Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Atla wrote: January 13th, 2022, 3:31 pm For example the Hindus look at the world and say the Brahman is everything, and while the Brahman doesn't actually do anything, it also somehow does everything. So they start to see the Brahman in everything and everyone, and now the Brahman is "something".
Yes, in Daoism (Taoism), the idea/concept of the Dao (Tao) is very similar. "The Tao That Can Be Spoken of Is Not the Eternal Tao".
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Atla »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:27 am
Atla wrote: January 13th, 2022, 3:31 pm For example the Hindus look at the world and say the Brahman is everything, and while the Brahman doesn't actually do anything, it also somehow does everything. So they start to see the Brahman in everything and everyone, and now the Brahman is "something".
Yes, in Daoism (Taoism), the idea/concept of the Dao (Tao) is very similar. "The Tao That Can Be Spoken of Is Not the Eternal Tao".
Yes, quite so.

And they also say, a man who understands the Tao in the morning can die contentedly in the evening. And that's not quite true either, is it. Once the initial bliss of awakening to the Tao starts to wane, we find ourselves in the world we have always lived in, we just now see it as it truly is. But no "inherent nature" to the world (like value or whatever) was uncovered. Although it is true that most people do become more content permanently, after the initial bliss has waned.
True philosophy points to the Moon
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 14th, 2022, 7:18 am
Morals value experiences , and ethics are codify values.
Not sure just what you're saying there, but generally, in the philosophical literature, "morals" and "ethics" are used synonymously. Neither "codifies" values.
In the film Castaway the hero, Chuck Noland , had a moral stance towards Wilson the castaway ball, and Wilson was himself a moral agent who had opinions and loyalty. When Wilson was lost off the raft, Chuck was heartbroken as he had lost what was to him a person to whom he related. it's 'only a film' but the theme of moral agency is what makes it relevant to life.

There is a defect in people who can't relate morally to what is other than themself. Robinson Crusoe was bereft until Man Friday appeared. My point is that evaluating features of environment is so necessary to us that it may be counted as an instinct. Environment is so important that men have invented gods who preside over inanimate features of environment such as some benign personal god of place who presides over a holy well, grove, or mountain. There are other gods of place who are dangerous persons, e.g. the old Jahweh, and men need to placate them. When people need moral agents other than themselves they will invent them if need be.
Well, to "relate morally" requires someone other than oneself. Crusoe, alone on his island, has no "moral relationships," and can have none.

You seem to be saying that humans are social animals and desire human companionship. That's true, but it doesn't address the question, What is ethics?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Gertie »

HAN

Maybe you could just answer this, to help me see if there is a grounding here I'm missing, which would help me make better sense of your posts? You say this -

The point comes to this: an object is not an object apart from experience. It is unspeakable. It doesn't exist.
What's the basis or underlying theory which justifies saying an object, eg a stone, doesn't exist except as your or my conscious experience?

What justifies the move from saying we can't fully and perfectly consciously experience the nature of the object we call a stone (which I agree with), to saying the object we call a stone doesn't exist? And how do you demonstrate the truth of the theory?

As clearly and concisely as you can please.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Atla »

Hereandnow wrote: January 14th, 2022, 2:43 am But of course you know that when you see a rock of a tree, that these are not intimating their existence to you as if something out there actually traverses space and time and arrives in your conscious thoughts. Just to be clear, when you approach an object, and you know what it is "always already" the object before you is predelineated, that is, you recall it from previous historical encounters. You never actually see the "purely" the thing there, but see "through" the interpretative language and culture that makes an object and object. Without this, you would be just staring blankly. So, the stone as a stone is not an independent thing at all. It is infused with conceptual properties. Kant said: (sensory) intuitions without concepts are blind; concepts without intuitions are empty.

The point comes to this: an object is not an object apart from experience. It is unspeakable. It doesn't exist. The moment you say it does exist, you find that existence, after all, is first, prior to any ontology, a term that is contextually bound. Not that there is nothing "out there" but that all you can ever talk about is something invested with the talk to begin with. (It gets much worse with Derrida.)

You can perhaps see how this effects the matter here: Contexts make an object an object, so the stone, when observed has built in contextual possibilities. You may see it as a physicist might, or a child at play, or a thing of beauty; or perhaps like me, you are trying to discuss it in the broadest possible context, philosophy.
So far so good, yet these phenomenologist don't seem to realize that we have already used automatic "concepts" to break up our continuous experience into separate blank things, which blank things we then make into objects using more "concepts".

This entire philosophy seems to sort of shoot itself in the foot by literally trying to analyze the relationships between the things appearing in consciousness, but strictly speaking there is only one thing there and no relationships. Unless they don't literally mean this, they are just sort of speaking metaphorically.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Atla »

As usual I blame Kant. Deep but not deep enough. Insightful but not insightful enough. Humble but not humble enough.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: January 14th, 2022, 2:15 pm
Belindi wrote: January 14th, 2022, 7:18 am
Morals value experiences , and ethics are codify values.
Not sure just what you're saying there, but generally, in the philosophical literature, "morals" and "ethics" are used synonymously. Neither "codifies" values.
In the film Castaway the hero, Chuck Noland , had a moral stance towards Wilson the castaway ball, and Wilson was himself a moral agent who had opinions and loyalty. When Wilson was lost off the raft, Chuck was heartbroken as he had lost what was to him a person to whom he related. it's 'only a film' but the theme of moral agency is what makes it relevant to life.

There is a defect in people who can't relate morally to what is other than themself. Robinson Crusoe was bereft until Man Friday appeared. My point is that evaluating features of environment is so necessary to us that it may be counted as an instinct. Environment is so important that men have invented gods who preside over inanimate features of environment such as some benign personal god of place who presides over a holy well, grove, or mountain. There are other gods of place who are dangerous persons, e.g. the old Jahweh, and men need to placate them. When people need moral agents other than themselves they will invent them if need be.
Well, to "relate morally" requires someone other than oneself. Crusoe, alone on his island, has no "moral relationships," and can have none.

You seem to be saying that humans are social animals and desire human companionship. That's true, but it doesn't address the question, What is ethics?
If there is no moral agent other oneself one has to invent him. Ethics are rules or proposed rules for relating to other moral agents and to amoral things.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Belindi »

Atla wrote: January 14th, 2022, 6:04 pm
Hereandnow wrote: January 14th, 2022, 2:43 am But of course you know that when you see a rock of a tree, that these are not intimating their existence to you as if something out there actually traverses space and time and arrives in your conscious thoughts. Just to be clear, when you approach an object, and you know what it is "always already" the object before you is predelineated, that is, you recall it from previous historical encounters. You never actually see the "purely" the thing there, but see "through" the interpretative language and culture that makes an object and object. Without this, you would be just staring blankly. So, the stone as a stone is not an independent thing at all. It is infused with conceptual properties. Kant said: (sensory) intuitions without concepts are blind; concepts without intuitions are empty.

The point comes to this: an object is not an object apart from experience. It is unspeakable. It doesn't exist. The moment you say it does exist, you find that existence, after all, is first, prior to any ontology, a term that is contextually bound. Not that there is nothing "out there" but that all you can ever talk about is something invested with the talk to begin with. (It gets much worse with Derrida.)

You can perhaps see how this effects the matter here: Contexts make an object an object, so the stone, when observed has built in contextual possibilities. You may see it as a physicist might, or a child at play, or a thing of beauty; or perhaps like me, you are trying to discuss it in the broadest possible context, philosophy.
So far so good, yet these phenomenologist don't seem to realize that we have already used automatic "concepts" to break up our continuous experience into separate blank things, which blank things we then make into objects using more "concepts".

This entire philosophy seems to sort of shoot itself in the foot by literally trying to analyze the relationships between the things appearing in consciousness, but strictly speaking there is only one thing there and no relationships. Unless they don't literally mean this, they are just sort of speaking metaphorically.
There are the parts, and the whole which is more than the sum of its parts.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 15th, 2022, 7:58 am [
If there is no moral agent other oneself one has to invent him. Ethics are rules or proposed rules for relating to other moral agents and to amoral things.
Well, one doesn't have to invent him, but I suppose some people would (I certainly wouldn't). But I do agree that "ethics" can embrace one's interactions with non-moral things, but only after (irrationally) endowing those things with some semblance of agency, as do animists, for example. People can adopt all sorts of strange beliefs that entail constraints on their own behavior. Nothing wrong with following those "private moralities," as long as they don't lead to conflicts with a rationally defensible public morality (rules governing one's interactions with other moral agents).
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: January 15th, 2022, 1:44 pm
Belindi wrote: January 15th, 2022, 7:58 am [
If there is no moral agent other oneself one has to invent him. Ethics are rules or proposed rules for relating to other moral agents and to amoral things.
Well, one doesn't have to invent him, but I suppose some people would (I certainly wouldn't). But I do agree that "ethics" can embrace one's interactions with non-moral things, but only after (irrationally) endowing those things with some semblance of agency, as do animists, for example. People can adopt all sorts of strange beliefs that entail constraints on their own behavior. Nothing wrong with following those "private moralities," as long as they don't lead to conflicts with a rationally defensible public morality (rules governing one's interactions with other moral agents).
You don't have to believe dead or inanimate things are moral agents to respect them.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 15th, 2022, 2:20 pm
You don't have to believe dead or inanimate things are moral agents to respect them.
True; one may respect anything one wishes, just as one may love or enjoy or prefer or admire anything one wishes, and adopt a private morality which reflects those sentiments.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: January 15th, 2022, 1:44 pm People can adopt all sorts of strange beliefs that entail constraints on their own behavior. Nothing wrong with following those "private moralities," as long as they don't lead to conflicts with a rationally defensible public morality (rules governing one's interactions with other moral agents).
You contend, then, that "morality" is, in whole or in part, "rational"? Interesting. Interesting and puzzling. In the light of empirical, observational, evidence, yours is a surprising conclusion to reach, I think.

N.B. I do not suggest that morality is irrational, any more than it is rational. Perhaps we might more accurately say that morality is a-rational (if that's a word)? 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 17th, 2022, 8:29 am
You contend, then, that "morality" is, in whole or in part, "rational"? Interesting. Interesting and puzzling. In the light of empirical, observational, evidence, yours is a surprising conclusion to reach, I think.
We've covered that, at some length, in previous posts and threads.

Vernacular (popular) moralities and most private moralities are far from rational; they typically reflect culturally-induced and/or emotionally-driven impulses and dispositions. A philosophically respectable morality, however, must be rational, i.e., coherent, logically sound, and consistent with empirically-verifiable evidence. I.e., the same criteria that govern any other intellectual inquiry. "Feelings" have no more place in morality than they do in physics.

Philosophy is, after all, rational inquiry into fundamental questions.

I take a public morality to be a system of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, the aim of which is to maximize welfare for all agents. Whether a given principle or rule furthers that goal is usually objective, i.e., empirically determinable.

Private moralities --- principles and rules one governing one's own behavior one may adopt for various personal reasons --- may include anything, and need not be rational. I have no interest in those.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 17th, 2022, 8:29 am
You contend, then, that "morality" is, in whole or in part, "rational"? Interesting. Interesting and puzzling. In the light of empirical, observational, evidence, yours is a surprising conclusion to reach, I think.
GE Morton wrote: January 17th, 2022, 12:59 pm We've covered that, at some length, in previous posts and threads.
Yes, but if no-one questions your casual implications, you might become convinced that there are those who believe and accept what you say without demur. 😉

GE Morton wrote: January 17th, 2022, 12:59 pm I take a public morality to be a system of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, the aim of which is to maximize welfare for all agents. Whether a given principle or rule furthers that goal is usually objective, i.e., empirically determinable.
So morality - "public morality" - is not only rational but also objective? Your condition is progressing at an alarming pace. 😮
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 18th, 2022, 10:23 am
So morality - "public morality" - is not only rational but also objective? Your condition is progressing at an alarming pace. 😮
"Condition"? Did you have any substantive rebuttals to the previous post, or just ad hominems?
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