Some questions about ethics

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Achim Rohde
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 12:59 pm

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Achim Rohde »

[quote="John Bruce Leonard"]To Achim—

Achim, you seem to be proposing two different views of morality. On the one hand, you state that all moral claims are nothing but “man’s free decision.” That is to say, I presume, that man, supposing he is only self-aware, can choose his morality from out of the entire range of possible moralities. On the other hand, you state that moral claims are nothing but the expression of selfish desires. Yet if morality were a perfectly free decision, one could choose to be unselfish, which possibility you appear to dismiss altogether. Therefore you seem to hold that morality is, so far from being a free decision, absolutely determined by an inescapable and often camouflaged self-interest: morality is in fact a kind of slavery.

In my view there is only one morality: beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. I wanted to say that it was man's free decision how to define right and wrong. If you don't agree please tell me who or what else could have done this job? I don't want to suggest that every single man can decide what is right for him and the rest have to agree. After all, morality is derived from "mores" which Cicero used in his new created concept of "philosophia moralis", his translation of the Greek "êthikê". "Mores" means custom, so moral or right behaviour means to comply with the general consent and tradition, but the question arises: who founded that tradition? Did it fall from heaven? Was it given to man by aliens or Gods? I believe it was the free decision of humans - what do you think?

The second idea is: what caused them to decide as they did? I think they favoured that kind of behaviour which was in their own interest:
  • - help me whenever I need it
    - honour me as a parent
    - don't kill me
    - don't steal my cattle, my wife and daughters
    - don't lie to me ... and so on.
Of course, they put it as general commands but their motivation was their own interest which was to be treated well by others, at least that's how I see it.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Gertie »

John

Thanks for you continuing interest, it's helpful in thinking my ideas through. Apologies for the delay replying.
Gertie, there is a lot in your response. Let’s consider this part of it. You seem to differentiate between those needs or goals which are broad or universal, and those which are specific or subjective. You also speak of “hierarchies of needs,” with some needs being more “basic” than others. Does it seem fair to say that we can draw a kind of spectrum of needs, ranging from the most basic, universal, and hence most important, to the most individualistic, subjective, and hence least important? (Given, of course, all of your very just caveats to the effect that these things are impossible to measure clearly or objectively.)
I think so, in a rough way, and societies do this without some masterplan, we naturally collectively understand this. Maybe previously we've attributed it to God's will that we have alms for the poor or laws reflecting Thou shalt not Kill. With a better grounded understanding of what matters and why, perhaps we can do it more effectively, and without some of the less helpful by-products.
As regards your second paragraph—judging by your brief comments on Rawls and on the problems of contemporary society, it would seem you suppose it desirable for human beings everywhere to be empathetic with as many other human beings as possible. Would this be fair to say?
That would imply empathy in itself is always a good thing, which it might well be, but here I was responding to your question about defining the well-being of conscious creatures, and Rawls' idea allows conscious creatures (well human ones) to define it for ourselves and see how it could be implemented. That's helpful in establishing those basic shared needs, and perhaps lines where freedom for individuals is more important, in the context of a big picture social contract approach.

I was also pointing to where we need prompts and buttressing for our social impulses which are concerned with the well-being of other conscious creatures. The neuro-biological mechanisms behind these more caring and cooperative predispositions evolved when our ancestors lived in small tribal groups, they evolved to work best at a visceral level in face to face situations with people you know, and are probably related to you (genetically close). Where-as strangers might be seen as threats or competitors for scarce local resources. Experiments have shown our tribal Us vs Them instincts are remarkably easy to trigger and can be based on the daftest things.

We can see the 'evolutionary logic' of this for those times, but our pro-social mechanisms are not a good fit in our globalised world of vast inter-dependent social state sized groupings of strangers. Our visceral pre-dispositions primed to care for the well-being of kith and kin, or even triggered by seeing the elderly stranger in the street falling or a baby crying, they have to be replaced by less powerful intellectualised and institutionalised mechanisms to care about the well-being of 'out of sight out of mind' Others. Rawls could help there. That's the sort of thing I mean about needing to understand how we actually work, the Ises. And finding ways around innate barriers to our Oughts goal - the well-being of conscious creatures.


Cunk and Peas philosophise aptly on this
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Spectrum »

John Bruce Leonard wrote:I contest the progress of the “human brain,” at least with regard to the second time frame you have indicated. I do not see that our human minds have improved so very greatly over the past thousand years. It does not seem to me they have improved even over the past three thousand years. I grant that much depends on what examples you choose for comparison, but I am willing even to claim that the caliber of mind of the Athenians of the classical epoch in Ancient Greece was considerably higher than that of modern day Europeans and Americans. I think that a very compelling case can be made that Western human beings of today represent an overall decline with respect even to Western human beings of five hundred years ago.

Many points in your system seem to presuppose an idea of progress. Do you hold that progress is inevitable? If so, why? Evolution in and of itself hardly gives us that right. There have been examples of species which have adapted certain character traits which later in novel circumstances directly caused their extinction. Might it not be the same way with human beings? Might it not be that our consciousness, even our moral consciousness, will lead to our destruction, or else to our decline? And if this is possible, how can we responsibly take any facet of evolution as a sound basis for our morality?
I'll deal with the above point first which is pivotal, and the rest later.

I believe your comparison with reference to 'the Athenians of the classical epoch in Ancient Greece' is too narrow.

My reference is ALL-encompassing, e.g. to the following;
1. Every field of knowledge in the world, with emphasis on
2. Science and Philosophy
3. Every technological advancement
4. Comparison on the basis of the extremes re all humans
5. Comparison on the basis of the average re all humans
6. Every human endeavor to date
7. Other criteria - a long list

I agree the ancients were great and that is because of the savant factor that exists all over in all times. Btw, the Greeks were greatly influenced by the Indian philosophy first and vice-versa subsequently.

In terms of knowledge the advantage we have over those 500 years ago is the more opportunity for syncretism of knowledge and the synergy derive from their comparativeness and reconciliations.
In terms of technology [ALL], there is a very obvious difference as compared to 500 -10,000 years ago.

In terms of average, it is so obvious the competence of the average human [in all fields] is greater than the average human 500 -10000 years ago. 300 years ago, calculus [Newton] was confined to a genius and a few expert mathematicians. But at present 2017, the average human at 15 years old is able to understand and use calculus in Schools.

To be credible we have to analyze every aspects of human life.
We don't have the time and facilities to study everything here but I dare jump to the hypothesis there is definitely a net-positive trend of improvement, i.e. a / graph over the last 500 to 10,000 years in all human endeavors.

Along with the improvements over the last 500 -10,000 years there are obviously threats but the trend is a net-positive mode of advancement driven by the higher cortical brain.

Re mirror neurons which are responsible for empathy and compassion, there are more of such in human the human brain from the primates i.e. a resultant of evolution. I don't have researched evidence but based on own evidences as observed and noted I believe this evolving trend is still progressing within humans.

My other point is the morality faculty [represented by neuron circuits in the brain] is inherent in humans and is continually driven to progress [on average] in time.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
I believe humanity should tap into this inherent moral capacity and expedite its growth systematically.

I agree the human species has the potential to be extinct driven by the wayward acts of SOME humans [dictators and Islamists] upon getting access to cheap WMDs. The Islamist are not deterred by MAD as regardless what happen they are assured of a place in paradise.

It is because of the above threats that we the majority humanity must utilize our higher rational brain to establish a Moral & Ethical Framework and System to manage the potential threat [on a now to 50-100 years project]. This is how my proposal come into being.
Point is in the face of such a real threat do you have a model rather than fire-fighting the spotted fires that crop around the world.

Not sure if you had noted this point of mine.
In my proposal of the Moral System, there is an imperative requirement to find ways to improve the average Quotients [all human competences] to the most optimal possible. These Quotients are IQ [not impossible to increase], Emotional [EQ], Creativity [CQ] Spiritual [SQ], Moral [MQ] Philosophy [PQ], Wisdom [WQ] and whatever positive Q [quotients] we can formulate.
When all these Q's of the average human are increased near to the ideal, then the synergy will be tremendous in sustaining the Moral & Ethical Framework and other human endeavors. Imagine the average human having an IQ of 250++ [in 2100] plus higher Qs for other competences.
Thus the average human with high MQ, EQ, WQ, SQ will not be an evil person unless there is a serious brain damage.

Thus it is this potential progress that humanity can introduce a sustainable Moral & Ethical Framework and System [within 100 years if we start now] which is net positive for the well being of the individual and humanity.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
John Bruce Leonard
Posts: 140
Joined: February 10th, 2016, 5:01 am
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Contact:

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by John Bruce Leonard »

To Achim—

Achim, let me attempt to restate my objection. I should not have said that you propose two views of morality, but rather that your single view of morality appears to trace all moral maxims back to two incompatible sources.

On the one hand you say that morality is the product of human freedom. On the other hand you say that it is the product of human selfishness. Now, human selfishness is not the product of human freedom. This is suggested by the fact that I might adhere to any number of given moralities and I might claim that my motivations are unselfish, but in such a case you, if I am not mistaken, would tell me that in truth my motivations are selfish, whether I know it or not. These true motivations however were not chosen by me; laying all other considerations aside, they could not have been, because I was not even aware of them. On the contrary—they determine my choices. Then the morality which they settle upon is hardly the result of my free decision.

Put as simply as I can put it, here is the contradiction: you state at once that morality is the free human decision, and that morality is the product of totally unfree, selfish, often hidden motivations. Can these two views be reconciled? Or must we say that morality, so far from being the result of human freedom, is in fact the result of human slavery?
Achim wrote:"Mores" means custom, so moral or right behaviour means to comply with the general consent and tradition, but the question arises: who founded that tradition? Did it fall from heaven? Was it given to man by aliens or Gods?
This question, it seems to me, is the right point of departure of all ethical considerations. Let us look at these views a little more carefully, beginning with the oldest traditional view: that morality was given to mankind by a god. What entitles us to reject this view?


To Gertie—
Gertie wrote:I think so, in a rough way, and societies do this without some masterplan, we naturally collectively understand this. Maybe previously we've attributed it to God's will that we have alms for the poor or laws reflecting Thou shalt not Kill. With a better grounded understanding of what matters and why, perhaps we can do it more effectively, and without some of the less helpful by-products.
Interesting, Gertie. Now, it seems to me that human societies really do tend to establish a more or less natural hierarchy of human needs without any rationalistic planning or oversight. Yet some societies, as is known, have turned this hierarchy on its head, with disastrous results. It seems that the majority if not all of such societies (I am thinking, for instance, of the great communist experiments in the near and far East) have done so precisely with an explicit idea of rational planning. How can we be sure, then, that our attempts to arrange such hierarchies “more effectively” without in fact producing any number of unforseen negative and perhaps extremely dangerous consequences?
Gertie wrote:Experiments have shown our tribal Us vs Them instincts are remarkably easy to trigger and can be based on the daftest things. 
No doubt. Yet this does not demonstrate that the opposite is true—namely, that such “instincts” are not sometimes founded on legitimate concerns and pressing reasons. Or do you think that such instincts have been entirely superseded or made entirely obsolete by our present world?
Gertie wrote:We can see the 'evolutionary logic' of this for those times, but our pro-social mechanisms are not a good fit in our globalised world of vast inter-dependent social state sized groupings of strangers. Our visceral pre-dispositions primed to care for the well-being of kith and kin, or even triggered by seeing the elderly stranger in the street falling or a baby crying, they have to be replaced by less powerful intellectualised and institutionalised mechanisms to care about the well-being of 'out of sight out of mind' Others. Rawls could help there. That's the sort of thing I mean about needing to understand how we actually work, the Ises. And finding ways around innate barriers to our Oughts goal - the well-being of conscious creatures.
I agree entirely that we have to understand how we “work.” I am perhaps less sanguine on the possibility of science granting us much clarity here. But that is a long question, and would surely lead us into all manner of snares and brambles. Let me ask this instead. Given that there is an evident tension between the way human groups relate to other human groups on the one hand, and the necessities of a globalized world on the other, is it not worth asking if there is something unnatural about the globalized world? Something, that is to say, which is not fit to human expectations and human dimensions? For it seems that the alternative is attempting to forcibly adapt human beings to this world we have made. This might be necessary, insofar as it is difficult if not impossible to imagine our globalization turning round in the near future. Yet it is surely true that an individual may in purely personal acts resist the globalized world. Yet this also implies setting oneself largely at odds with society, and holding, for instance, to perhaps less accommodating ideas regarding other human groups.

What are your thoughts on this?


To Spectrum—

Spectrum wrote:I believe your comparison with reference to 'the Athenians of the classical epoch in Ancient Greece' is too narrow.
I understand, Spectrum. Let us take the wider view. You claim unequivocal modern progress on the following fronts:
Spectrum wrote:1. Every field of knowledge in the world, with emphasis on
2. Science and Philosophy
3. Every technological advancement
4. Comparison on the basis of the extremes re all humans
5. Comparison on the basis of the average re all humans
6. Every human endeavor to date
7. Other criteria - a long list
I cannot agree even to most of these points. In point of fact, I would grant you only the first half of number two, the entirety of number three, and numbers four and five—so long as they are considered from a purely economic and medical point of view. I would be happy to make specific critiques, if it seems that this might be of use. Yet I am really not sure how useful it would be. I have no doubt you would have rebuttals to make to each of my rebuttals. And each of these in turn could form the substance of entire conversations. We have therefore arrived at a somewhat difficult point, Spectrum, because it is clear we cannot continue in all these directions simultaneously—not even to speak of those strands of our conversation which we have not even yet finished from before.

I suggest we try for the root of the matter. You have described the recent progress of the human being as “pivotal,” and have spoken of it here with priority. It might then be well worth considering that progress in greater depth—whether there has been any progress, and in what fields, and to what degree. I will let you decide where to guide our attention. I limit myself to suggesting one possibility.
Spectrum wrote:Re mirror neurons which are responsible for empathy and compassion, there are more of such in human the human brain from the primates i.e. a resultant of evolution. I don't have researched evidence but based on own evidences as observed and noted I believe this evolving trend is still progressing within humans.

[…]

I believe humanity should tap into this inherent moral capacity and expedite its growth systematically.
We have agreed—please correct me if I am wrong—that the mere existence of an evolutionary development within the human being cannot be taken as demonstration of the desirability of the same. Then the existence of brain structures which encourage compassion cannot be taken as good in and of itself, absent deeper philosophical demonstration. Put more generally, the question of morality cannot be answered by evolutionary evidence, but rather evolutionary evidence must be understood in the light of morality. It is for this reason that I continue to press you on the question of “basic human dignity,” which appears me to be a crucial moral premise which precedes all specific empirical investigations. I believe the same point appears centrally in your comments here. Your belief that we should “tap into this inherent moral capacity” rests, it seems to me, on something other than the moral capacity itself; it rests on an idea that this moral capacity will give us the necessary weapons to fight the dire problems confronting our contemporary world. This in turn rests on a certain understanding of what is good and what is bad. It is even by these standards, it seems to me, that you so willingly judge our present epoch as being an epoch of progress respect to the past, whereas I view it as an epoch of extreme decline. Then it might be worth considering the standards on which our respective judgements rest. If I were to direct our conversation, then, I would return to the question of basic human dignity to investigate more in depth why you hold to it, and what you believe are the primary justifications for its acceptance.

But again, I gladly leave the next step in our conversation to your most competent discretion.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Spectrum »

John Bruce Leonard wrote:We have agreed—please correct me if I am wrong—that the mere existence of an evolutionary development within the human being cannot be taken as demonstration of the desirability of the same.
It is objective there is physical development of the human brain over the last 3,200,000 years since "Lucy" [Australopithecus afarensis]. I presume we can agree on this.
Then the existence of brain structures which encourage compassion cannot be taken as good in and of itself, absent deeper philosophical demonstration. Put more generally, the question of morality cannot be answered by evolutionary evidence, but rather evolutionary evidence must be understood in the light of morality.
In we discount God, where is the 'light of morality' to come from?
The only way to understand 'morality' [pure] is based on empirical evidence [is] to derive the [ought] by reason. In this way, whatever the reason, the reason [ought] is always conditioned by the empirical, i.e. human cognition.

It is the same as the principles of gravity which does not exist by itself independently but always conditioned by human cognition because gravity was abstracted from empirical evidences by human observations and computations [reason].
Note this is a big philosophical issue depending on which side of the philosophical grand canyon you are standing on. Are you familiar with the great dichotomy and polemics between the realists versus the anti-realists [my views].
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real ... challenge/

The basis of argument is from the anti-realists view, such as Kant, Nietzsche and the likes.
It is for this reason that I continue to press you on the question of “basic human dignity,” which appears me to be a crucial moral premise which precedes all specific empirical investigations. I believe the same point appears centrally in your comments here. Your belief that we should “tap into this inherent moral capacity” rests, it seems to me, on something other than the moral capacity itself; it rests on an idea that this moral capacity will give us the necessary weapons to fight the dire problems confronting our contemporary world. This in turn rests on a certain understanding of what is good and what is bad. It is even by these standards, it seems to me, that you so willingly judge our present epoch as being an epoch of progress respect to the past, whereas I view it as an epoch of extreme decline. Then it might be worth considering the standards on which our respective judgements rest. If I were to direct our conversation, then, I would return to the question of basic human dignity to investigate more in depth why you hold to it, and what you believe are the primary justifications for its acceptance.

But again, I gladly leave the next step in our conversation to your most competent discretion.
I believe we have veered off from my intended concept of 'basic human dignity' and its applications in this thread.

Note my line of argument;
1. We can abstract absolute moral laws [pure] from empirical evidence re humanity

2. The above absolute laws are translated into maxims for practical applications [applied ethics].

3. To facilitate improvements and progress it is driven by narrowing the gap between the pure and the applied.

4. For the above to work we need a common denominator. For example we cannot compare humans with apes or other animals for this particular purpose. Neither should we discriminate between genders, race, physical differences and rich or poor, and the likes.

5. Thus the most common denominator is the basic human dignity, i.e. down to the most basic denominator, i.e. the generic human DNA and its basic expressions and dignity as a human being.

6. Therefore the Morality and Ethics of humans should be operated at the minimal level of the most common denominators, i.e. the basic human dignity represented by the generic DNA and it basic elements [physically and mentally].

For example if one is immoral [evil, violent, kill, genocide] to other humans one is being immoral to oneself since all humans are the same at the basic level.
There is the saying from Quran + Judaism, "killing another human is like killing the whole mankind" is which only meaningful when expressed at the most common denominator.

I believe your view of 'basic human dignity' is different from what I intended to use as explained above.

Re Human Progress over the last 3,000,000 years.
I have not done a detailed research but I have relied on a hunch there is significant progress of humans in all faculties [& moral faculty] of the brain which has changed significantly over that period.
What I have done is to run through my mind a wide list of good and evil acts of humanity and compressed an analysis of a final result. I have compiled a taxonomy of human evils for details analysis.

No doubt there will always be pros and cons but I believe the pros outweigh the cons in every field that I has listed above.
You may agree with Science, but note the underlying basis of Science is philosophy, so there is progress in philosophy and its thoughts.

Generally humans were more like animals and the higher primates 3 million years ago , i.e. instinctual as compared to a more humane brain at the present which is more moral abiding than the past. I can't see how you could convince any one that a more instinctual brain from 3 millions years ago has a higher moral awareness than a moral-based brain of the modern man at present.

Can you give some specific examples how and why the modern man is less progressive than those of the past [on a trend basis].
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
John Bruce Leonard
Posts: 140
Joined: February 10th, 2016, 5:01 am
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Contact:

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by John Bruce Leonard »

Spectrum wrote:It is objective there is physical development of the human brain over the last 3,200,000 years since "Lucy" [Australopithecus afarensis]. I presume we can agree on this.
Indeed we can. The point of dispute would rather be with regard to human beings in the past several millennia—let us say for the sake of convenience the last three thousand years. The questions would be: to what extent are the changes in human beings during that time the product of “evolution” (i.e., the non-intentional results of a natural selection process), and to what extent can these purely evolutionary changes in human beings be considered desirable? I do not believe the answer to either of these questions should be presupposed. Would you agree?
Spectrum wrote:In we discount God, where is the 'light of morality' to come from?
The only way to understand 'morality' [pure] is based on empirical evidence [is] to derive the [ought] by reason. In this way, whatever the reason, the reason [ought] is always conditioned by the empirical, i.e. human cognition.
But there is another way of investigating morality: namely, as Socrates went about it, through dialectic and the ruthless critique of conventional beliefs—pursuing truth, in a word, through the logos. To be sure, this kind of contemplating is very far from being “pure”—but one would have to show that “pure morality” is possible without resulting in inhuman and dangerously artificial ethical constructs. I for one have yet to see any moral system emerging from pure contemplation which rivals the Socratic understanding as it is portrayed in Plato. Perhaps you can convince me that yours is such a system.
Spectrum wrote:4. For the above to work we need a common denominator. For example we cannot compare humans with apes or other animals for this particular purpose. Neither should we discriminate between genders, race, physical differences and rich or poor, and the likes.
But again—why not discriminate? For I am afraid you have yet to convince me on this point.

According to the reasoning you present here, the idea of “basic human dignity,” the common denominator of all human beings and that which establishes their moral equality, seems to result from the argument in point four above. But the argument in point four asserts a “should,” presumably a moral precept, which seems based on that same idea of basic human dignity. And indeed, your first mention of human dignity in our conversation, if I am not mistaken, was in response to my questioning you on the limits of your “common denominator.” There you said, “In addition, it is not only universal human 'specie' but also applicable to the universal human, i.e. basic human dignity. This basic human dignity [common denominator] is why we cannot stop at the group, race, national level.” I must therefore conclude that basic human dignity is the basis for, and not the inference from, the necessity of a “common denominator” for all moral actors.

My question is simply—from what then do you derive this “basic human dignity”? You speak of it in reference to DNA. But DNA itself cannot be equivalent to this dignity, for DNA in and of itself is responsible in many cases for grotesque human illnesses, for example, which it would be strange to call the manifestations of basic human dignity. Then what leads us to be able to propose a “basic human dignity” which utterly forbids, rather than even mandating, discrimination?

I could pose my objection through another practical example. Supposing someone were to come before us saying that people suffering from specific mental retardations, psychopaths, and similar human groups utterly lack the capacity to conceptualize “basic human dignity,” much less to act upon it, and that these groups should be repressed or killed, particularly insofar as there is danger of their reproducing and passing on their corrupted genes. Two questions on this: is it possible to respond to such a one on moral grounds? and would such a response not have to be made contra the mere scientific-evolutionary study of the human being? If so, what is the origin of the standards we use here?
Spectrum wrote:Can you give some specific examples how and why the modern man is less progressive than those of the past [on a trend basis].
Gladly, Spectrum. Though I am afraid we will run into certain difficulties on account of the considerable distance standing between our points of departure.

In the first place, I think we might differ on the very standards by which “progress” can be judged. You specify your request with the phrase “on a trend basis,” meaning, I presume, that you do not wish me to respond merely with this or that odd exception or mere portion of the entirety of humanity. That is fair enough. But the question arises, on what grounds can these trends be established? You have spoken elsewhere of “net-positive trends,” and here I think we might have a fundamental difference of opinion; for I do not believe that “net-positive trend” is necessarily a suitable basis for judging of human affairs.

For the sake of clarity, let me give you a single, if rather unrealistic, example. Let us suppose a town with a population of one-hundred-thousand souls. In this town, a single individual has one-hundred-thousand dollars, and the others have absolutely no money whatsoever. Now let us take this same town some years down the road. Let us suppose that at this future moment we find that this single rich individual now has nothing, and every other single individual has precisely one dollar and fifty cents in his pocket. In terms of wealth in this town, there has been a “net-positive” gain in these years. Yet in terms of buying power, for instance, there has been a marked decline.

Now I obviously do not claim that this is a sophisticated economic analysis, and I certainly do not wish to say that economically we are worse off now than we were in the past. (I have already granted that the opposite is the case.) I mean only to say that in determining what represents progress and what represents decline, we cannot always simply add up all the isolated cases and proceed on the basis of arithmetic alone. There might be certain kinds of non-material qualities in which a single extraordinarily “wealthy” individual is worth infinitely more than masses and masses of those who possess his same virtue in small quantities. As an example, a great artist of the status of Michelangelo cannot possibly be compared even to millions of the kinds of “artists” who pop up every week at DeviantArt or what have you; and a society which produces millions of these puerile “artistic” works is simply artistically inferior to a society which produces a single Michelangelo, or even a single masterpiece of Michelangelo.

This is how I perceive the situation for human beings today. I would claim that in philosophy, art, and political and personal virtue, the human beings of Europe and America today are but miserable dwarfs compared to those of the same areas in the Cinquecento, in which the general level in these fields might have been lower, but the exemplars were incomparably higher. Because I believe that a paragon in any of these fields is worth a veritable horde of mediocrities, there has therefore been to my eyes decline more or less since the aftermath of the Black Death—just as the Middle Ages represent decline with respect to classical antiquity. And because I consider these endeavors to be the first and foremost of human life, it seems to me that human life as a whole has declined, notwithstanding the great and indisputable material improvements which have been effected in the meantime.

I cannot possibly do more than merely mention these concerns here. I would be willing of course to enter into any of them or all of them more at depth, as is necessary to our conversation or of interest to you. But I can begin to enter the question of philosophy at least by briefly responding to one of your comments. You have said:
Spectrum wrote:You may agree with Science, but note the underlying basis of Science is philosophy, so there is progress in philosophy and its thoughts.
And yet I think you must agree that very few within the scientific community today have much patience for metaphysical or ethical thinking along philosophical lines. Science has separated from philosophy, and now it is supposed that philosophy must justify itself before the tribunal of science, rather than the other way around. Philosophy is shamed by the great practical success of science, and feels itself incapable of critiquing or judging its own progeny. Yet science, unlike philosophy, is morally incompetent. In the first place, science has failed to duplicate its amazing advances in the human sciences, which means that science has failed to successfully subject morality to its method. This marks a crisis. In the second place, science scorns all evaluative judgements as being non-scientific. Thus, in liberating science from the rule of philosophy, we have demeaned philosophy, and elevated an inherently amoral procedure for developing raw power to a position of apotheosis over massive portions of human destiny. That we cannot merely take this as progress is suggested, I hope, by the mere prospects of nuclear holocaust, critical environmental degradation, the artificial production (intentional or unintentional) of super-diseases, or the unfathomable economic and social revolutions being prepared by the revolution in artificial intelligence—to mention but a few of the possibilities most immediately facing us, effects of which we are beginning to feel even here and now in innumerable subtle and obvious ways. Science attempts to remedy these difficulties through science alone, but this amounts to dependency on the very method that brought these problems about by an inherent and incorrigible inability to self-regulate. The great success of science, for which philosophy can only be partially given the credit, very well might be prelude to a catastrophe of unrivaled proportions.

This is due to the failure of philosophy to hold science to stringent moral and philosophical standards. But this means that precisely insofar as science has gained in power, philosophy has diminished in power; philosophy, unlike science, has not progressed, but has declined.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Spectrum »

John Bruce Leonard wrote: Indeed we can. The point of dispute would rather be with regard to human beings in the past several millennia—let us say for the sake of convenience the last three thousand years. The questions would be: to what extent are the changes in human beings during that time the product of “evolution” (i.e., the non-intentional results of a natural selection process), and to what extent can these purely evolutionary changes in human beings be considered desirable? I do not believe the answer to either of these questions should be presupposed. Would you agree?
The average brain has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses. I consider the different pattern connectivity between neurons to different synapse as development itself.
Within the last 3,000 there are lots of changes as reflected in the thinking and actions of the average human.
Note re slavery and racism. Over the last 300 years that had been a lot of changes in the thinking, attitudes and actions of the average human being re slavery and racism for the better. This can only be represented by changes in the brain which reflect this external positive change.

But there is another way of investigating morality: namely, as Socrates went about it, through dialectic and the ruthless critique of conventional beliefs—pursuing truth, in a word, through the logos. To be sure, this kind of contemplating is very far from being “pure”—but one would have to show that “pure morality” is possible without resulting in inhuman and dangerously artificial ethical constructs. I for one have yet to see any moral system emerging from pure contemplation which rivals the Socratic understanding as it is portrayed in Plato. Perhaps you can convince me that yours is such a system.
Socrates' is merely a technique and a tool as with others which can be used within my proposed system.
"Pure Morality" is merely a guide and supposedly to be honed to be perfect and fool proof. Any dangers from the practical side will be dealt and narrowed through the gap analysis.
  • For example, say based on the Absolute Moral Maxim, "'killing is absolutely not permissible"
    the ethical target established is Zero death by murder in 2020.
    Now if in 2020, the actual number of deaths by murder is 10,000, then there is a variance of 10,000 deaths.
    What we need to do is to find the root causes and find solutions to narrow the gap to the target or even change the ethical target [not the pure moral one]. For the latter we will have two gaps to manage.
My question is simply—from what then do you derive this “basic human dignity”? You speak of it in reference to DNA. But DNA itself cannot be equivalent to this dignity, for DNA in and of itself is responsible in many cases for grotesque human illnesses, for example, which it would be strange to call the manifestations of basic human dignity. Then what leads us to be able to propose a “basic human dignity” which utterly forbids, rather than even mandating, discrimination?

I could pose my objection through another practical example. Supposing someone were to come before us saying that people suffering from specific mental retardations, psychopaths, and similar human groups utterly lack the capacity to conceptualize “basic human dignity,” much less to act upon it, and that these groups should be repressed or killed, particularly insofar as there is danger of their reproducing and passing on their corrupted genes. Two questions on this: is it possible to respond to such a one on moral grounds? and would such a response not have to be made contra the mere scientific-evolutionary study of the human being? If so, what is the origin of the standards we use here?
Note we abstract what is the common denominator from the basis of the DNA from empirical evidence of all known humans who has existed.
The basic physical and mental features manifesting from the basic DNA is obvious.
Where there are deformations, diseases, etc. we know these are the variations from the norms of what the standards DNA is supposed to expressed. If a baby is born without or extra legs we know this is an abnormality and not the generic DNA is supposed to manifest.

Therefore even some humans are born with deviations from the norms of the 90% or so, we will still recognize them as humans with basic human dignity. There is no ethical consideration to kill those who had deviated from the norm. The correct step would be how to prevent the abnormalities in the current and future generations.

The moral consideration is this;
1. The absolute moral rule is all humans must conform to the norms that represent what is basic human dignity.
2. We set ethical targets against the absolute norm.
3. We analyse the actual results against the targets.
4. Then we find root causes to narrow the gaps via prevention in the future.

Note the above is leveraged upon the continual improvement of every intelligence of the average human being.
Gladly, Spectrum. Though I am afraid we will run into certain difficulties on account of the considerable distance standing between our points of departure.

In the first place, I think we might differ on the very standards by which “progress” can be judged. You specify your request with the phrase “on a trend basis,” meaning, I presume, that you do not wish me to respond merely with this or that odd exception or mere portion of the entirety of humanity. That is fair enough.
But the question arises, on what grounds can these trends be established? You have spoken elsewhere of “net-positive trends,” and here I think we might have a fundamental difference of opinion; for I do not believe that “net-positive trend” is necessarily a suitable basis for judging of human affairs.

For the sake of clarity, let me give you a single, if rather unrealistic, example. Let us suppose a town with a population of one-hundred-thousand souls. In this town, a single individual has one-hundred-thousand dollars, and the others have absolutely no money whatsoever. Now let us take this same town some years down the road. Let us suppose that at this future moment we find that this single rich individual now has nothing, and every other single individual has precisely one dollar and fifty cents in his pocket. In terms of wealth in this town, there has been a “net-positive” gain in these years. Yet in terms of buying power, for instance, there has been a marked decline.

Now I obviously do not claim that this is a sophisticated economic analysis, and I certainly do not wish to say that economically we are worse off now than we were in the past. (I have already granted that the opposite is the case.) I mean only to say that in determining what represents progress and what represents decline, we cannot always simply add up all the isolated cases and proceed on the basis of arithmetic alone. There might be certain kinds of non-material qualities in which a single extraordinarily “wealthy” individual is worth infinitely more than masses and masses of those who possess his same virtue in small quantities. As an example, a great artist of the status of Michelangelo cannot possibly be compared even to millions of the kinds of “artists” who pop up every week at DeviantArt or what have you; and a society which produces millions of these puerile “artistic” works is simply artistically inferior to a society which produces a single Michelangelo, or even a single masterpiece of Michelangelo.

This is how I perceive the situation for human beings today. I would claim that in philosophy, art, and political and personal virtue, the human beings of Europe and America today are but miserable dwarfs compared to those of the same areas in the Cinquecento, in which the general level in these fields might have been lower, but the exemplars were incomparably higher. Because I believe that a paragon in any of these fields is worth a veritable horde of mediocrities, there has therefore been to my eyes decline more or less since the aftermath of the Black Death—just as the Middle Ages represent decline with respect to classical antiquity. And because I consider these endeavors to be the first and foremost of human life, it seems to me that human life as a whole has declined, notwithstanding the great and indisputable material improvements which have been effected in the meantime.
My problem here is there are no available statistics to support what I wanted to state. It is based on an intuitive guess supported knowledge from a wide range of subjects.

Your example of wealth and purchasing power is merely two variables. To be realistic with humanity, we would probably end up with a thousand variables or more.

What I have in mind is;
1. List all the relevant variables [>1,000] - I have given an idea earlier.
2. Compute charts of progress or regress over the sufficient and determined number of years.
3. Give weights to each variable depending on its criticalness
4. Combined all the charts and determine a trend line.

I have given examples of the reduction in slavery, racism, then there is increased global co-operations in many areas, attitude to global terrorism, lesser world wars, and many other variables.

Due to the scale of the exercise, I do not expect a real exercise now, but I can only conclude based intuitively, where I am very optimistic the net trend line is a growth line.
I cannot possibly do more than merely mention these concerns here. I would be willing of course to enter into any of them or all of them more at depth, as is necessary to our conversation or of interest to you. But I can begin to enter the question of philosophy at least by briefly responding to one of your comments. You have said:


And yet I think you must agree that very few within the scientific community today have much patience for metaphysical or ethical thinking along philosophical lines. Science has separated from philosophy, and now it is supposed that philosophy must justify itself before the tribunal of science, rather than the other way around. Philosophy is shamed by the great practical success of science, and feels itself incapable of critiquing or judging its own progeny. Yet science, unlike philosophy, is morally incompetent. In the first place, science has failed to duplicate its amazing advances in the human sciences, which means that science has failed to successfully subject morality to its method. This marks a crisis. In the second place, science scorns all evaluative judgements as being non-scientific. Thus, in liberating science from the rule of philosophy, we have demeaned philosophy, and elevated an inherently amoral procedure for developing raw power to a position of apotheosis over massive portions of human destiny. That we cannot merely take this as progress is suggested, I hope, by the mere prospects of nuclear holocaust, critical environmental degradation, the artificial production (intentional or unintentional) of super-diseases, or the unfathomable economic and social revolutions being prepared by the revolution in artificial intelligence—to mention but a few of the possibilities most immediately facing us, effects of which we are beginning to feel even here and now in innumerable subtle and obvious ways. Science attempts to remedy these difficulties through science alone, but this amounts to dependency on the very method that brought these problems about by an inherent and incorrigible inability to self-regulate. The great success of science, for which philosophy can only be partially given the credit, very well might be prelude to a catastrophe of unrivaled proportions.

This is due to the failure of philosophy to hold science to stringent moral and philosophical standards. But this means that precisely insofar as science has gained in power, philosophy has diminished in power; philosophy, unlike science, has not progressed, but has declined.
I believe you did not differentiate between

1. Philosophy in Science.
2. Philosophy underlying Science, and

In this case I am referring to philosophy-proper and not academic philosophy as in the academia.

Re 1, Science is not philosophy-proper, even when once Science, e.g. physics was grouped together with Philosophy merely as a convenience. So in general there is no philosophy-proper in Science.

Re 2, while Science itself is not Philosophy-proper, Science as a tool is established based on philosophical principles.
There is no Science without the Scientific Framework that is supported by the consensus of Scientists within the scientific community.
The Scientific framework, systems, methods and processes that supervise and control Scientific Works and research are not established scientifically but rather is done philosophically.
It may not be done by so-called professional philosophers, but the Scientific Framework is established and sustained by Scientists who switched [temporary] and wore their philosophical hats for this purpose.
It is philosophy-proper that is active in setting up the Scientific Framework and maintaining it.
In this case, underlying Science is philosophy-proper which is supporting the Scientific Framework.

I define philosophy-proper as that life force which optimizes [within existing constraints] the well being of the individual[s], therefrom humanity, using whatever knowledge and tools.

Among of the knowledge and tools used by philosophy-proper is philosophical knowledge. Philosophy-proper also establish the Scientific Framework to generate knowledge for its purpose where it transform scientific knowledge into technology.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
John Bruce Leonard
Posts: 140
Joined: February 10th, 2016, 5:01 am
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Contact:

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by John Bruce Leonard »

Spectrum wrote:Note re slavery and racism. Over the last 300 years that had been a lot of changes in the thinking, attitudes and actions of the average human being re slavery and racism for the better. This can only be represented by changes in the brain which reflect this external positive change.
I wonder about this “can only be represented.” It seems to me on the contrary that the simplest and most likely explanation for these changes is the spreading of Enlightenment doctrines in recent centuries on the one hand, and the rise of technology on the other—the former of which substituted ideas of universal humanism for older and more delimited ideas of ethnicity, culture, or race, and the latter of which eliminated the practical necessity for slavery. Unless you are willing to state that all of these ideas and changes are the simple product of evolutionary changes in the cerebrum? But in that case, to ask it again: to what extent are we entitled to accept any given evolutionary change as being simply and unequivocally good? And if we cannot accept this, are we not reduced once more to considering the philosophical side of the question, rather than the evolutionary or neurological side? Do we not come, one way or another, to the necessity of providing a philosophical basis for this “progress”? But then—what aid does science of any sort give us here?
Spectrum wrote:Therefore even some humans are born with deviations from the norms of the 90% or so, we will still recognize them as humans with basic human dignity. There is no ethical consideration to kill those who had deviated from the norm. The correct step would be how to prevent the abnormalities in the current and future generations.
The moral consideration is this;
1. The absolute moral rule is all humans must conform to the norms that represent what is basic human dignity.
2. We set ethical targets against the absolute norm.
3. We analyse the actual results against the targets.
4. Then we find root causes to narrow the gaps via prevention in the future.
I will tell you how it seems to me, Spectrum, and you can tell me if and where I am wrong. I believe you are presupposing the idea of basic human dignity, and building your moral system upon it. I believe you are able to do this, because the vast majority of people who surround you on a daily basis—that is to say, people who came of age in Western countries and have never known any other reality than Enlightenment liberalism—accept the notion of “basic human dignity” without the least qualm. Those few who deny it—as indeed I do—can easily be set aside as exceptions one does not need seriously to confront, because their rarity, their unorthodoxy, and the unpleasantness of their ideas stand as refutations of their argument.

If all of this is so, then I think I have been mistaken in my previous attempts. It seemed to me that the idea of basic human dignity was the root concern: in fact, the root concern is progress. For only as we can presuppose human progress can we suppose that the beliefs held by most individuals today are necessarily improvements over older ways of thinking and judging. And only as we can presuppose human progress can we hope that the enormous numbers of non-Western individuals who do not believe in “basic human dignity” will one day be converted to that belief.

Then it would be worth our while to consider the question of progress in greater depth.
Spectrum wrote:My problem here is there are no available statistics to support what I wanted to state. It is based on an intuitive guess supported knowledge from a wide range of subjects.
No doubt my own impressions regarding human decline are equally divined. There are surely no statistics to which I can refer which indicate a decline in human life. But then we come to the problem, once again, of our respective standards. And our respective standards are clearly widely divergent. I think it is this which we must try to come to grips with. You say:
Spectrum wrote:What I have in mind is;
1. List all the relevant variables [>1,000] - I have given an idea earlier.
2. Compute charts of progress or regress over the sufficient and determined number of years.
3. Give weights to each variable depending on its criticalness
4. Combined all the charts and determine a trend line.
Yet this to me elides the vital issue. How do you understand a “relevant” variable? Relevant in what way? And how can you determine the “criticalness” of a variable? As a simple example: we will both readily admit that medicine is a relevant variable here. I hope we both will admit that virtue is another—if not, then this is worth considering. Now, which is more critical in human life? I will tell you without hesitation that virtue is greatly more critical to human life than is medicine; I suspect (correct me if I err) that you would tell me the opposite. We must then understand this divergence, because the addition of a thousand other variables will only bury our disagreement under an avalanche of statistics, data, and intuitions.
Spectrum wrote:I have given examples of the reduction in slavery, racism, then there is increased global co-operations in many areas, attitude to global terrorism, lesser world wars, and many other variables.
Even admitting that this is all progress, what entitles us to assert that it will continue? Is it not possible that the very forces which have gifted us this progress, are now preparing its ruin? And if we admit this possibility, must we not perforce admit that the progress we have experienced thus far might be the seed of ruin—might be in fact only an apparent progress which is leading us ineluctably to a greater decline?
Spectrum wrote:I believe you did not differentiate between

1. Philosophy in Science.
2. Philosophy underlying Science, and 

In this case I am referring to philosophy-proper and not academic philosophy as in the academia.

Re 1, Science is not philosophy-proper, even when once Science, e.g. physics was grouped together with Philosophy merely as a convenience. So in general there is no philosophy-proper in Science.

Re 2, while Science itself is not Philosophy-proper, Science as a tool is established based on philosophical principles.
There is no Science without the Scientific Framework that is supported by the consensus of Scientists within the scientific community.
The Scientific framework, systems, methods and processes that supervise and control Scientific Works and research are not established scientifically but rather is done philosophically.
It may not be done by so-called professional philosophers, but the Scientific Framework is established and sustained by Scientists who switched [temporary] and wore their philosophical hats for this purpose.
It is philosophy-proper that is active in setting up the Scientific Framework and maintaining it.
In this case, underlying Science is philosophy-proper which is supporting the Scientific Framework.

I define philosophy-proper as that life force which optimizes [within existing constraints] the well being of the individual[s], therefrom humanity, using whatever knowledge and tools.

Among of the knowledge and tools used by philosophy-proper is philosophical knowledge. Philosophy-proper also establish the Scientific Framework to generate knowledge for its purpose where it transform scientific knowledge into technology.
We agree entirely, I believe, up until the last paragraph. I do not think that the “Scientific Framework”—not so much as to speak of technology—is any longer used to effect the purposes of philosophy. If one goes back to certain of the original theorists of science—men like Bacon, for instance—one sees that science was originally meant to fall under the supervision of something like the philosopher-kings described by Plato. Yet today, although science has been enormously successful, the philosopher-kings have failed to materialize. The scientific framework persists and does its work in the total absence of the intervention of philosophers; the work done on the scientific framework by scientists has much more to kinship to the tinkering of a mechanic than to the architectonic command of a philosophical regent. Once again: clearest sign of this is the degree to which the research of science and the technology which issues therefrom have been almost perfectly divorced from all moral and social control, save in those few special peripheral cases (like genetic engineering or stem cell research) in which the old religions still hold some sway. It is likely that even here, science will be slowly liberated from these vestigial controls, or else will find safe havens far from any government in which it can pursue its course in perfect liberty. But science even today works as a mechanism independent of all external control, a mechanism with no single governing head—and we are almost universally convinced this is the way things should be.

This indicates to me at once the unquestionable triumph of science in the modern day, and the simultaneous abdication or ostracization of philosophy. And to say it again—I do not see how this can possibly be considered progress in philosophy, unless science can be taken as an unambiguous good for human beings, and one moreover which is better capable than philosophy of producing progress in the most important questions of human life. Only as science is the greatest fruition of the philosophical endeavor can its ascendency over philosophy be considered progress. But science’s total incapacity with regard to moral questions demonstrates to my eyes that this cannot be the case. Thus: philosophy is in decline, and the decline of philosophy represents a crisis.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Spectrum »

John Bruce Leonard wrote:
Spectrum wrote:Note re slavery and racism. Over the last 300 years that had been a lot of changes in the thinking, attitudes and actions of the average human being re slavery and racism for the better. This can only be represented by changes in the brain which reflect this external positive change.
I wonder about this “can only be represented.” It seems to me on the contrary that the simplest and most likely explanation for these changes is the spreading of Enlightenment doctrines in recent centuries on the one hand, and the rise of technology on the other—the former of which substituted ideas of universal humanism for older and more delimited ideas of ethnicity, culture, or race, and the latter of which eliminated the practical necessity for slavery.
Unless you are willing to state that all of these ideas and changes are the simple product of evolutionary changes in the cerebrum?
But in that case, to ask it again: to what extent are we entitled to accept any given evolutionary change as being simply and unequivocally good? And if we cannot accept this, are we not reduced once more to considering the philosophical side of the question, rather than the evolutionary or neurological side?
Do we not come, one way or another, to the necessity of providing a philosophical basis for this “progress”? But then—what aid does science of any sort give us here?
“can only be represented” means, other than autonomic responses in the body, all changes in human expressions [actions and thoughts] MUST be represented by corresponding changes in the neural connectivity in the brain.
  • Example/Model of neural connectivity changes;
    t1 = neurons connections; A<->B<->C
    t2 = neurons connections; A<->C<->D <->E<->F
    At time2 disconnection of neuron B and new connection of E and F to the set represent changes internally and external actions [supposedly].
The above model represent the principles but in real life billion or millions of connections could be involved in changes in human behaviors and thoughts.

The spreading of enlightenment doctrines [as you stated] and other ideas that contributed to the reduction in slavery and racism globally is effected at the level of the changes in the connection between neurons in the brain.
We may not be able to identify the exact changes but from the model above we can infer there MUST be changes to the neural connectivity patterns in the brain. This can be roughly inferred from changes in fMRI images of active neurons in the brain.

One of the essential neural factor in the reduction of slavery and racism is the presence of mirror neurons in the brain which is responsible for empathy and compassion to humans and other living things.
https://en.wik:pedia.org/wik:/Mirror_neuron

It is noted the quantity of mirror neurons correlate with the evolutionary ladder, i.e. humans has the most, primates has lesser and lesser to zero down the lines. So yes, the positive changes are a product of evolutionary changes.

One point to note in the evolutionary train, there is a major vein that run throughout from single cell to human being, and that is the drive of continual improvements against constant changes. Obviously there are exceptions but the core drive is always there.

As far as Science is concern, Science digs in to understand the mechanics.

Philosophy is the 'conductor' of the symphony of life where Science is merely a major instrument.
I will tell you how it seems to me, Spectrum, and you can tell me if and where I am wrong. I believe you are presupposing the idea of basic human dignity, and building your moral system upon it.
I believe you are able to do this, because the vast majority of people who surround you on a daily basis—that is to say, people who came of age in Western countries and have never known any other reality than Enlightenment liberalism—accept the notion of “basic human dignity” without the least qualm. Those few who deny it—as indeed I do—can easily be set aside as exceptions one does not need seriously to confront, because their rarity, their unorthodoxy, and the unpleasantness of their ideas stand as refutations of their argument.

If all of this is so, then I think I have been mistaken in my previous attempts. It seemed to me that the idea of basic human dignity was the root concern: in fact, the root concern is progress. For only as we can presuppose human progress can we suppose that the beliefs held by most individuals today are necessarily improvements over older ways of thinking and judging. And only as we can presuppose human progress can we hope that the enormous numbers of non-Western individuals who do not believe in “basic human dignity” will one day be converted to that belief.

Then it would be worth our while to consider the question of progress in greater depth.
My moral System is grounded on Absolute Moral Laws [as a guide only] and basic human dignity [real] which are abstracted from empirical evidences.
It is just like how Science abstracted the Principles of Gravity from empirical evidences then justified it within the Scientific Framework. This is not a presupposition.
My theory of Basic Human Dignity is abstracted from the same basis as Gravity from Science and can be easily justified for consensus.

One thing about this Basic Human Dignity is we start from a consensus on the elements which are very basic and thus easily is agreeable. Then in time we increase the all round competence of the average humans and the scope of what represent Basic Human Dignity will expand and thus the drive towards the moral ideal.

I believe most philosophies take into account the concept of Basic Human Dignity though not in that specific terms. Note the Golden Rule that is all over [not in Islam unfortunately] is rooted in the concept of acknowledging the Basic Human Dignity. The Bodhisattva vow to be compassionate to all humans and living things from the Mahayanists is along the same line. Note Jesus' 'love your enemies.'

There is nothing new in terms of core principles to what I am proposing. What is new is only the Framework and systematic organization of the ideas therein so that morality and ethics can progress expeditiously in a systematic way like what Science is doing.
No doubt my own impressions regarding human decline are equally divined. There are surely no statistics to which I can refer which indicate a decline in human life. But then we come to the problem, once again, of our respective standards. And our respective standards are clearly widely divergent. I think it is this which we must try to come to grips with. You say:
Spectrum wrote:What I have in mind is;
1. List all the relevant variables [>1,000] - I have given an idea earlier.
2. Compute charts of progress or regress over the sufficient and determined number of years.
3. Give weights to each variable depending on its criticalness
4. Combined all the charts and determine a trend line.
Yet this to me elides the vital issue. How do you understand a “relevant” variable? Relevant in what way? And how can you determine the “criticalness” of a variable? As a simple example: we will both readily admit that medicine is a relevant variable here. I hope we both will admit that virtue is another—if not, then this is worth considering. Now, which is more critical in human life? I will tell you without hesitation that virtue is greatly more critical to human life than is medicine; I suspect (correct me if I err) that you would tell me the opposite. We must then understand this divergence, because the addition of a thousand other variables will only bury our disagreement under an avalanche of statistics, data, and intuitions.
One point is I am a very analytical person and I analyze everything down to its minutest details while at the same time not overlooking the 'forest,' the bigger picture.
So that is my principle and I will pursue as far as I can go. Fortunately we now have computers with large databases, speed, processing power, etc.
Once it was thought it was impossible to map the genome but as we slowly nibble at it, we have achieved that milestone. What is critical is that determination and optimism.

I have that determination and optimism to understand all the variables I mentioned.
One thing we cannot assume is to project from our current average all round competence as constant but rather we must be optimistic our competence will improve simultaneously in time.

What is more critical?
There are so many techniques and approaches to understand criticalness, note Pareto Analysis, etc.
Note the subject of Axiology, the study of values and so many fields that we can throw into the mix and subject it to continuous improvement within the absolute moral laws.
In such a project, initially there will be hitches but if we are determined, persistence and being grounded on a solid moral foundation [subject to precision tuning itself] then there is potentially great success.
Spectrum wrote:I have given examples of the reduction in slavery, racism, then there is increased global co-operations in many areas, attitude to global terrorism, lesser world wars, and many other variables.
Even admitting that this is all progress, what entitles us to assert that it will continue? Is it not possible that the very forces which have gifted us this progress, are now preparing its ruin? And if we admit this possibility, must we not perforce admit that the progress we have experienced thus far might be the seed of ruin—might be in fact only an apparent progress which is leading us ineluctably to a greater decline?
There is no certainty and absolutely absolutes in real life, so it is possible for any progress to regress.
Note I mentioned there is an inherent major vein running through humanity that is driving progress to ensure survival of the species against change which is the only constant.
What is necessary to cap all this is the Moral & Ethical Framework and System together will philosophy proper as the conductor to do it works effectively as the Conduction of the Symphony of Life.
Spectrum wrote:I believe you did not differentiate between

1. Philosophy in Science.
2. Philosophy underlying Science, and 
....
....
Among of the knowledge and tools used by philosophy-proper is philosophical knowledge. Philosophy-proper also establish the Scientific Framework to generate knowledge for its purpose where it transform scientific knowledge into technology.
We agree entirely, I believe, up until the last paragraph. I do not think that the “Scientific Framework”—not so much as to speak of technology—is any longer used to effect the purposes of philosophy. If one goes back to certain of the original theorists of science—men like Bacon, for instance—one sees that science was originally meant to fall under the supervision of something like the philosopher-kings described by Plato. Yet today, although science has been enormously successful, the philosopher-kings have failed to materialize. The scientific framework persists and does its work in the total absence of the intervention of philosophers; the work done on the scientific framework by scientists has much more to kinship to the tinkering of a mechanic than to the architectonic command of a philosophical regent. Once again: clearest sign of this is the degree to which the research of science and the technology which issues therefrom have been almost perfectly divorced from all moral and social control, save in those few special peripheral cases (like genetic engineering or stem cell research) in which the old religions still hold some sway. It is likely that even here, science will be slowly liberated from these vestigial controls, or else will find safe havens far from any government in which it can pursue its course in perfect liberty. But science even today works as a mechanism independent of all external control, a mechanism with no single governing head—and we are almost universally convinced this is the way things should be.

This indicates to me at once the unquestionable triumph of science in the modern day, and the simultaneous abdication or ostracization of philosophy. And to say it again—I do not see how this can possibly be considered progress in philosophy, unless science can be taken as an unambiguous good for human beings, and one moreover which is better capable than philosophy of producing progress in the most important questions of human life. Only as science is the greatest fruition of the philosophical endeavor can its ascendency over philosophy be considered progress. But science’s total incapacity with regard to moral questions demonstrates to my eyes that this cannot be the case. Thus: philosophy is in decline, and the decline of philosophy represents a crisis.
As I had proclaimed above,
- Philosophy-proper [when understood] is the Conductor of the Symphony of Life.

Science, technology, morality, ethics, philosophy-as-a-subject, etc., are merely the instruments in a symphony of life. They cannot work and produce the necessary synergy without a conductor, i.e. philosophy-proper.

I believe you have grown up with relating Philosophy merely to Western Philosophy and academic philosophy. We cannot insist Plato's [and gang] philosophy is the default.

There are all sorts of philosophies from around the world within humanity, note Eastern Philosophies, and all types of philosophical subjects.
The Essence of these philosophies [Western, Eastern, etc.] is philosophy-proper.
This human element a very basic drive which I conveniently call philosophy-proper. We can give it any name, but what is critical is its proper referent or essence that is to be represented by its qualities, properties and resultants.

Btw, Science is value neutral and it is at best a tool which can cut both ways. So Science within humanity must always be under the supervision of something, i.e. morality and philosophy-proper.
Science as I had proposed is established on the basis of philosophy and philosophy-proper on a meta-level. The imputation of the relevant and necessary assumptions for Science to work effectively can only be philosophical* and not scientific.
* call it whatever except it cannot be Scientific per-se.
Popper labelled Scientific Theories as polished conjecturals and the ones who are doing the polishing are effectively doing philosophy [or whatever the name].
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Gertie »

John
Gertie wrote:
I think so, in a rough way, and societies do this without some masterplan, we naturally collectively understand this. Maybe previously we've attributed it to God's will that we have alms for the poor or laws reflecting Thou shalt not Kill. With a better grounded understanding of what matters and why, perhaps we can do it more effectively, and without some of the less helpful by-products.

Interesting, Gertie. Now, it seems to me that human societies really do tend to establish a more or less natural hierarchy of human needs without any rationalistic planning or oversight. Yet some societies, as is known, have turned this hierarchy on its head, with disastrous results. It seems that the majority if not all of such societies (I am thinking, for instance, of the great communist experiments in the near and far East) have done so precisely with an explicit idea of rational planning. How can we be sure, then, that our attempts to arrange such hierarchies “more effectively” without in fact producing any number of unforseen negative and perhaps extremely dangerous consequences?
Good question! Of course the problem with rational utilitarian consequentialism is that you can't predict consequences. I'd don't think we can expect to crack all problems, but doing better should be achievable, and 'understanding how we work' has to help. In the right hands.

Gertie wrote:
Experiments have shown our tribal Us vs Them instincts are remarkably easy to trigger and can be based on the daftest things.

No doubt. Yet this does not demonstrate that the opposite is true—namely, that such “instincts” are not sometimes founded on legitimate concerns and pressing reasons. Or do you think that such instincts have been entirely superseded or made entirely obsolete by our present world?
I wouldn't make hard and fast pronouncements on that, rather that we need to recognise it as a factor to be taken account of re how our evolved predispositions aren't always a good fit with the way our modern world works.

My own view is we need to find a good healthy balance between the impetus 'selfish' and 'competetive' instincts bring, which will always be there, and the 'caring' and cooperative' instincts which are there too, but adapt to how our societies work now, to try to bring about the best outcomes we can. Understand them, and use that understanding in beneficial ways. The details of how that would play out are incredibly complex, beyond my pay grade. But I'm suggesting we can at least come together around a guiding principle (the well-being of conscious creatures), and look at useful models for implementation, like Rawls.

Code: Select all

Gertie wrote:
We can see the 'evolutionary logic' of this for those times, but our pro-social mechanisms are not a good fit in our globalised world of vast inter-dependent social state sized groupings of strangers. Our visceral pre-dispositions primed to care for the well-being of kith and kin, or even triggered by seeing the elderly stranger in the street falling or a baby crying, they have to be replaced by less powerful intellectualised and institutionalised mechanisms to care about the well-being of 'out of sight out of mind' Others. Rawls could help there. That's the sort of thing I mean about needing to understand how we actually work, the Ises. And finding ways around innate barriers to our Oughts goal - the well-being of conscious creatures.
I agree entirely that we have to understand how we “work.” I am perhaps less sanguine on the possibility of science granting us much clarity here.
Well science is starting to make progress there. Check out Churchill's 'Brain Trust' if you're interested.
Given that there is an evident tension between the way human groups relate to other human groups on the one hand, and the necessities of a globalized world on the other, is it not worth asking if there is something unnatural about the globalized world? Something, that is to say, which is not fit to human expectations and human dimensions? For it seems that the alternative is attempting to forcibly adapt human beings to this world we have made. This might be necessary, insofar as it is difficult if not impossible to imagine our globalization turning round in the near future. Yet it is surely true that an individual may in purely personal acts resist the globalized world. Yet this also implies setting oneself largely at odds with society, and holding, for instance, to perhaps less accommodating ideas regarding other human groups.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well like most people I try to live my life the way I think is right (and often fail), which is sometimes not a good fit with my society's mores. My overall view as I've said is that we've evolved to treat each other well 'up close and personal' on the whole, that works pretty well. In our day to day encounters we're generally considerate and courteous. It's the huge, complex inter-connected but remote societies of strangers where we're failing, you only have to read a newspaper to see this, see how our evolved predispositions are playing out. And we're stuck with the world we live in, we can't wait for evolution to catch up and make us better equipped to live together the way the world is now. But! We're also remarkably smart. Evolution has also equipped us to be rational, think through decisions, plan for long term goals. So I come back to placing hope in understanding ourselves better, being able to cohere around a new approach to morality, and finding appropriate models for adapting.

What do you think?
User avatar
John Bruce Leonard
Posts: 140
Joined: February 10th, 2016, 5:01 am
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Contact:

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by John Bruce Leonard »

Spectrum wrote:“can only be represented” means, other than autonomic responses in the body, all changes in human expressions [actions and thoughts] MUST be represented by corresponding changes in the neural connectivity in the brain.
And of course I must acknowledge this, Spectrum, as you have qualified it. Only that I am not sure what it grants us. Even supposing that we could, by some process as of yet undiscovered, perfectly map the average neural connectivity of contemporary human beings and the average neural connectivity of the human beings of three thousand years ago in order to compare them, the question would nonetheless remain which is better by moral standards. You state:
Spectrum wrote:It is noted the quantity of mirror neurons correlate with the evolutionary ladder, i.e. humans has the most, primates has lesser and lesser to zero down the lines. So yes, the positive changes are a product of evolutionary changes.
But again, I would question whether the “quantity of mirror neutrons” really is a positive change. What permits us to think so? Because it has given us greater compassion, a greater power to perceive this “basic human dignity” to which you refer? But this presupposes what it would prove—namely that this compassion, this recognition of basic human dignity, are human goods. Even were it true that the vast majority of human beings today shared this trait, it could not be taken perforce as a good: for, to say it again, evolutionary changes in and of themselves cannot be presupposed to be improvements. Yet I am beginning to wonder if we might actually disagree on this point?
Spectrum wrote:One point to note in the evolutionary train, there is a major vein that run throughout from single cell to human being, and that is the drive of continual improvements against constant changes. Obviously there are exceptions but the core drive is always there.
Two questions follow from this. 1.) “Improvements” by what standard? 2.) On what grounds can we hope that a tendency toward improvement over all time and with regard to all living things, will necessarily favor a single species in this specific moment?

Tacit to much of your argument, as it seems to me, is that the human being and the animal are governed by identical evolutionary laws, or that the intercession of reason in the life of man has not in some way qualitatively changed his relation to evolution. Whereas I would say that the evolution of a human being cannot be considered in the same manner as the evolution of an animal, for the very simple reason that the human being as opposed to the animal is capable of establishing societies which evade or mitigate the laws of evolution. A very simple example: how many individuals today would have died were it not for the existence of modern medicine? How many otherwise weak, sick, or freakish individuals are permitted to survive and to procreate thanks to the intervention of human invention? This is not the work of evolution: it is the work of the human attempt to conquer evolution, to eliminate the negative ramifications of evolution.

Does not the very existence of human reason complicate our relation to evolution to such an extent that we can no longer presuppose that evolution will necessarily force us to improve? And must we not also remember that we are but a single species in a myriad of species, and that the majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct in the end? Even if we look at overarching tendencies, I hardly think the odds can be said to stand in our favor. In the interest of our very species, must we not mistrust evolution?
Spectrum wrote:My moral System is grounded on Absolute Moral Laws [as a guide only] and basic human dignity [real] which are abstracted from empirical evidences.
It is just like how Science abstracted the Principles of Gravity from empirical evidences then justified it within the Scientific Framework. This is not a presupposition.
There is an essential difference between human morality and all the other cases you have mentioned, as physics or music. In all cases where abstraction to basic principles has proved feasible, there was to begin with a commonality of opinion or experience. We can abstract from empirical evidences to arrive at gravity, because all human beings have the same experience of gravity, or at the very least have an experience which is similar enough to permit that abstraction. We can abstract to the principles of music, because all musicians everywhere agree to certain common rules. The same thing cannot be said of morality: the very fact that there is a question about morality proves that there is no common consensus regarding morality. We begin to question morality because we perceive that there are a definite number of possible moral systems, each of which is incompatible with the next. But we cannot abstract a basic principle susceptible of universal consensus from a specific set of incompatible moral systems. This could even be called the basic problem of morality.

Thus any claim that there is some element shared to all moralities everywhere must be demonstrated. I evidently have yet to understand your demonstration of basic human dignity, which is why I say you are presupposing it. Can you help me see more particularly how you claim to abstract this principle?
Spectrum wrote:My theory of Basic Human Dignity is abstracted from the same basis as Gravity from Science and can be easily justified for consensus.
Really, Spectrum, I wonder about this. The consensus of whom? If you are speaking of most people in our Western societies, then I am sure you will find a large degree of consensus. I do not think you will have such fortune if you look to other parts of the world. This to say nothing of other periods in history. In order to speak of consensus, then, you must presuppose human progress, a human progress which for whatever reason is more advanced in the West. Once again we come to the question of progress.
Spectrum wrote:One thing about this Basic Human Dignity is we start from a consensus on the elements which are very basic and thus easily is agreeable.
What are these elements? That all human beings have the right to live? Yet I deny this. Or is such an element to be found rather in the idea that denying the basic human dignity of another human being is equivalent to denying one’s own? Yet I deny this, as well. Or do you believe there to be other elements?

With what level of consensus would you rest content? The agreement of most human beings everywhere today? The agreement of most human beings in the West? The agreement of most intelligent human beings? The agreement of most morally developed human beings? In any of these cases save the second, it seems to me this consensus has never existed.
Spectrum wrote:I believe most philosophies take into account the concept of Basic Human Dignity though not in that specific terms. Note the Golden Rule that is all over [not in Islam unfortunately] is rooted in the concept of acknowledging the Basic Human Dignity. The Bodhisattva vow to be compassionate to all humans and living things from the Mahayanists is along the same line. Note Jesus' 'love your enemies.'
Yet I could as easily mention counterexamples. Consider Plato’s insistence on distinct social strata, or Aristotle’s philosophical defense of slavery. Heraclitus clearly has nothing but contempt for all human beings other than the philosophical. Nietzsche certainly would never have admitted anything like basic human dignity, but would have diagnosed such an idea as but symptom of the decadence of our sick modernity. Many of the philosophers who favored communism or anarchism had nothing whatsoever against mass murder, particularly of given sectors of human society, which seems to me to throw “basic human dignity” far out the window. There are other examples yet one might name. How do you account for these divergences?
Spectrum wrote:One thing we cannot assume is to project from our current average all round competence as constant but rather we must be optimistic our competence will improve simultaneously in time.
It seems more and more to me that one of our primary disagreements is precisely over the question of “optimism.” I, so far from seeing anything obligatory in optimism, consider optimism to be even somewhat irresponsible, because it makes it difficult or impossible for us to put strict controls on the course of our society or our science.

Now, I see that we are not altogether out of harmony in this, for you say:
Spectrum wrote:Philosophy is the 'conductor' of the symphony of life where Science is merely a major instrument.
This sounds similar to my own view of the ideal, Spectrum. And yet I do not see that science itself submits to the conducting of philosophy. It seems to me that it plays its own music at its own rhythm, quite regardless of all opposition. And it seems to me that in playing in this way, separate from any given symphony, it does not for a moment doubt its right to play in this way. Where then is philosophy? Where is the conductor? You say:
Spectrum wrote:Btw, Science is value neutral and it is at best a tool which can cut both ways. So Science within humanity must always be under the supervision of something, i.e. morality and philosophy-proper.
Where ever do you see such supervision?

The very statement that science is value neutral to my eyes exposes the basic problem with science. Science, in being value neutral, can neither command nor obey. It cannot accept any moral or philosophical supervision, nor can it impose any such on itself, because any moral supervision demands something contrary to value-neutrality. Science in being value neutral tacitly establishes itself as the single valid authority, for it is the only authority which is value neutral. Supervision of science must therefore be imposed forcibly on science from without, quite regardless of the objections of the scientists. But such imposition today would be considered censorship, oppression, regression. Philosophy does not have the confidence in itself to attempt this kind of supervision, but quails before the merest whisper of censorship. Philosophy does not have the confidence in its own method sufficient to declare before science and all the world that there are certain values by which science must be regulated in both its research and in its products, or that there should be a social or political body in charge of limiting these things. Philosophy, which is, as you say, the conductor of the great symphony, has handed the baton over to the drummer. The conductor has abdicated his post, and we must take cognizance of this fact.

It is taken for granted that any philosophy must learn from science; it is equally taken for granted that no scientist has any obligation whatsoever to learn from philosophy. Philosophy thus has been eclipsed by science. To say it again, philosophy has declined in modern times. That decline cannot be simply weighed against the success of science, and thereby lain aside as the necessary price of progress; for philosophy, as I think you will agree, has an essentially higher dignity than science, and cannot be replaced by science without courting unimaginable disasters. The decline of philosophy thus represents a critical decline for all of humanity.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Spectrum »

Assumption A: One necessary qualification I need to introduce for this discussion of this topic is I am assuming there will be significant incremental changes and improvement in the overall intelligences [IQ, EQ, Spiritual Q, Moral Q, whatever Qs] of the average human intelligences from herewith and exponentially in the near future [within next 50 years].


And of course I must acknowledge this, Spectrum, as you have qualified it. Only that I am not sure what it grants us. Even supposing that we could, by some process as of yet undiscovered, perfectly map the average neural connectivity of contemporary human beings and the average neural connectivity of the human beings of three thousand years ago in order to compare them, the question would nonetheless remain which is better by moral standards. You state:

But again, I would question whether the “quantity of mirror neutrons” really is a positive change. What permits us to think so? Because it has given us greater compassion, a greater power to perceive this “basic human dignity” to which you refer? But this presupposes what it would prove—namely that this compassion, this recognition of basic human dignity, are human goods. Even were it true that the vast majority of human beings today shared this trait, it could not be taken perforce as a good: for, to say it again, evolutionary changes in and of themselves cannot be presupposed to be improvements. Yet I am beginning to wonder if we might actually disagree on this point?
I believe it is so obvious, the existence of mirror neurons in the human brains – empathy & compassion, differentiate humans significantly from all animals and living things.
To confirm the range and average improvements, one can do an exercise to analyze the critical variables and their changes in reference to the increased levels of mirror neurons between humans and all other animals.
That at the present, slavery is banned all over the world, racism is lesser, cannibalism is not the norm which are contributed by greater level of mirror neurons and many more other criteria, are a demonstration of improvement over other animals as effected by evolution.
Note my assumption A above which will contribute to greater improvements.
I can bring in more criteria that has demonstrated improvements due to the presence of a higher levels of mirror neurons in human beings.
I don’t deny there will be cons from a higher level of mirror neurons, i.e. blind emotional empathy & compassion but this is not the norm but merely from a natural small percentile of extremes.
Spectrum wrote: One point to note in the evolutionary train, there is a major vein that run throughout from single cell to human being, and that is the drive of continual improvements against constant changes. Obviously there are exceptions but the core drive is always there.


Two questions follow from this.
1.) “Improvements” by what standard?
2.) On what grounds can we hope that a tendency toward improvement over all time and with regard to all living things, will necessarily favor a single species in this specific moment?

Tacit to much of your argument, as it seems to me, is that the human being and the animal are governed by identical evolutionary laws, or that the intercession of reason in the life of man has not in some way qualitatively changed his relation to evolution. Whereas I would say that the evolution of a human being cannot be considered in the same manner as the evolution of an animal, for the very simple reason that the human being as opposed to the animal is capable of establishing societies which evade or mitigate the laws of evolution. A very simple example: how many individuals today would have died were it not for the existence of modern medicine? How many otherwise weak, sick, or freakish individuals are permitted to survive and to procreate thanks to the intervention of human invention? This is not the work of evolution: it is the work of the human attempt to conquer evolution, to eliminate the negative ramifications of evolution.

Does not the very existence of human reason complicate our relation to evolution to such an extent that we can no longer presuppose that evolution will necessarily force us to improve? And must we not also remember that we are but a single species in a myriad of species, and that the majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct in the end? Even if we look at overarching tendencies, I hardly think the odds can be said to stand in our favor. In the interest of our very species, must we not mistrust evolution?
Fortunately humans has evolved with the faculty of planning and control which is imputed into any improvement within a Systematic Model. Are you familiar with a planning and control model for improvement.

Image

In this case the ‘standards’ themselves and all variables are subjected to improvements.
I had stated in my Moral Systems, we start with ideal absolute standards which are subjected to a planning and control system.

Humans and evolution are interdependent and one can influence the other.

Spectrum wrote: My moral System is grounded on Absolute Moral Laws [as a guide only] and basic human dignity [real] which are abstracted from empirical evidences.
It is just like how Science abstracted the Principles of Gravity from empirical evidences then justified it within the Scientific Framework. This is not a presupposition.



There is an essential difference between human morality and all the other cases you have mentioned, as physics or music. In all cases where abstraction to basic principles has proved feasible, there was to begin with a commonality of opinion or experience. We can abstract from empirical evidences to arrive at gravity, because all human beings have the same experience of gravity, or at the very least have an experience which is similar enough to permit that abstraction. We can abstract to the principles of music, because all musicians everywhere agree to certain common rules. The same thing cannot be said of morality: the very fact that there is a question about morality proves that there is no common consensus regarding morality. We begin to question morality because we perceive that there are a definite number of possible moral systems, each of which is incompatible with the next. But we cannot abstract a basic principle susceptible of universal consensus from a specific set of incompatible moral systems. This could even be called the basic problem of morality.

Thus any claim that there is some element shared to all moralities everywhere must be demonstrated. I evidently have yet to understand your demonstration of basic human dignity, which is why I say you are presupposing it. Can you help me see more particularly how you claim to abstract this principle?
I note you are stuck in the Old paradigm of what ‘morality’ approaches are deemed to be. We need to shift to a rational approach such that we can put the processes of Morality within a Planning and Control model to manage the Framework and System efficiently. Also note Assumption A above also applies here.
Spectrum wrote:My theory of Basic Human Dignity is abstracted from the same basis as Gravity from Science and can be easily justified for consensus.


Really, Spectrum, I wonder about this. The consensus of whom? If you are speaking of most people in our Western societies, then I am sure you will find a large degree of consensus. I do not think you will have such fortune if you look to other parts of the world. This to say nothing of other periods in history. In order to speak of consensus, then, you must presuppose human progress, a human progress which for whatever reason is more advanced in the West. Once again we come to the question of progress.
My basis of consensus is based on the majority of humans within my Assumption A, i.e. an incremental trend of higher intelligences of the average person.
Spectrum wrote:One thing about this Basic Human Dignity is we start from a consensus on the elements which are very basic and thus easily is agreeable.


What are these elements? That all human beings have the right to live? Yet I deny this. Or is such an element to be found rather in the idea that denying the basic human dignity of another human being is equivalent to denying one’s own? Yet I deny this, as well. Or do you believe there to be other elements?

With what level of consensus would you rest content? The agreement of most human beings everywhere today? The agreement of most human beings in the West? The agreement of most intelligent human beings? The agreement of most morally developed human beings? In any of these cases save the second, it seems to me this consensus has never existed.
I have mentioned before. My focus is not on the basic rights in his case. The elements I referred to are the common denominators within all humans, i.e.

1. The generic DNA within all humans
2. The common physical structure within all humans
3. The common mental features within all humans
4. The basic self-awareness of all human humans

The combination of the above element generate the core and basic human dignity that is shared by all normal human beings.
I believe all normal human beings can agree [has consensus] they have the above basic elements within them, thus understand all are human beings, i.e. basically and thus the deserved dignity in that respect.
Which human being will disagree on the above shared common features.

It is from the above that we move on to the basic rights.
Spectrum wrote: I believe most philosophies take into account the concept of Basic Human Dignity though not in that specific terms. Note the Golden Rule that is all over [not in Islam unfortunately] is rooted in the concept of acknowledging the Basic Human Dignity. The Bodhisattva vow to be compassionate to all humans and living things from the Mahayanists is along the same line. Note Jesus' 'love your enemies.'


Yet I could as easily mention counterexamples. Consider Plato’s insistence on distinct social strata, or Aristotle’s philosophical defense of slavery. Heraclitus clearly has nothing but contempt for all human beings other than the philosophical. Nietzsche certainly would never have admitted anything like basic human dignity, but would have diagnosed such an idea as but symptom of the decadence of our sick modernity. Many of the philosophers who favored communism or anarchism had nothing whatsoever against mass murder, particularly of given sectors of human society, which seems to me to throw “basic human dignity” far out the window. There are other examples yet one might name. How do you account for these divergences?
Note my definition of ‘What is Basic Human Dignity’ above. I believe your concept of Basic Human Dignity is different from mine. That is why there is always an issue on this concept.
Spectrum wrote: One thing we cannot assume is to project from our current average all round competence as constant but rather we must be optimistic our competence will improve simultaneously in time.


It seems more and more to me that one of our primary disagreements is precisely over the question of “optimism.” I, so far from seeing anything obligatory in optimism, consider optimism to be even somewhat irresponsible, because it makes it difficult or impossible for us to put strict controls on the course of our society or our science.

Now, I see that we are not altogether out of harmony in this, for you say:
I believe ‘optimism’ is intrinsic to many [not all] which is necessary to contribute to the survival of the species. Note the minority of risk takers who risk their life [many died] exploring places never explored before just for the pleasure [internal drive] of it, but their contributions to humanity is great, e.g. finding new lands for an expanding population, new sources of mineral/resources, etc.
Spectrum wrote: Philosophy is the 'conductor' of the symphony of life where Science is merely a major instrument.


This sounds similar to my own view of the ideal, Spectrum. And yet I do not see that science itself submits to the conducting of philosophy. It seems to me that it plays its own music at its own rhythm, quite regardless of all opposition. And it seems to me that in playing in this way, separate from any given symphony, it does not for a moment doubt its right to play in this way. Where then is philosophy? Where is the conductor? You say:
As explained [see below] it is Meta-Science [beyond normal Scientific processes] which I had labeled as Phi-proper, not Western nor any typical philosophy.
Spectrum wrote: Btw, Science is value neutral and it is at best a tool which can cut both ways. So Science within humanity must always be under the supervision of something, i.e. morality and philosophy-proper.


Where ever do you see such supervision?
Question; Is the Framework and System that supervise Science created by Science itself?
As I had stated it cannot be. The establishment of a Framework and System for Science to operate is based on the same process that humans establish Framework and System for all other human made system, i.e. political, financial, corporations, social, MORAL, etc.
One of the main player of establishing human systems is the ‘higher’ planning ability of humans. On top of this we need a coordinator [symphony conductor] to ensure whatever is planned is executed efficiently to meet its defined mission, vision and objectives.
I named this ‘symphony conductor’ as philosophy-proper [not academic philosophy or whichever philosophy you have in mind].
The very statement that science is value neutral to my eyes exposes the basic problem with science. Science, in being value neutral, can neither command nor obey. It cannot accept any moral or philosophical supervision, nor can it impose any such on itself, because any moral supervision demands something contrary to value-neutrality. Science in being value neutral tacitly establishes itself as the single valid authority, for it is the only authority which is value neutral. Supervision of science must therefore be imposed forcibly on science from without, quite regardless of the objections of the scientists. But such imposition today would be considered censorship, oppression, regression. Philosophy does not have the confidence in itself to attempt this kind of supervision, but quails before the merest whisper of censorship. Philosophy does not have the confidence in its own method sufficient to declare before science and all the world that there are certain values by which science must be regulated in both its research and in its products, or that there should be a social or political body in charge of limiting these things. Philosophy, which is, as you say, the conductor of the great symphony, has handed the baton over to the drummer. The conductor has abdicated his post, and we must take cognizance of this fact.

It is taken for granted that any philosophy must learn from science; it is equally taken for granted that no scientist has any obligation whatsoever to learn from philosophy. Philosophy thus has been eclipsed by science. To say it again, philosophy has declined in modern times. That decline cannot be simply weighed against the success of science, and thereby lain aside as the necessary price of progress; for philosophy, as I think you will agree, has an essentially higher dignity than science, and cannot be replaced by science without courting unimaginable disasters. The decline of philosophy thus represents a critical decline for all of humanity.
I believe your version of “philosophy” is Western Philosophy and academic philosophy. My philosophy-proper is meta- of these at a different perspective.
As I had stated, there is a basic function within the higher human brain which is that of a planner and symphony conductor of life which I labelled as philosophy-proper . If you don’t like philosophy-proper, I can label it “Phi-proper”. What counts is its properties and function not the name.
Science as value neutral is at best a tool, like a knife which can cut both ways depending on who is the user.
Phi-proper use Science as a tool in ‘symphony’ with all other tools of life to optimize [within constraints] the wellbeing of the individual[s] and therefrom the collective.

P.S.
I proposed we give this discussion a break. I believe I have contributed many points as food for thought [some may not be digestible].
My current emphasis is researching [in great depth] on Quran-based Islam [not on Ahadith] and 'Why Islam is SO Evil'. Have spent 2.5 years full time on it. Are you interested in discussing and understanding Quran-based Islam?
Prior to that I was full time on Kant and Morality, thus now I am a bit rusty on this subject of morality at present and don’t have solid knowledge at my finger tips, thus require some effort to express it off hand.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Spectrum wrote:
  • Reasoned from empirical evidence;
    1. It is empirical evident no species of living things emerged for the purpose to be extinct. ALL species will strive to survive at all costs till the unavoidable & inevitable, e.g. if a large meteor crash onto Earth.
    2. Thus the human species strives to survive at all costs.
    3. If killing another human is permitted as a universal rule, then the human species will have the potential to be extinct, which will contradict 2.
    4. Thus to ensure 2 and not contradicting potential, it is necessary and imperative to establish the absolute moral maxim,
    'Killing another human being is not absolutely permissible, no ifs nor buts'
    5. This absolute moral maxim will ensure the survival of the human species as far as human morality is concerned.
There are stringent laws against murder, and you seem to be saying that the motivation for those rules is to ensure the survival of the human species. I don't see that. I don't think that ensuring the survival of the species has anything to do with our taboo against murder.

I myself would kill to personally survive. I think most people would. So can you really say, "Killing another human being is not absolutely permissible, no ifs nor buts"?
fair to say
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Spectrum »

3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
Spectrum wrote:
  • Reasoned from empirical evidence;
    1. It is empirical evident no species of living things emerged for the purpose to be extinct. ALL species will strive to survive at all costs till the unavoidable & inevitable, e.g. if a large meteor crash onto Earth.
    2. Thus the human species strives to survive at all costs.
    3. If killing another human is permitted as a universal rule, then the human species will have the potential to be extinct, which will contradict 2.
    4. Thus to ensure 2 and not contradicting potential, it is necessary and imperative to establish the absolute moral maxim,
    'Killing another human being is not absolutely permissible, no ifs nor buts'
    5. This absolute moral maxim will ensure the survival of the human species as far as human morality is concerned.
There are stringent laws against murder, and you seem to be saying that the motivation for those rules is to ensure the survival of the human species. I don't see that. I don't think that ensuring the survival of the species has anything to do with our taboo against murder.

I myself would kill to personally survive. I think most people would. So can you really say, "Killing another human being is not absolutely permissible, no ifs nor buts"?
I suggest you read the subsequent posts in this thread to understand my point.

Basically the absolute moral maxim of
'Killing another human being is not absolutely permissible, no ifs nor buts'
is merely an ideal guide to manage the moral gap between the reality [humans naturally will continue to kill for various reasons] and the ideal.

The 'ideal' is ideal and in practice it may not be attainable but we need an absolute moral maxim ideal as a 'fixed goal post' to improve and narrow the moral gap. This is the most efficient framework and system approach to deal with Morality and Ethics.
The casuistry or Trolley case study approach is like a chicken running without head feeling its way around.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Some questions about ethics

Post by Sy Borg »

3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
Spectrum wrote:
  • Reasoned from empirical evidence;
    1. It is empirical evident no species of living things emerged for the purpose to be extinct. ALL species will strive to survive at all costs till the unavoidable & inevitable, e.g. if a large meteor crash onto Earth.
    2. Thus the human species strives to survive at all costs.
    3. If killing another human is permitted as a universal rule, then the human species will have the potential to be extinct, which will contradict 2.
    4. Thus to ensure 2 and not contradicting potential, it is necessary and imperative to establish the absolute moral maxim,
    'Killing another human being is not absolutely permissible, no ifs nor buts'
    5. This absolute moral maxim will ensure the survival of the human species as far as human morality is concerned.
There are stringent laws against murder, and you seem to be saying that the motivation for those rules is to ensure the survival of the human species. I don't see that. I don't think that ensuring the survival of the species has anything to do with our taboo against murder.

I myself would kill to personally survive. I think most people would. So can you really say, "Killing another human being is not absolutely permissible, no ifs nor buts"?
I think Spec is thinking too broadly. Humans have almost no interest in the survival of the species, but they have a huge interest in the survival of any group with which they identify. In practical terms it works out the same - as if we all care about humanity - but most major cultural groups would not mourn the loss of their foes. We tend to just want the parts of humanity that we like to survive :)

Note that destruction of ecosystems works much the same as murder, being basically indirect killing through increasing scarcity. Yet, in this tragedy of the commons, humanity is unable to act collectively for everyone's benefit. We sometimes try but it's never very stable and usually soon becomes corrupted by influential self interested parties.

Yet the tragedy of the commons cuts both ways. Our inability to work together would seem an excellent way of preventing naive intelligent species like us from getting too out of hand - the harmony of the commons! So, while competition between states prevents humans from acting collectively to the benefit of all (famously recently demonstrated by the US refusing to sign the Paris agreement), competition and conflicts of interest also prevent humans from being too efficient and effective at decimating the environment. No matter which loose cannon in world politics runs off the rails, you can be sure there will be more grounded leaders mitigating the damage. Likewise, no matter which saint (somehow) may find him or herself in power, eg. Ghandi, rest assured that their good works will be undone as surely as sandcastles are washed away by the tides. We humans seem to be pre-set to inflict a certain amount of damage, but not total damage.

I doubt that conscious ethics much matter outside of the personal domain. Societal values seems to evolve organically anyway because most citizens naturally gravitate towards balance and harmony most of the time. The consensus is generally that it beats the alternative - chaos and destruction. Despite the depth human ideation has achieved, no matter how far we have transcended the senses, naive logic and old wives' tales, on a societal levels, what tends to keep the peace and shape ethics and morality is simply commonsense, with some distortions caused by the society's traditional powerbrokers.

So there are certain ethical balance points that move over time as circumstances change. Ethics must be circumstantial, transient and variably local rather than fixed and universal - otherwise no growth is possible. There is no universal morality. What's good for one is not necessarily good for the other, so morality is relative rather than absolute. So the OP rightly ponders the inconsistencies because ethics and morality were never meant to be fixed.

However, in order for transient moralities to be stable enough to operate, you need a certain proportion of people simplistically believing that morality is fixed to create the cultural inertia needed for stability. Essentially, the collective delusion of conservatism is necessary for societal stability, but those who at least attempt to lead examined lives need not fool ourselves into believing that efficacy equals reality. Racehorses compete better with blinkers, focus. Ditto societies.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021