The trouble with Aristotles Ethics.

[AKACCMIOF]

Before I start this topic I wanna make this clear: Aristotle was a brilliant mind shown through his use of logic, but his philosophical outlook on ethics is based on things we now know to flawed deeply. Why bring this up? Well, as school journalist dude I got taken to a lecture on Sexual ethics in the twenty first century. There was one brilliant lecturer talking about the future of genetic bio medics, but afterwards I was forced to sit through a thirty year old fully qualified professional mangle utilitarianism worse than a Catholic with a moral pick axe. "Utilitarianism is basically based on the idea pleasure is morally good and pain is morally bad, so having sex with your underage partners would be a morally good thing to do under the utilitarian philosophy." she spoke, "however the Aristotelean would say it would not be morally permissible as it lowers yourself to the nature of the animal, instead of searching for knowledge and spiritual enlightenment." And so a topic was born...

Off the top of my head Aristotelean ethics relies on two main ideas: 1) There is a clear division between man and animal as animals are only able to move grow and reproduce, where as humans are able to do all that and think consciously. 2)To make yourself a purely good human you have to do purely human things following from the examples of the perfect human specimen.

Evolution pretty much ended these ethics in a way. If true (which it blatantly is) the clear division is blurred. In fact we have all heard stories of the more morally evolved animals doing good deeds demonstrating moral intelligence so to speak, dolphins keeping people safe from sharks, dogs giving their lives for their masters, apes sharing food throughout the commune. Also, the idea of the perfect specimen is ended, as the race is always evolving creating new better specimens. Only time shows which survive.

Discuss.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/19/09 05:04 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

Discuss.

The idea that your missing is that your comparing the portions of what Aristotle percieved as parts of the soul.

Aristotle thought that there were three parts to the soul; the nutritive, the perceptive and the rational. The nutritive was simply life or any other variation of existence and perceptive is the interacting with the world around us (that is if what I read I interred correctly) but the rational soul is one that is indepedent from all species but man, because only man is the species that contains the ability to reason and logos or wisdom.

Thus, as stated, the examples that you gave and the many examples in life that animals can perform are all perceptive traits. A Chimpanzee using a stick to get bugs out of a dead log for food is perseptive, but a man making a spear to hunt deer that he has yet to see and will hunt in the future is wisdom or rational thought.

[AKACCMIOF]

At 1/19/09 05:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Thus, as stated, the examples that you gave and the many examples in life that animals can perform are all perceptive traits. A Chimpanzee using a stick to get bugs out of a dead log for food is perseptive, but a man making a spear to hunt deer that he has yet to see and will hunt in the future is wisdom or rational thought.

OK, but the human making a spear only does so because he has done so before successfully and is therefore a continuation of perspective thought. Even if you take this out of account the rational structuring of packs and shoals, and the way certain types of spider rationally sacrifice their lives to increase success of mating.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/19/09 05:35 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

OK, but the human making a spear only does so because he has done so before successfully and is therefore a continuation of perspective thought.

If this is true, then why does different and varried ways to get deer or elk come about. If making the spear got them the deer, then why did somebody decide to use the bow or find a new way to perform that action.

Even if you take this out of account the rational structuring of packs and shoals, and the way certain types of spider rationally sacrifice their lives to increase success of mating.

Does the spider rationally view the situation there in and decide that by thier death a new generation can be born and be raised and thus commit himself to the action of mating and his subsequent death, or does the spider simply follow the instincts that is written in it's genetic structure?

A spider can't rationalize, a spider lacks the logos to have the rational soul.

[AKACCMIOF]

At 1/19/09 05:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:35 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

If this is true, then why does different and varried ways to get deer or elk come about. If making the spear got them the deer, then why did somebody decide to use the bow or find a new way to perform that action.

Natural selection of useful methods. And a little rationalism, but as I point out this is concurrent in the animal kingdom.

Does the spider rationally view the situation there in and decide that by thier death a new generation can be born and be raised and thus commit himself to the action of mating and his subsequent death, or does the spider simply follow the instincts that is written in it's genetic structure?

Bad example. What about herds of cows (my aunt a farmer be) who know what time to cross the road?

[Memorize]

At 1/20/09 03:14 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

Bad example. What about herds of cows (my aunt a farmer be) who know what time to cross the road?

Or deer that jump in front of the headlights?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/20/09 03:14 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:35 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Natural selection of useful methods. And a little rationalism, but as I point out this is concurrent in the animal kingdom.

The problem with falling back onto a natural selection argument, is that by developing or using the bow over the spear, is not a mutation and is not restricted to a certain group of humans but all humans.

It isn't one group of humans never being able to use a bow and thus dying out due to the innefficiences of the spear, it's the use of logic and evualtion.

Bad example. What about herds of cows (my aunt a farmer be) who know what time to cross the road?

Becausing hearing is now equal to logical reasoning?
Or because classical conditioning (aka Pavlov's Dogs) has now become logos.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 1/19/09 05:04 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: There was one brilliant lecturer talking about the future of genetic bio medics, but afterwards I was forced to sit through a thirty year old fully qualified professional mangle utilitarianism worse than a Catholic with a moral pick axe. "Utilitarianism is basically based on the idea pleasure is morally good and pain is morally bad, so having sex with your underage partners would be a morally good thing to do under the utilitarian philosophy." she spoke, "however the Aristotelean would say it would not be morally permissible as it lowers yourself to the nature of the animal, instead of searching for knowledge and spiritual enlightenment."

Is this where she mangled Utilitarianism? Utlitarianism is an idea that states the greatest good is making the largest amount of people happy. I believe she has the definition of Epicureanism or Hedonism here.

2)To make yourself a purely good human you have to do purely human things following from the examples of the perfect human specimen.

If Aristotle were alive today, would he reform his ideas regarding perfection? Such as "constantly evolving" being the ever subjective definition of perfect?

In fact we have all heard stories of the more morally evolved animals doing good deeds demonstrating moral intelligence so to speak, dolphins keeping people safe from sharks, dogs giving their lives for their masters, apes sharing food throughout the commune. Also, the idea of the perfect specimen is ended, as the race is always evolving creating new better specimens. Only time shows which survive.

I propose a question: These animals act out of instinct, correct? So, who is to say us humans aren't just merely acting on our own instinct, just with rational thought and foresight thrown in?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/20/09 11:30 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

I propose a question: These animals act out of instinct, correct? So, who is to say us humans aren't just merely acting on our own instinct, just with rational thought and foresight thrown in?

Because that would be a doulbe negative.

If it was an act of instinct, ie jumping away at a sudden noise or movement then you didn't put the time to rationalize the decesion and act decisivly on it.

Likewise If I made a logical decesion, then that would not be instinct taking over.

More often then not, a human being lives most of the life in logos with instinct providing the relief at times.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 1/20/09 11:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/20/09 11:30 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

More often then not, a human being lives most of the life in logos with instinct providing the relief at times.

I understand that, but could we take a response that is currently instinct(your example of jumping out of the way without a second thought) and say that it once took some form of rational thought to figure out that we should jump out of the way, but then turned into second nature(instinct)?

For example, when someone learns to do something as "second nature," he's turned a thought out response into an instinct.

[Bacchanalian]

At 1/21/09 12:12 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: For example, when someone learns to do something as "second nature," he's turned a thought out response into an instinct.

Why should we suddenly disregard the process? Second nature and muscle memory are refinements of the human body brought about through various levels of will (in most cases). The human factor is embodied in the result.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 1/21/09 02:11 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/21/09 12:12 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: For example, when someone learns to do something as "second nature," he's turned a thought out response into an instinct.

Why should we suddenly disregard the process?

We shouldn't. I was merely entertaining some thoughts I had.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/21/09 12:12 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 1/20/09 11:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/20/09 11:30 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

For example, when someone learns to do something as "second nature," he's turned a thought out response into an instinct.

I consider that to be a case of classical conditioning more often then not.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 1/21/09 01:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/21/09 12:12 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 1/20/09 11:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/20/09 11:30 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

For example, when someone learns to do something as "second nature," he's turned a thought out response into an instinct.

I consider that to be a case of classical conditioning more often then not.

That's exactly what I thought of after really thinking about my example not too long ago.

[AKACCMIOF]

At 1/20/09 08:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/20/09 03:14 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:35 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Natural selection of useful methods. And a little rationalism, but as I point out this is concurrent in the animal kingdom.

The problem with falling back onto a natural selection argument, is that by developing or using the bow over the spear, is not a mutation and is not restricted to a certain group of humans but all humans.

It isn't one group of humans never being able to use a bow and thus dying out due to the innefficiences of the spear, it's the use of logic and evualtion.

I refute. The out hunting of the Neanderthal. (Spell check?)

Bad example. What about herds of cows (my aunt a farmer be) who know what time to cross the road?

Becausing hearing is now equal to logical reasoning?
Or because classical conditioning (aka Pavlov's Dogs) has now become logos.

Its more than that. Families of cows seem to learn to cross at the least busy times of day regularly. In fact some are killed when freak trucks get thrown in or families die out.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/21/09 05:04 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/20/09 08:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/20/09 03:14 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:35 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I refute. The out hunting of the Neanderthal. (Spell check?)

The problem with that is, that the Neadertall wasn't a human like us, it's classified as a whole nother species. So what makes us, Humans, Homo Sapien Sapiens, would have absolutely nothing to do with another creature.

Likewise more then likely the Neandertalls died off because of thier physical characteristics and genetic structure, not because they never(if actually possible for thier species) adopted the use of logos.

The topic of neandertalls, my friend, is a whole nother can of worms.

Its more than that. Families of cows seem to learn to cross at the least busy times of day regularly. In fact some are killed when freak trucks get thrown in or families die out.

Your family just lets thier cows wander across a busy road like that?

[AKACCMIOF]

At 1/21/09 08:23 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/21/09 05:04 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/20/09 08:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/20/09 03:14 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:35 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 1/19/09 05:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I refute. The out hunting of the Neanderthal. (Spell check?)

The problem with that is, that the Neadertall wasn't a human like us, it's classified as a whole nother species. So what makes us, Humans, Homo Sapien Sapiens, would have absolutely nothing to do with another creature.

Likewise more then likely the Neandertalls died off because of thier physical characteristics and genetic structure, not because they never(if actually possible for thier species) adopted the use of logos.

Ahh, they are thought to have been the first users of fire. More to the point, I think it was their techniques and outdated logic that killed them off.

The topic of neandertalls, my friend, is a whole nother can of worms.

Crap!

Its more than that. Families of cows seem to learn to cross at the least busy times of day regularly. In fact some are killed when freak trucks get thrown in or families die out.

Your family just lets thier cows wander across a busy road like that?

Its not that busy a road! Its only the school and work traffic that does it.