Are you ready to vote for the people who will do this? I am. So, stop bugging me.Alias wrote: ↑November 1st, 2020, 11:15 pmAnd you actually believe government consists of us, together, and does what we, collectively, want done? How old are you?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 1st, 2020, 8:08 am [There must first exist an agency that has both the power and resources to do the enforcing.]
That's what we do together through government.
Have you any frickin idea what-all your law enforcement agencies are up to, how they operate, what powers and indemnities they have, to whom, if anyone, they answer, what their operating budgets are --- or even, how many of them there are?Marvin wrote:Laws arise by agreement.]
[A: Or force of arms.]
A nation or state is constituted by an agreement like the Constitution for the United States of America. Within that agreement is defined an elected legislature which reaches further agreements between us as to what laws we will have at any point in time.
Aha. That'll keep a Black kid out of the gangs, and safe from being shot down in the street by a cop.Marvin wrote:[ states are morally obligated to provide the means to meet at least the most basic needs for every person.]
[ And do they? ]
Yes. There are many public assistance programs like food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation, etc.
never mind your age... What planet do you live on?
The Foundation of Ethics
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
- Mark_Lee
- Posts: 24
- Joined: November 8th, 2017, 9:42 pm
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
By a transcendent being who tells us so. This transcendent being is either a person or God Himself. Otherwise, the only alternative we have outside of those two options is what a coconut would say.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other? What is the criteria by which these two rules (or any two rules) can be morally compared?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
I think the correct answer is that we compare the benefits and harms of one rule versus the benefits and harms of the other rule. The rule with the best benefits and/or least harms for everyone would be chosen. That's how moral judgement works.Mark_Lee wrote: ↑November 4th, 2020, 7:18 amBy a transcendent being who tells us so. This transcendent being is either a person or God Himself. Otherwise, the only alternative we have outside of those two options is what a coconut would say.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other? What is the criteria by which these two rules (or any two rules) can be morally compared?
The consequentialist writes the rules. The deontologist disseminates the rules as the word of God (or of the coconut).
- Calico
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: June 14th, 2020, 8:42 pm
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
I think it's important to point out that this process of "comparing benefits" is an ongoing evolutionary process. After all, once upon a time it was determined to be best to burn witches, keep slaves, etc.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 4th, 2020, 5:37 pm I think the correct answer is that we compare the benefits and harms of one rule versus the benefits and harms of the other rule. The rule with the best benefits and/or least harms for everyone would be chosen. That's how moral judgement works.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
Absolutely. And that's why the benefits and harms should be objective evidence rather than subjective beliefs.Calico wrote: ↑November 5th, 2020, 10:40 amI think it's important to point out that this process of "comparing benefits" is an ongoing evolutionary process. After all, once upon a time it was determined to be best to burn witches, keep slaves, etc.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 4th, 2020, 5:37 pm I think the correct answer is that we compare the benefits and harms of one rule versus the benefits and harms of the other rule. The rule with the best benefits and/or least harms for everyone would be chosen. That's how moral judgement works.
-
- Posts: 432
- Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
Your comparing humans and tigers, one has moral agency, the other doesn't - this "moral agency" gives humans the ability to filter our desires and emotions. Anyways, how does human well-being need to rely on the killing of chickens, pigs and cows?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 27th, 2020, 11:27 pmI generally agree. But the wellbeing of tigers may be promoted by killing antelopes. And the wellbeing of humans may be promoted by killing chickens, pigs, and cows. So I think that what is good for one species may be harmful to another.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
Food, of course.Kaz_1983 wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 1:02 amYour comparing humans and tigers, one has moral agency, the other doesn't - this "moral agency" gives humans the ability to filter our desires and emotions. Anyways, how does human well-being need to rely on the killing of chickens, pigs and cows?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 27th, 2020, 11:27 pm
I generally agree. But the wellbeing of tigers may be promoted by killing antelopes. And the wellbeing of humans may be promoted by killing chickens, pigs, and cows. So I think that what is good for one species may be harmful to another.
-
- Posts: 432
- Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
When it comes to food, human beings don't need to kill chickens, pigs and cows. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some situations where we need too but if you've got a supermarket near you (unlike the tigers..), eating meat is not done cos it's essential to promote human well-being.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
Eating meat becomes necessary during an ice age. But, we seem to be delaying the next ice age with global warming. So, eating meat is probably not essential, for now.Kaz_1983 wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 6:07 pmWhen it comes to food, human beings don't need to kill chickens, pigs and cows. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some situations where we need too but if you've got a supermarket near you (unlike the tigers..), eating meat is not done cos it's essential to promote human well-being.
-
- Posts: 432
- Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
No probably about it, meat isn't essential.
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
[/quote]
Hi Marvin,
Morality is a social construct, so values arrive in relation to the well-being of the group. If you think of society as a human biological extension, it will like any organism fight to survive. Morality and autonomy are mutually exclusive, if one wants autonomy one cannot belong to the group.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: The Foundation of Ethics
I say obligation rather than morality, because 'morality' is a larger, more nebulous concept than is encompassed by the ethical behaviours required of a social animal. Don't kill or hurt each other; don't take each other's stuff or mates or fishing holes without permission; don't piss on each other's patch of ground; do your share of the unpleasant chores; contribute your share to the commonweal - that's simple legal-code morality that anyone can understand.
The larger concept of morality is longer-term still. It's about the individual's and the group's relationship to the world. It can be, but doesn't have to be spiritual. It does have to be philosophical: based on a principle; a perception of and attitude to, the environment. Both the individual and the group behave in a certain way if their principle is: "I/we have dominion over everything/everyone else." and in a very different way if their central tenet is "I/we belong in the world." and differently again if their notions is "I/we are not of this world."
Their guiding principle determines how they behave and how they behave determines what happens to their environment and that determines how long their environment can sustain them. If man feels at one with the nature around him, he will respect, even revere, other life forms and limit the harm he does as much as possible.
Once he's able to produce clean, nutritious food to replace killed protein, he'll stop killing and keep his own population in check, to allow with other populations to thrive also.
If man owns everything else; if defeating other men and eating animals are considered virtues rather than an occasional necessity, then human will out-multiply their food supply, beef cattle will replace rain-forests, methane will replace oxygen and everybody will choke to death.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023