Ontology precedes ethics.

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
ReasonMadeFlesh
Posts: 744
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
Location: Here & Now

Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by ReasonMadeFlesh » June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am

Mystics say that all is one.

What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.

Why questions should be abandoned IMO.

There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
"A philosopher who does not take part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1726
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Thinking critical » June 6th, 2018, 4:09 pm

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am
Mystics say that all is one.

What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.

Why questions should be abandoned IMO.

There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
What does understanding the nature of existence mean? What is the correlation between ethics and epistemology?
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 658
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 6th, 2018, 6:56 pm

Thinking critical wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 4:09 pm
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am
Mystics say that all is one.

What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.

Why questions should be abandoned IMO.

There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
What does understanding the nature of existence mean? What is the correlation between ethics and epistemology?
Nature of existence; existence of nature. Anything more than a tautology?

Dissimulation
Posts: 37
Joined: March 23rd, 2017, 12:38 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Dissimulation » July 11th, 2018, 8:08 am

stating 2 ambiguous abstractions as a valid corralation to your conclusion is in error. Each abstraction in themselves demands an extensive development of thought, more so, because the magnitude of your conclusion demands a complete negation of all other possibilities in favor of your conclusion. ontology is indexical to the subject of discussion, in short incommensurable.

Alias
Posts: 2322
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Alias » July 15th, 2018, 4:52 pm

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am
Mystics say....
edited for hyperborle

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 327
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Karpel Tunnel » July 16th, 2018, 6:08 am

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am
Mystics say that all is one.

What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.

Why questions should be abandoned IMO.

There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
OK, let's say all is one, the mystics are correct. A man is raping my wife.

Everything is one.

What conclusions can I draw from that about his actions, my reactions, what to do, and how my various options - I discover this happening - should be ehtically evaluated?

Alias
Posts: 2322
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Alias » July 16th, 2018, 8:26 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 6:08 am
[OK, let's say all is one, the mystics are correct. A man is raping my wife.

Everything is one.

What conclusions can I draw from that about his actions, my reactions, what to do, and how my various options - I discover this happening - should be ehtically evaluated?
Cheater! That's not a WHY question.
Mystics don't have wives and don't care what happens to other people's wives: it's all the same to them.
Just leave their juniper berries alone.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6965
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Greta » July 16th, 2018, 10:39 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 6:08 am
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am
Mystics say that all is one.

What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.

Why questions should be abandoned IMO.

There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
OK, let's say all is one, the mystics are correct. A man is raping my wife.

Everything is one.

What conclusions can I draw from that about his actions, my reactions, what to do, and how my various options - I discover this happening - should be ehtically evaluated?
Yes, everything is one and what is happening is an exchange of energy and genetic material performed with a parasitic dynamic. At more basic levels of biology the line between mating and eating is blurred. Nature doesn't care any - it's just exchange of energy.

By the same token, we don't mourn when some rogue fungi defeats the first macrophage encountered.

Image

Stuff happens. I mean, like, go you little macrophages! I'm right in your corner! But if you get into bother you are on your own. All any of us can do for the helpful little predatory blobs that act as our immune systems is to eat and live well and avoid too much stress.

So it does our macrophages about as much good to be part of "all one" (person) as it does to be assaulted by a fellow denizen of the pale blue dot.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 327
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Karpel Tunnel » July 17th, 2018, 1:20 am

Greta wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 10:39 pm
Yes, everything is one and what is happening is an exchange of energy and genetic material performed with a parasitic dynamic. At more basic levels of biology the line between mating and eating is blurred. Nature doesn't care any - it's just exchange of energy.
Fine, but there I am, my wife is getting raped.

I kill the guy. That's an exchange of energy.

I nicely try to persuade him to stop. That is an exchange of energy.

I weep or I rejoice. Those are exchanges of energy.

How does seeing everything as one lead to any ethics at all?
By the same token, we don't mourn when some rogue fungi defeats the first macrophage encountered.
Do you have judgments of mourning? Isn't it just an exchange of energy?
Stuff happens. I mean, like, go you little macrophages! I'm right in your corner! But if you get into bother you are on your own. All any of us can do for the helpful little predatory blobs that act as our immune systems is to eat and live well and avoid too much stress.

So it does our macrophages about as much good to be part of "all one" (person) as it does to be assaulted by a fellow denizen of the pale blue dot.
It seems like you have judgments of emotion. All is one, but if you get into a bother, I reject you

Aren't emotions part of the one?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6965
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Greta » July 17th, 2018, 3:47 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
July 17th, 2018, 1:20 am
How does seeing everything as one lead to any ethics at all?
A global view can lead to a broadened ethic and lead some to a general sense of care, trying to move through life with a "light touch", attempting to minimise harm as much as possible, not just to humans, but to animals, plants and the environment generally.

Astronauts from the ISS routinely report a changed perspective from seeing the Earth as one thing from space. They tend to say that their revised perspective sees the planet and its denizens as especially precious.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
By the same token, we don't mourn when some rogue fungi defeats the first macrophage encountered.
Do you have judgments of mourning? Isn't it just an exchange of energy?
In case you are wondering, no I am not a Trumpian psychopath and I experience plenty of regular human emotion like many other hominids. Thus I have no need to justify or rationalise my emotional responses, nor to engage in emotional display behaviour on cue to prove I am not inhuman. However, in quiet times we can consider what's going on in the big picture ...

So, to that end ... mourning is a relatively chaotic state in an organism that interferes with its capacity to operate normally. As with any depressed, sick or saddened state there are clear signals we have evolved so others in a group to recognise their distress and allow them recuperation by reducing demands on them for a while.

But I didn't mourn my dead macrophages - I just absorbed and excreted them. As do you. We are almost as inhuman in our attitude towards our macrophages as giant governments and mutlinational companies are towards their human resource units!

Alas, the carnage within the body is too great a tragedy to consciously take on board - all those little dead cells that had so furiously worked to equalise their next reflexes in the cause of human health - dead without ceremony! Millions of little microbial carcasses every day. But it's still hard to care unless it affects our health, yes? :)
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
So it does our macrophages about as much good to be part of "all one" (person) as it does to be assaulted by a fellow denizen of the pale blue dot.
It seems like you have judgments of emotion. All is one, but if you get into a bother, I reject you

Aren't emotions part of the one?
Brains and nervous systems are the seat of ethics. They create emotions - the need to either pursue growth or avoid suffering - and thus we develop ethics around those needs and the empathy we feel. No brains or nervous systems? No one cares? Thus, our little macrophage servants do their duties largely unrecognised.

We are both one and many. Thus there's twin responsibilities, but self usually has to come first in that equation because, aside from our survival instincts, we aren't much use to anyone dead (aside from acting as physical or financial fertiliser).

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 327
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Karpel Tunnel » July 17th, 2018, 11:25 am

Greta wrote:
July 17th, 2018, 3:47 am
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Do you have judgments of mourning? Isn't it just an exchange of energy?
In case you are wondering, no I am not a Trumpian psychopath and I experience plenty of regular human emotion like many other hominids. Thus I have no need to justify or rationalise my emotional responses, nor to engage in emotional display behaviour on cue to prove I am not inhuman.
I am not sure where this came from. I asked if you had judgments of mourning. I didn’t accuse you of being a psychopath. It seems like you have judgments of mourning and other emotions. And you didn’t answer the question: isn’t is just an exchange of energy like the rape or anything else?
So, to that end ... mourning is a relatively chaotic state in an organism that interferes with its capacity to operate normally.
1) When mourning a social mammal is being normal. There can be problematic forms of grief, but normal grief is part of what we are. The animals that grieve tend to be the dominant life forms in their ecosystems. Pharma has in recent years decided to create a market by pathologizing natural mourning processes. There’s good, widespread professional critique of pharma’s parasitical attack on grief.
2) Why are we talking about mourning? The scenario was someone raping my wife.
3) Even IF mourning was pathological, it would still be an exchange of energy, part of the one. We are supposed to react negatively to stress and grief but not to rape?
But I didn't mourn my dead macrophages - I just absorbed and excreted them. As do you. We are almost as inhuman in our attitude towards our macrophages as giant governments and mutlinational companies are towards their human resource units!
I’m a pantheist but there is no reason to think macrophages feel pain. There wouldn’t be anything I could do about it, in any case. My wife on the other hand, as a social mammal, has the ability to suffer emotional physical pain.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:It seems like you have judgments of emotion. All is one, but if you get into a bother, I reject you

Aren't emotions part of the one?
Brains and nervous systems are the seat of ethics. They create emotions - the need to either pursue growth or avoid suffering - and thus we develop ethics around those needs and the empathy we feel. No brains or nervous systems? No one cares? Thus, our little macrophage servants do their duties largely unrecognised.
I don’t see you answering the questions. Aren’t emotions part of the one?
Are you really arguing that my reaction to my wife getting raped is hypocritical because I don’t get upset when my microphages die?
We are both one and many. Thus there's twin responsibilities, but self usually has to come first in that equation because, aside from our survival instincts, we aren't much use to anyone dead (aside from acting as physical or financial fertiliser).
Well, we’d be useful to microorganisms, and it would just be an exchange of energy. I am not sure why you accept the survival instinct. It, like my emotional reactions to the rape, seemed not to understand that everything is just an exchange of energy.

I don't think you are a psychopath, but you are ending up saying and implying things that are psychopathological.

Often when people have ideas like 'it is all an exchange of energy' or 'it is all one' these ideas bring them some peace. Fine. But the problem arises externally when they interact with others, because since a strong attachment to the idea is that peace, they end up judging the emotions of others (and their own) as confused.

The irony is that implicitly emotions are judged as negative by someone who believes everything is one, it's all an exchange of energy. Well, emotions would be a part of that. So they should be just as neutral as rape and macrophages dying and so on. But they are not, why`? Because the belief is attractive precisely because it prioritizes peace. Peace is just another state. It should not be prioritized and other state pathologized. If it all is one and exchanges of energy, etc.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6965
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Greta » July 17th, 2018, 8:41 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
July 17th, 2018, 11:25 am
Greta wrote:
July 17th, 2018, 3:47 am

In case you are wondering, no I am not a Trumpian psychopath and I experience plenty of regular human emotion like many other hominids. Thus I have no need to justify or rationalise my emotional responses, nor to engage in emotional display behaviour on cue to prove I am not inhuman.
I am not sure where this came from. I asked if you had judgments of mourning. I didn’t accuse you of being a psychopath. It seems like you have judgments of mourning and other emotions. And you didn’t answer the question: isn’t is just an exchange of energy like the rape or anything else?
It came from the implications in your post, later confirmed by you referring to what I am saying as psychopathic.

Consider this: according to you, simply discussing something without providing emotional display behaviour cues is psychopathic.

No, I often run into trouble because I absolutely REFUSE to engage in those display behaviours, to emote on cue because it's expected to prove that you care. Ugh. People can trust that I care, and if they do not and cannot glean that from my posts, they are too paranoid too worry about.

Rapes and murders are largely the acquisition of energy by one entity from another. I didn't answer the question directly because it was that unenlightening and, as noted above, I don't like boring ritual in conversation.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
So, to that end ... mourning is a relatively chaotic state in an organism that interferes with its capacity to operate normally.
1) When mourning a social mammal is being normal. There can be problematic forms of grief, but normal grief is part of what we are. The animals that grieve tend to be the dominant life forms in their ecosystems. Pharma has in recent years decided to create a market by pathologizing natural mourning processes. There’s good, widespread professional critique of pharma’s parasitical attack on grief.
2) Why are we talking about mourning? The scenario was someone raping my wife.
3) Even IF mourning was pathological, it would still be an exchange of energy, part of the one. We are supposed to react negatively to stress and grief but not to rape?
I raised mourning because you raised the rape of your wife so I assumed that, in such a scenario, there would be some mourning involved.

Since when is a chaotic state "pathological"? Obviously human states vary from the highly focused to the relatively chaotic and that has NOTHING to do with pathology.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Brains and nervous systems are the seat of ethics. They create emotions - the need to either pursue growth or avoid suffering - and thus we develop ethics around those needs and the empathy we feel. No brains or nervous systems? No one cares? Thus, our little macrophage servants do their duties largely unrecognised.
I don’t see you answering the questions. Aren’t emotions part of the one?
Are you really arguing that my reaction to my wife getting raped is hypocritical because I don’t get upset when my microphages die?
Oh for fnuk's sake, man, ease off on the paranoia! I am simply pointing out an interesting situation where our relationship with the Earth in many ways echoes our microbes' relationship with us, in that being part of "the one" does not necessarily mean that "the one" of which we are part will even notice us, let alone care.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't think you are a psychopath, but you are ending up saying and implying things that are psychopathological.
No, you are just demanding display behaviours from me and I see no need to obey.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Often when people have ideas like 'it is all an exchange of energy' or 'it is all one' these ideas bring them some peace. Fine. But the problem arises externally when they interact with others, because since a strong attachment to the idea is that peace, they end up judging the emotions of others (and their own) as confused.

The irony is that implicitly emotions are judged as negative by someone who believes everything is one, it's all an exchange of energy. Well, emotions would be a part of that. So they should be just as neutral as rape and macrophages dying and so on. But they are not, why`? Because the belief is attractive precisely because it prioritizes peace. Peace is just another state. It should not be prioritized and other state pathologized. If it all is one and exchanges of energy, etc.
It seems you are thinking of and describing a particular person you met online. Many of us would have met "all is one" fanatics online here and there. They tend to be so out of touch that they are usually not worth rebutting anyway.

Further, your weak straw man attack on me regarding "exchange of energy" has not been thought through at all - as if the noticing the exchanges of energy in nature precludes the noticing of aesthetic and emotional content. Get real.

I already made clear why human and macrophages have different moral import - nervous systems and brains. It's very, very simple. If entities feel something or are loved/valued by a feeling entity, then ethics apply, if not, then other considerations apply.

Post Reply