social constructs?

With respect to their establishment, how is it that one principle achieves primacy over another?

 

[Doreen]

Firstly, in direct response to this question:

Nice try LG, but you should know that I wouldn't fall for such a transparent trick. lol

What I was expressing was my disagreement with you that ethical principles have anything whatsoever to do with jockeying for position.
Whether talking about the nature of an ethical discussion, or about the comparative nature of ethical principles themselves, in neither case is resolution achieved by some epistemological feat of persuasion with respect to hierarchy. Ethical decisions are always in situ. Ethical Principles are normative extrapolations therefrom.

Frankly, I couldn't quite understand the quotes, not could I completely get the above.

I can't be sure what LG meant, but it seems to me people do try to jockey for the upper hand - mixed metaphor?! - in discussions of ethics. So to me the sentence above I bolded above may be true and yet it misses the point, perhaps, of what LG was saying. The principles may not have anything to do with jockeying, but we jockey anyway.

as often, I get the feeling I am missing something.

And so, in this thread, I would like to hear the thoughts of others on the establishment of Ethical Principles [EP].

With respect to their origins, are they innate (including 'divine', a priori, or evolutionarily determined), or are they purely social constructs?

With respect to their establishment, how is it that one principle achieves primacy over another?

I suppose I think my ethical principles are in line with something if not objective at least not local - iow they are universal - tied in to the universe, this one anyway. Frankly I can't see how anyone can take their own ethics seriously and not think they are merely subjective.

Note: I understand how someone can assert that ethics are subjective, and believe it and their reasoning WHEN THEY SAY IT and are looking at it on this meta level. However seconds later, when their boss promotes someone because of sexual favors rather than them, I think they believe their moral outrage is keyed into something deeper than subjectivity. I think if you truly believe your ethics are subjective, through and through, you will be rather apathetic. In fact to me we are no longer talking about ethics, but rather desires.

I am not sure what you mean by the Establishment of Ethical Principles. This sounds more like a practical process of setting up ethics within the group. But then the next sentence seems to indicate a more ontological turn.

What passes for ethics seem to be a combination of the factors listed.

 

[glaucon]

Frankly, I couldn't quite understand the quotes, not could I completely get the above.

I can't be sure what LG meant, but it seems to me people do try to jockey for the upper hand - mixed metaphor?! - in discussions of ethics. So to me the sentence above I bolded above may be true and yet it misses the point, perhaps, of what LG was saying. The principles may not have anything to do with jockeying, but we jockey anyway.

as often, I get the feeling I am missing something.

Well, the thread as closed. You can peek here for context:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=99854&page=53

.. though it's not terribly relevant to this discussion.

I am not sure what you mean by the Establishment of Ethical Principles. This sounds more like a practical process of setting up ethics within the group. But then the next sentence seems to indicate a more ontological turn.

More the former as opposed to the latter.

I'm not concerned with the ontological discussion (that issue, to me, seems to be vapid..).

Though, that being said, I don't like the use of the phrase "practical process of setting up..", which makes it sound like we're talking about some sort of official board that's designated with the assignment of the 'Rules'.

To be sure, I do think that EP are dynamical, and socially contingent, but in particular here, by "establishment" what concerns me is how it comes to pass that one particular EP can ascend, and maintain its position of primacy.

 

[Doreen]

To be sure, I do think that EP are dynamical, and socially contingent, but in particular here, by "establishment" what concerns me is how it comes to pass that one particular EP can ascend, and maintain its position of primacy.

I feel a bit Nietzschesque on this issue, then. I think some forumalate principles that justify the kinds of power imbalances they think they need or are comfortable with and I think these are often accepted by others for a variety of reasons including guilt, fear, shame, desire for the promised rewards that go along with being good, recognition of the power the shapers of the ethical principles have (not necessarily consciously), the urge to be part of tradition, social pressure, etc.

There is a particular Emperor has no clothes effect also. I think it can be scary to confront power/tradition, but it can also be scary beyond the consequences, but becuase of what it seems to mean if everyone else is crazy. Hence there are a lot of meetings before societal changes, where the people who have this fear get together and boost their confidence in confronting the fact that most people are crazy.

Now I fear I have wandered off idiosyncratically, so I'll leave it (almost) at that.

I would say that some stuff works and this gets noticed, even by those who resist certain moral ideas.

 

[Dinosaur]

It is the nature of a tiger or lion to live by overpowering weaker creatures like ungulates. It is their nature to live & survive by might is right ethics.

Humans survive due to their intelligence & the ability to cooperate with other humans. It is not their nature to live & survive by might is right ethics.

Our evolutionary history has given us a tendency to behave ethically & cooperate with others rather than using force & fraud to obtain our goals.

In the absence of life-threatening circumstances and/or abject poverty, people tend to behave in an ethical manner.

Even the worst tyrants claimed to have laws on their side condoning their behavior. I have yet to hear of a murdous criminal individual who claimed that his behavior was unethical/wrong, but he did it knowing that it was wrong.

How many times have you read about a robber/mugger who said it was the victims fault? "He knew I had a gun & he did not obey me. It was his fault he died." How about "He disrespected me, so I had to beat him up."

 

[lightgigantic]

Snippets of an interesting sidebar between LG and I from the Abortion thread:










Firstly, in direct response to this question:

Nice try LG, but you should know that I wouldn't fall for such a transparent trick. lol

What I was expressing was my disagreement with you that ethical principles have anything whatsoever to do with jockeying for position.
Whether talking about the nature of an ethical discussion, or about the comparative nature of ethical principles themselves, in neither case is resolution achieved by some epistemological feat of persuasion with respect to hierarchy. Ethical decisions are always in situ. Ethical Principles are normative extrapolations therefrom.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

think of it this way.

Once one has resolved the most ethical option for a given situation, for what reasons would one settle and be satisfied with something that doesn't come to that standard (aside from a sort of laziness that sees one stabilized on an unsatisfactory level of performance)?

And so, in this thread, I would like to hear the thoughts of others on the establishment of Ethical Principles [EP].

With respect to their origins, are they innate (including 'divine', a priori, or evolutionarily determined), or are they purely social constructs?

With respect to their establishment, how is it that one principle achieves primacy over another?

one principle achieves supremacy over another in accordance with its ability to deliver a better result (so often such discussions revolve around the values that establish something as "the best" .... or in sanskrit terms what comes in as sreyas (long term benefit) as opposed to mere preyas (short term benefit)

 

[glaucon]

think of it this way.

Once one has resolved the most ethical option for a given situation, for what reasons would one settle and be satisfied with something that doesn't come to that standard (aside from a sort of laziness that sees one stabilized on an unsatisfactory level of performance)?

I agree.
What I'm concerned about however, is the determination of that "most ethical option", and its adoption as a 'standard'.

one principle achieves supremacy over another in accordance with its ability to deliver a better result (so often such discussions revolve around the values that establish something as "the best" .... or in sanskrit terms what comes in as sreyas (long term benefit) as opposed to mere preyas (short term benefit)

Again, I agree.
But it seems to mne that this "supremacy" is a matter of social fiat. As you said, vox populi.

 

[Doreen]

one principle achieves supremacy over another in accordance with its ability to deliver a better result (so often such discussions revolve around the values that establish something as "the best" .... or in sanskrit terms what comes in as sreyas (long term benefit) as opposed to mere preyas (short term benefit)

This makes it sounds so democratic. I am not sure this is the case. Do you think everyone has similar influence over what is considered ethical? Does the form of government affect this at all?

 

[Doreen]

Again, I agree.
But it seems to mne that this "supremacy" is a matter of social fiat. As you said, vox populi.

I really don't think the man in the street is deciding that much. And when he is, it has already been decided for him what he will decide.

edit: I am not saying the 'man on the street' is infinitely malleable, but then the smiths working on 'him' have partially created the belief milieu 'he' arose in. And from there they can still tweak the result to a great degree.

 

[glaucon]

This makes it sounds so democratic. I am not sure this is the case. Do you think everyone has similar influence over what is considered ethical? Does the form of government affect this at all?

Warning: special notice:


See, I completely agree with LG.


(everyone take a breath now...)



It sounds 'democratic' because it is democratic.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we all vote on such and such a proposition, but rather that, over time, an EP will come to dominate because it has been (predominantly successfully) practiced. Practiced by whom? By the majority of the population.

I really don't think the man in the street is deciding that much. And when he is, it has already been decided for him what he will decide.

See above.

I think it is. No, not actively, but due to participating in its practice.
I cannot see how any other possibility makes sense. If not from the users, then from where comes this decision??

edit: I am not saying the 'man on the street' is infinitely malleable, but then the smiths working on 'him' have partially created the belief milieu 'he' arose in. And from there they can still tweak the result to a great degree.

Yes, I agree. I'm talking it as granted that as individuals, we're all (to an extent..) 'products' of our socio-cultural environment.

 

[Doreen]

See, I completely agree with LG.


(everyone take a breath now...)



It sounds 'democratic' because it is democratic.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we all vote on such and such a proposition, but rather that, over time, an EP will come to dominate because it has been (predominantly successfully) practiced. Practiced by whom? By the majority of the population.

See above.

I think it is. No, not actively, but due to participating in its practice.
I cannot see how any other possibility makes sense. If not from the users, then from where comes this decision??

The first quote and the second quote assert slightly different things, and I think the difference in important. In the first EPs are what end up being practices by the majority.

In the latter they are seen as the source.

I can go along with the first - I mean, it seems a by definition kind of thing. What people believe and act like are the EPs are the EPs of a society.

But that they are the source, there I am in disagreement. I also think that the source often does NOT practice the EPs it spreads.

If we go back to the time of Christian Kings and nobles in Europe, for example, we can see this in action. I think we often find it harder to notice in the time we are in.

Those with power tend to have the means and the will to avoid living up to the same morals they expect to see followed by other castes.

so...

Yes, I agree. I'm talking it as granted that as individuals, we're all (to an extent..) 'products' of our socio-cultural environment.

I am drawing a distinction between the man in the street and the man who does not need to be in the street unless he is slumming for some reason - drugs, a prosititute, whatever. And even then 'he' generally has fixers and finders to do this.

 

[glaucon]

The first quote and the second quote assert slightly different things, and I think the difference in important. In the first EPs are what end up being practices by the majority.

In the latter they are seen as the source.

I can go along with the first - I mean, it seems a by definition kind of thing. What people believe and act like are the EPs are the EPs of a society.

But that they are the source, there I am in disagreement. I also think that the source often does NOT practice the EPs it spreads.

You're going to have to help me out then Doreen, as I don't see any difference.

The practice of EP X, perpetuates X, and thus, is the source of X....

 

[Doreen]

You're going to have to help me out then Doreen, as I don't see any difference.

The practice of EP X, perpetuates X, and thus, is the source of X....

I see the first focusing on how the idea comes to dominate. The idea dominates because most people believe it.

In the second I focused on the word 'decision'. Frankly I don't see majorities 'deciding', I see them swept along in what they think is obvious. I associate the decisions around certain beliefs to have been made by people in power and, an issue I did not go into before, certain 'creative' people. An example of the latter would be certain mystics.

My cynical position is that ideas do not become mainstream, for the most part, unless powerful people see advantages in it. They decide that indoctrination will take place related to specific beliefs.

Now that I have baldly stated that, I do think there are unforseen consequences of these decisions that can often form countertrends. But the vox populi I do not take seriously as agents, thus nor deciders. Generalizing quite strongly, but there it is.

 

[wynn]

The practice of EP X, perpetuates X, and thus, is the source of X....

Only in a relative, short-term sense.

Our activities are guided by our ethical principles.

Our activities are confined by this Universe.

In this Universe, not everything is possible.
For example, tornados, volcanos, water shortage, peak oil and so on put restraints on how much people can act on the principle "everyone should be free to live their lives as they see fit".

Eventually, it is the Universe which determines what ethical principles are optimal-superior: ie. those that can be acted upon in the long run, over many centuries, in many different ecological environments, by many people.

 

[glaucon]

Eventually, it is the Universe which determines what ethical principles are optimal-superior ie. those that can be acted upon in the long run, over many centuries.

non sequitur

 

[wynn]

Why?
(I edited my above post to give an illustrative example.)

 

[wynn]

I am, of course, presuming that all people operate on the principle that striving for survival is the highest principle, and that everything else is subordinate to that. So that if survival is threatened, they will change their other principles to be more conducive to survival. For example, giving up bathing in tubs or watering their lawns when there is water shortage, and thus trying to find their satisfaction and self-expression in more ecologically sustainable ways.

There are of course people who will rather kill themselves than live without hot water.

 

[glaucon]

I see the first focusing on how the idea comes to dominate. The idea dominates because most people believe it.

In the second I focused on the word 'decision'. Frankly I don't see majorities 'deciding', I see them swept along in what they think is obvious. I associate the decisions around certain beliefs to have been made by people in power and, an issue I did not go into before, certain 'creative' people. An example of the latter would be certain mystics.

My cynical position is that ideas do not become mainstream, for the most part, unless powerful people see advantages in it. They decide that indoctrination will take place related to specific beliefs.

Now that I have baldly stated that, I do think there are unforseen consequences of these decisions that can often form countertrends. But the vox populi I do not take seriously as agents, thus nor deciders. Generalizing quite strongly, but there it is.

Aaaah.
OK

I get you now.

Well, I too am cynical, and I agree that many people do indeed get 'pulled along with the tide' ( I really tried there to avoid some Nietzchean 'herd mentality' reference...hehe) but, I still say that these people did decide: either they were persuaded (and therefore 'chose' to give in...) or they chose to not resist, or they 'chose' to be ignorant...

As for the insidious 'powers' that indoctrinate, though I'm no conspiracy theorist, I will readily admit that certain powers can, and do play a role in what is promoted as being the 'right thing to do'.

Interestingly then, the question moves to the responsibility of the individual....

Or all we just the victims of the media (powers)??

 

[Doreen]

Well, I too am cynical, and I agree that many people do indeed get 'pulled along with the tide' ( I really tried there to avoid some Nietzchean 'herd mentality' reference...hehe)

I think we can just note patterns without getting into the ontology of the entities involved.

but, I still say that these people did decide: either they were persuaded (and therefore 'chose' to give in...) or they chose to not resist, or they 'chose' to be ignorant...

I wonder where this idea would fit in the determinism free will discussion.

As for the insidious 'powers' that indoctrinate, though I'm no conspiracy theorist, I will readily admit that certain powers can, and do play a role in what is promoted as being the 'right thing to do'.

I don't think they necessarily (all) even know what they are doing, nor do I think they all get along.

Interestingly then, the question moves to the responsibility of the individual....

Or all we just the victims of the media (powers)??

Oh, to some degree we are all victims of it - there are a number of routes to us - I think.

 

[glaucon]

I think we can just note patterns without getting into the ontology of the entities involved.

I agree. To be sure, one need not know the object of one's observations to observe it.
I'm doing my best to avoid the whole ontology side of this...

I wonder where this idea would fit in the determinism free will discussion.

Although I'm sure it would... I'm also doing my best to maintain scope here... and avoid that topic like the plague....

I don't think they necessarily (all) even know what they are doing, nor do I think they all get along.

I agree. Though, I also think this is the case just as much for those targets of 'indoctrination'(sic)....

(which is where it gets really interesting... IMO)

Oh, to some degree we are all victims of it - there are a number of routes to us - I think.

Yet, to what degree then, are we (or rather, the 'individual') responsible?