Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/1/11 10:22 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Stuff on abortion...

I humbly suggest we redirect this here. I think we're going a bit off topic in this thread, but we can certainly discuss it with you.

---

At 3/1/11 10:53 PM, KemCab wrote: Of course ethics is a part of aesthetics. When you say you don't like such and such style of painting, you are essentially saying, "I want the canvas to look this way, not that way" -- when you are making ethical judgments you are saying "I want the world to look this way, not that way" -- and so on. Both are also subjective.

Once more, I ask for you to justify this. You're just asserting it right now. Maybe ethical judgements are not "I want the world to look this way", but instead "this is the way the world ought to be, regardless of my wants" or some other formulation.

---

At 3/2/11 08:02 AM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: Once more, I ask for you to justify this. You're just asserting it right now.

Justify it? I just explained it to you in plain English. Or I could bring this in and tell you to read propositions 6.41, 6.42, 6.421, and 6.422.

In short, ethics can't really be expressed without turning out to be nonsense.

Maybe ethical judgements are not "I want the world to look this way", but instead "this is the way the world ought to be, regardless of my wants" or some other formulation.

"This is the way the world ought to be" is equivalent to "this is what I want the world to be." Adding "regardless of my wants" is contradictory simply because the very statement is an expression of desire for a particular state of affairs. You are essentially saying, "I want the world to look this way, regardless of what I want."

---

Actually what you did was say "Ethics is aesthetics because ethics is aesthetics." You flat out asserted that ethics was like ice-cream preference. If you want to take that analogy, it seems to break down at any point of conflict. For instance, if two intelligent people were discussing which ice-cream they would pick and eventually the debate is reduced to "I just prefer the taste of chocolate ice-cream", the debate ends. Yet in a parallel example with ethics, the debate does not end. "I just prefer killing children to not killing children, ok?". Why doesn't it end there?

In addition, even if there is an utterly subjective "I prefer this over that" for ethics, there can still be ethical discourse when two people share values. If John and Barry both believe reducing suffering is important, but John thinks torturing innocent people is acceptable, Barry can have a debate with John about the ethics of torturing innocent people. It would turn out that John had just not thought through the consequences of some of his beliefs. Maybe ethical discourse is simply about increasing coherence of values. The only person you would not be able to have an ethical debate with would be the person who valued incoherence of values, but I don't believe this typifies the majority of ethical debates. It might even be the case that we all have a certain set of core values which can be appealed to in this way.

Maybe ethics is like aesthetics. But maybe there are universal values that can be appealed to (at least for humans).

---

At 3/2/11 05:53 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: Actually what you did was say "Ethics is aesthetics because ethics is aesthetics." You flat out asserted that ethics was like ice-cream preference.

And then extending that concept to the rest of the world. Flavor is to ice-cream what ethics is to the world. I can have an infinite number of reasons for having ice-cream preferences just like I can have an infinite number of reasons for having ethical beliefs.

It doesn't matter how important the reasons are. In logic, all prepositions are equally valid and of equal value (6.4). All value judgments -- which includes morality -- exist outside of the world. They exist in your mind, not in logic, which is a mirror image of the world (6.13).

6.41: "The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists -- and if it did exist, it would have no value."

Ethics, aesthetics, and all value is essentially transcendental.

If you want to take that analogy, it seems to break down at any point of conflict. For instance, if two intelligent people were discussing which ice-cream they would pick and eventually the debate is reduced to "I just prefer the taste of chocolate ice-cream", the debate ends.

First off, that is not really a debate, it is a statement of opinion. If both people agree, then there is nothing further to discuss.

Yet in a parallel example with ethics, the debate does not end. "I just prefer killing children to not killing children, ok?". Why doesn't it end there?

Because when people disagree there is always something to discuss because ultimately no two people will agree on the same thing. It is entirely subjective and since ethics concerns the entire world instead of just the subject of ice cream, with ethics there is an infinitude of things to discuss and therefore no end in sight.

In ethics there is no possible way for the discussion on the world to end because one can derive an infinite number of messages, an infinite number of reasons, an infinite number of conclusions -- i.e. an infinite number of things to disagree upon. The only way to really conclude an ethical debate is to accept that all of it is ultimately nonsense.

In addition, even if there is an utterly subjective "I prefer this over that" for ethics, there can still be ethical discourse when two people share values. If John and Barry both believe reducing suffering is important, but John thinks torturing innocent people is acceptable, Barry can have a debate with John about the ethics of torturing innocent people.

Discussing ethics is like debating nonsense. When people enter into a discussion on ethics it is essentially like they are all entering into a conversation where every speaker is speaking a different language altogether. Things that people agree upon are mutually intelligible phrases to these languages; then there are things which are not exactly the same but they are translatable; and then there are things which are entirely untranslatable.

The only difference is that people can tell the difference between Chinese and Greek.

It would turn out that John had just not thought through the consequences of some of his beliefs.

Beliefs don't have consequences. Actions do.

Maybe ethical discourse is simply about increasing coherence of values. The only person you would not be able to have an ethical debate with would be the person who valued incoherence of values, but I don't believe this typifies the majority of ethical debates.

All values are equally incoherent; all values exist outside of logic. An "ethical debate" is when you hold certain "ethical propositions" to be valid and then attempt to arrive at an ethical conclusion based off of them -- but upon closer introspection you will find some of these givens to be illogical or contradictory and the entire thing comes tumbling down.

It might even be the case that we all have a certain set of core values which can be appealed to in this way. Maybe ethics is like aesthetics. But maybe there are universal values that can be appealed to (at least for humans).

Well of course there are some "values" that all humans hold. We value food, water, shelter, living, etc., don't we? And then based off of these we create statements like "kill other people is bad" and "drinking from the same water you defecate in is disgusting, don't do it" which are values in themselves and these are in turn used to construct other ones. And in this sense values are pretty good.

However, the further up and up you build, the further these values become divorced from reality and the more susceptible we are to believing that morality is inherent and universal.

In the earlier stages of history we created concepts like "sin" and "evil" to get people to believe that a personal God is perpetually watching them, even when nobody else is -- that is, when these morals are strictly unnecessary -- thereby reinforcing the idea that moral concepts are universal. As society became more complex and ethics became more and more contrived, the simple model of religion became unnecessary as people simply took ethical concepts for granted.

---

At 3/3/11 03:50 AM, KemCab wrote: And then extending that concept to the rest of the world. Flavor is to ice-cream what ethics is to the world.

This is an assertion.

:I can have an infinite number of reasons for having ice-cream preferences just like I can have an infinite number of reasons for having ethical beliefs.

Just because two things share some property, does not mean they share every property. I would also dispute this comment. I do not believe that ice-cream preferences have ANY reasons. Truthful statements of ice-cream preferences are expressions of the mental state of the person making the statement. Please provide justification for your assertion that both ice-cream preferences and ethical beliefs have an infinite number of reasons as well as a further justification as to why this shows that the analogy has any further hold.

It doesn't matter how important the reasons are. In logic, all prepositions are equally valid and of equal value (6.4). All value judgments -- which includes morality -- exist outside of the world. They exist in your mind, not in logic, which is a mirror image of the world (6.13).

6.41: "The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists -- and if it did exist, it would have no value."

Ethics, aesthetics, and all value is essentially transcendental.

If we accept the idea that no value exists in the world, this is not the same as the notion that there is no value. As I said, what if the value exists in the minds of humans.

If you want to take that analogy, it seems to break down at any point of conflict. For instance, if two intelligent people were discussing which ice-cream they would pick and eventually the debate is reduced to "I just prefer the taste of chocolate ice-cream", the debate ends.

First off, that is not really a debate, it is a statement of opinion. If both people agree, then there is nothing further to discuss.

Yet in a parallel example with ethics, the debate does not end. "I just prefer killing children to not killing children, ok?". Why doesn't it end there?

Because when people disagree there is always something to discuss because ultimately no two people will agree on the same thing.

Yes, but the same thing applies to the ice-cream example. They do not agree with each other. Yet the discussion immediately ends once it gets down to base preference. My question is as follows: why does the discussion immediately end in the ice-cream example, yet continue with the ethics example? I would propose that the reason for this is that ethical discussions are not completely analogous to those of preference in ice-cream.

It is entirely subjective and since ethics concerns the entire world instead of just the subject of ice cream, with ethics there is an infinitude of things to discuss and therefore no end in sight.
In ethics there is no possible way for the discussion on the world to end because one can derive an infinite number of messages, an infinite number of reasons, an infinite number of conclusions -- i.e. an infinite number of things to disagree upon. The only way to really conclude an ethical debate is to accept that all of it is ultimately nonsense.

Once more, this is just full of assertions. If ethics is aesthetics, as you initially asserted, it should be reducible to simple matters of taste. At some point, the divide between people should become clear. What you're saying in this paragraph is that it is irreducible. You also seem to assume that finite beings such as ourselves can somehow hold an infinite number of things in our head.

Discussing ethics is like debating nonsense. When people enter into a discussion on ethics it is essentially like they are all entering into a conversation where every speaker is speaking a different language altogether.

But you'd agree that if we could establish that some (or even all) of them were speaking the same language, however arbitrary and subjective that language might be, we could have discourse?

Things that people agree upon are mutually intelligible phrases to these languages; then there are things which are not exactly the same but they are translatable; and then there are things which are entirely untranslatable.

So you're saying that we can have a discourse, at least on the mutually intelligible phrases?

The only difference is that people can tell the difference between Chinese and Greek.

I would question whether we cannot tell if someone is outside of our moral language.

It would turn out that John had just not thought through the consequences of some of his beliefs.

Beliefs don't have consequences. Actions do.

Don't avoid the issue by use of semantics. I'll rephrase:
It would turn out that John had just not thought through the potential consequences of acting on of some of his beliefs.

Maybe ethical discourse is simply about increasing coherence of values. The only person you would not be able to have an ethical debate with would be the person who valued incoherence of values, but I don't believe this typifies the majority of ethical debates.

All values are equally incoherent;

It is not values themselves individually I was speaking of, it was sets of values, which I think you'll find can be coherent.

all values exist outside of logic. An "ethical debate" is when you hold certain "ethical propositions" to be valid and then attempt to arrive at an ethical conclusion based off of them -- but upon closer introspection you will find some of these givens to be illogical or contradictory and the entire thing comes tumbling down.

If I find I have two values that are contradictory, I have not got a coherent set. One of the values must go if I have the meta-value of coherence (which I believe all (or at least most) humans possess).

It might even be the case that we all have a certain set of core values which can be appealed to in this way. Maybe ethics is like aesthetics. But maybe there are universal values that can be appealed to (at least for humans).

Well of course there are some "values" that all humans hold. We value food, water, shelter, living, etc., don't we? And then based off of these we create statements like "kill other people is bad" and "drinking from the same water you defecate in is disgusting, don't do it" which are values in themselves and these are in turn used to construct other ones. And in this sense values are pretty good.

However, the further up and up you build, the further these values become divorced from reality and the more susceptible we are to believing that morality is inherent and universal.

In the earlier stages of history we created concepts like "sin" and "evil" to get people to believe that a personal God is perpetually watching them, even when nobody else is -- that is, when these morals are strictly unnecessary -- thereby reinforcing the idea that moral concepts are universal. As society became more complex and ethics became more and more contrived, the simple model of religion became unnecessary as people simply took ethical concepts for granted.

So here's where I get confused. I thought you were arguing that ethical discourse is impossible. Yet you seem to be instead saying "the current ethics is divorced from reality, but we can have a discussion based on core principles. We just need to go back to basics." Please clarify.

---

At 3/3/11 12:24 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: This is an assertion.

It was an analogy which was evident in itself. It is like if I said "water is to fish what air is to mammals" and you asked me to qualify that statement. I could do so but there is very little point in it.

Just because two things share some property, does not mean they share every property.

Both share only one essential property: that of subjectivity. Everything else is irrelevant. A preference in ice cream is an entirely different thing from a particular taste in art or music, but both are in the realm of aesthetics.

I would also dispute this comment. I do not believe that ice-cream preferences have ANY reasons.

Here's a reason for you: an allergy to chocolate. Reasons can also manifest in the subconscious; for example, suppose I connected a traumatic experience with vanilla.

All preferences have a potentially infinite number of reasons that merely collapse into a select few. In fact, you cannot have preferences without reasons; just because you cannot pinpoint said reasons doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Truthful statements of ice-cream preferences are expressions of the mental state of the person making the statement.

Which are reasons in themselves.

Please provide justification for your assertion that both ice-cream preferences and ethical beliefs have an infinite number of reasons as well as a further justification as to why this shows that the analogy has any further hold.

If we accept the idea that no value exists in the world, this is not the same as the notion that there is no value. As I said, what if the value exists in the minds of humans.

That is in fact exactly what I am saying; there IS value but it only exists in your mind. It might as well exist in a separate little universe of its own.

Yes, but the same thing applies to the ice-cream example. They do not agree with each other. Yet the discussion immediately ends once it gets down to base preference.

If they do not agree with each other, the conversation simply ends because neither of them value ice cream highly enough to argue over that point of contention.

My question is as follows: why does the discussion immediately end in the ice-cream example, yet continue with the ethics example? I would propose that the reason for this is that ethical discussions are not completely analogous to those of preference in ice-cream.

People value the concept of ethics more than ice cream, and there are infinite points of contention; there is more to talk about. With ice cream it is evident to a sane person that there is nothing more to discuss about it; people do not immediately realize that ethics is not absolute and therefore discussing it is a waste of time so the conversation will drag on longer.

Once more, this is just full of assertions.

Assertions which should be self-evident. But if you insist:

Ethics concerns the world. There are a virtually infinite number of things in the world which can interact with other things; thence there are an infinite number of actions, facts which are all perceived subjectively by an infinite number of people -- in each difference of interpretation is a point of contention. So there are infinite points of contention.

All discussions revolve around differences in opinion; if everyone agreed on everything there would be nothing to talk about. Everyone knows that taste is a personal preference -- and a difference in one's choice of flavor is frivolous -- but people still think that certain propositions in ethics are self-evident and that there are these great problems to be resolved in them.

If ethics is aesthetics, as you initially asserted, it should be reducible to simple matters of taste.

At some point, the divide between people should become clear. What you're saying in this paragraph is that it is irreducible.

No, I'm saying it is reducible but that there are an infinite number of things that people can -- and do -- attempt to reduce.

You also seem to assume that finite beings such as ourselves can somehow hold an infinite number of things in our head.

No, that's silly.

Just because you and I are of finite capacity does not mean we cannot perceive the concept of infinity, or conceive of an infinite number of possibilities. A C++ program long integer has 2^32 possible states -- but that doesn't mean that, in a program, the computer is holding each and every one of those states in memory.

And just to clear things up, infinity is not really a quantity or number; it is a particular state without bound whereto things approach as a limit. For example, we can say that I can write down any integer ever from "negative to positive infinity" -- but in reality there are some numbers (and an infinitude of them) which I cannot write down simply because I would not have enough time or ink in the world to do so.

But you'd agree that if we could establish that some (or even all) of them were speaking the same language, however arbitrary and subjective that language might be, we could have discourse?

You can have discourse, yeah, but it would be nonsense.

So you're saying that we can have a discourse, at least on the mutually intelligible phrases?

Only to a point; even if you start a discussion with the assumption that certain things are always true you will eventually wind up with a different interpretation simply because ethics cannot be fully expressed in language.

I would question whether we cannot tell if someone is outside of our moral language.

Everyone's "moral language" is different and so everyone is ultimately outside of everyone else's "moral language". Some people have similar values and for the most part they are mutually comprehensible. Others have utterly alien values.

We can tell whether or not people are on the same page simply by seeing whether or not they agree, but ultimately nobody agrees on absolutely everything.

Don't avoid the issue by use of semantics.

It isn't a question of semantics. Beliefs are assumptions that we use to help us frame the world. If one acts while taking some set of assumptions for granted and suffers from it, it is not the belief's fault; the holder simply did not evaluate the state of affairs accurately enough.

I'll rephrase: It would turn out that John had just not thought through the potential consequences of acting on of some of his beliefs.

His "belief" is that, in your example, torturing "innocent" people is acceptable. First of all, the term "acceptable" is vague -- this can be taken to mean "socially acceptable" or "personally acceptable." It would be stupid to assume the former, whereas the latter is a personal consideration.

If I find I have two values that are contradictory, I have not got a coherent set. One of the values must go if I have the meta-value of coherence (which I believe all (or at least most) humans possess).

All values are arbitrary and contradictory.

Suppose I hold these four statements to be true:

1. My life is valuable and worth protecting.
2. My personal possessions are valuable and worth protecting.
3. The lives of the members of group X, whereof I am not a part, are valuable and worth protecting.
4. The personal possessions of the members of X are valuable and must be respected.

I can frame a scenario with each of these, where not only do two or more of these values conflict, but where one can arrive at different value judgments for each of the following four statements in these scenarios. (That is, there can be situations where, say, #3 is more important than #2 or vice versa.)

So here's where I get confused. I thought you were arguing that ethical discourse is impossible. Please clarify.

Ethical discourse isn't "impossible," after all, you can obviously do it. It's just nonsensical to try. That is, all that can really be said is that we disagree -- there are no universal truths to build upon -- and discuss the facts that brought us to our conclusions.

---

First, I take many of your points.

It was an analogy which was evident in itself. It is like if I said "water is to fish what air is to mammals" and you asked me to qualify that statement. I could do so but there is very little point in it.

It is far from self-evident, as demonstrated by the fact that some of the greatest thinkers in history have disagreed with it. I'm not saying that they're necessarily right. This is why I ask for justification.

Both share only one essential property: that of subjectivity. Everything else is irrelevant. A preference in ice cream is an entirely different thing from a particular taste in art or music, but both are in the realm of aesthetics.

Subjective = dependent on the mind of the agent. Being of the same species, humans have similar minds. It is not outrageous to suggest that we share some core subjective values. It is plausible that we can have discussions about how to achieve situations which reflect these values. These conversations will have right and wrong answers. Thus it is not nonsense to have these debates.

Everyone's "moral language" is different

Not necessarily. And even if they are different, they may not be so different that we cannot have ethical discourse on at least some issues.

Stuff on semantics

Once more you've avoided the crux of the issue. The issue was that John had similar values to Barry and based on those values, John was WRONG about something, and thus John and Barry could have meaningful ethical discourse.

All values are arbitrary and contradictory.

Values might be arbitrary, but it is certainly possible to avoid contradiction, by simply having one value. But even if we have multiple values, to which we assign different priorities, so long as everyone shares the same priority assignments, they can have ethical discourse.

Just as a side note: every time I've used ethical discourse, you can replace with meaningful ethical discourse.

---

So you're arguing for more apathetic pragmatic discussion?

---

At 3/3/11 05:42 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: It is far from self-evident, as demonstrated by the fact that some of the greatest thinkers in history have disagreed with it.

Which ones?

Subjective = dependent on the mind of the agent. Being of the same species, humans have similar minds. It is not outrageous to suggest that we share some core subjective values. It is plausible that we can have discussions about how to achieve situations which reflect these values. These conversations will have right and wrong answers.

First of all, name some of these values. Second, for every one of these values that you mention there will probably be someone in the world -- very many people, actually -- who does not share these values.

Thus it is not nonsense to have these debates.

Remember the ice cream analogy? Suppose we were to discuss our preferences in ice cream; once we were done indicating our choice of flavor and any reasons why we might choose a particular one over another, there is no point in discussing it any further.

There are many cases in ethics where the "right answer" does not seem to be apparent to everyone (aside from the fact that there really is no right answer) such as in the case of abortion. There will be one side for it, and another against, and there is no way either side is going to convince the other. It's just not going to happen -- if I try to talk to you about vanilla ice cream for two hours trying to convince you it's better, you're more likely to get fed up and walk away than believe me.

Not necessarily. And even if they are different, they may not be so different that we cannot have ethical discourse on at least some issues.

All people have different interpretations of the world, ethical or otherwise. If two friends have a discussion about ethics it is because they hold similar -- never the absolute same -- values and simply value a change of opinion. Engaging the opinions of someone who is diametrically opposed to your own values is not for the purposes of genuine exchange of opinion, but to dismantle his point of view.

John was WRONG about something, and thus John and Barry could have meaningful ethical discourse.

In the scenario, the only thing John was "wrong" about was not taking into account the fact that he can get caught and that people would be disgusted by -- that is have a natural aversion to -- his actions. Whether or not he was morally wrong is still subjective.

Values might be arbitrary, but it is certainly possible to avoid contradiction, by simply having one value. But even if we have multiple values, to which we assign different priorities, so long as everyone shares the same priority assignments, they can have ethical discourse.

Suppose we say that we value human life and state that killing someone is immoral; but killing in self defense is excusable, so that statement of value is contradictory. In this case, then we can split "we value human life" into two statements:

1. We value our own lives.
2. We value the lives of others.

Ultimately there are always places where these are contradictory -- I could frame a situation where one might need to kill another to protect his own life. It is also impossible to construct an absolute hierarchy of values; in the case of self-defense one values one's own life over that of the attacker, but one could reverse this, and sacrifice his own life for the welfare of others.

Just as a side note: every time I've used ethical discourse, you can replace with meaningful ethical discourse.

Well of course ethical discourse can be meaningful -- since you might hold it to be meaningful for yourself.

---

To a certain point I agree, but on the other hand, ALL arguments that something is favorable/not favorable are based in ethics. If you make an economics argument, it assumes that it's good to make/save money, and so on. The only thing that can ever be argued in such a case are if something is or isn't, and in many cases, you can't that either.

I think it's fine to use ethical arguments if both have a similar ethical viewpoint. If both people agree that "it's bad to unnessecarily cause suffering in another living being", then it's fine to use as an argument "the meat industry is bad, because it's unethical to unnessecarily cause suffering".

---

At 2/28/11 01:04 AM, KemCab wrote: In summary, rules are means to an end, where the end is that things run smoothly

Saying that things should run smoothly is basically a form of ethical/aesthetical argument.

---

At 3/4/11 03:47 AM, KemCab wrote: Suppose we say that we value human life and state that killing someone is immoral; but killing in self defense is excusable, so that statement of value is contradictory. In this case, then we can split "we value human life" into two statements:

"excusable" and "moral" are two different things, and this argument hinges on the assumption that morality is a discrete, binary factor. If I were to posit that an action can be a mixture of moral and immoral, wouldn't that shift the debate beyond the marginalizing of the import of moral reasoning?

The world is not made up of binary choices, but rather of organic choices that are always a fusion of the cultural (moral/ethical/subjective) and the natural (objective). To claim that an action is either on or the other leads us to the very conflict you seem to be stuck on: that of conflicting value. I would argue that the reasons for an ethical decision aren't subjective at all. In fact, most people will behave in very rational self-interest and we can deduce many of the reasons people act as they do and find the morality that they do. The difference between folk is the weight they give the reasons.

Some will find any harm done to another not worth it morally. That does not mean that they will not see the moral reasons to harm in self-defense or defense of others, rather that they put more stake in the fact that harming others is wrong. Others will easily harm in order to protect themselves or loved ones, but balk at harming to protect a stranger. The only thing about morality that is subjective is the weight given any reason, not the reasons themselves. And when we add that to the postulate that an action can be both moral and immoral at the same time (despite the apparent semantic contradiction), then we can have rational discussion about morality without marginalizing it to simple personal preference.

Shit, if 40% of Americans think Obama wasn't born in America, a verifiable fact, and if people can believe that the moon landing was faked, also verifiable, then the fact that a huge portion of the world all agrees that murder is wrong should tell you something about the import, and the reality of an underlying moral ethic for the human race.

---

At 3/4/11 04:13 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: To a certain point I agree, but on the other hand, ALL arguments that something is favorable/not favorable are based in ethics. If you make an economics argument, it assumes that it's good to make/save money, and so on.

No. I don't (objectively) claim that a nation being prosperous, for example, is a good thing, just that if this is what people value then X policy is a good one for achieving that end.

---

At 3/4/11 03:47 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 3/3/11 05:42 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: It is far from self-evident, as demonstrated by the fact that some of the greatest thinkers in history have disagreed with it.

Which ones?

Pick any moral realist. Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill, Aristotle, Plato, Nietzche (depending on where you read).

Subjective = dependent on the mind of the agent. Being of the same species, humans have similar minds. It is not outrageous to suggest that we share some core subjective values. It is plausible that we can have discussions about how to achieve situations which reflect these values. These conversations will have right and wrong answers.

First of all, name some of these values. Second, for every one of these values that you mention there will probably be someone in the world -- very many people, actually -- who does not share these values.

First, I never claimed to know what these core values were. Second, the idea of core values is that there are few exceptions. If you really want an example: Pain is bad. This is not to say that in all circumstances, pain is to be avoided. It is merely to say that it should weigh upon our decision making process. Imagine you want to make a cake. You're given two choices. Either you just make the cake, or you make it while cutting the fingers of a nearby child off. I would contend that the vast majority of humanity would agree that the former is the correct choice. Those who didn't would have to be severely mentally deficient in some respect (psychopaths for instance).

Thus it is not nonsense to have these debates.

Remember the ice cream analogy? Suppose we were to discuss our preferences in ice cream; once we were done indicating our choice of flavor and any reasons why we might choose a particular one over another, there is no point in discussing it any further.

You just don't seem to get the point of the John and Barry case. Let's say John always chooses chocolate. Barry always chooses vanilla. They get into a conversation about ice-cream. It turns out that John really loves the flavour of vanilla above all others, but doesn't choose it because he thinks it has nuts in and he hates nuts. Barry also hates nuts and loves the flavour of vanilla above all others. He informs John that there are no nuts in the vanilla ice-cream and John is converted. Due to their shared values, Barry and John could have a meaningful, subjective, aesthetic discussion.

There are many cases in ethics where the "right answer" does not seem to be apparent to everyone (aside from the fact that there really is no right answer) such as in the case of abortion. There will be one side for it, and another against, and there is no way either side is going to convince the other. It's just not going to happen -- if I try to talk to you about vanilla ice cream for two hours trying to convince you it's better, you're more likely to get fed up and walk away than believe me.

Just because it's not apparent does not mean it does not exist. Perhaps the shared core values of humanity will eventually lead us to a conclusive answer.

Not necessarily. And even if they are different, they may not be so different that we cannot have ethical discourse on at least some issues.

All people have different interpretations of the world, ethical or otherwise. If two friends have a discussion about ethics it is because they hold similar -- never the absolute same -- values and simply value a change of opinion. Engaging the opinions of someone who is diametrically opposed to your own values is not for the purposes of genuine exchange of opinion, but to dismantle his point of view.

I'm not proposing that people with completely different value judgements can have a discussion. I am making two statements:
1. People with similar value judgements can have a discussion in their areas of overlap.
2. Humanity has many shared value judgements and some core value judgements.

John was WRONG about something, and thus John and Barry could have meaningful ethical discourse.

In the scenario, the only thing John was "wrong" about was not taking into account the fact that he can get caught and that people would be disgusted by -- that is have a natural aversion to -- his actions. Whether or not he was morally wrong is still subjective.

You missed the point. The point was that John held ethical views that were contradictory to his own values. By appeal to John's values, Barry was able to have a meaningful ethical discussion with John, that resulted in a concrete change.

Values might be arbitrary, but it is certainly possible to avoid contradiction, by simply having one value. But even if we have multiple values, to which we assign different priorities, so long as everyone shares the same priority assignments, they can have ethical discourse.

Suppose we say that we value human life and state that killing someone is immoral; but killing in self defense is excusable, so that statement of value is contradictory. In this case, then we can split "we value human life" into two statements:

1. We value our own lives.
2. We value the lives of others.

Ultimately there are always places where these are contradictory -- I could frame a situation where one might need to kill another to protect his own life. It is also impossible to construct an absolute hierarchy of values; in the case of self-defense one values one's own life over that of the attacker, but one could reverse this, and sacrifice his own life for the welfare of others.

I'm not saying there is an objective hierarchy of values. I'm saying that there is a subjective hierarchy of values shared by the vast majority of humanity.

Just as a side note: every time I've used ethical discourse, you can replace with meaningful ethical discourse.

Well of course ethical discourse can be meaningful -- since you might hold it to be meaningful for yourself.

I think you have an unspoken belief here: that without objectivity, ethics dissolves into nonsense.

---

At 3/4/11 06:08 AM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: Nietzche (depending on where you read).

Nietzsche saw morality as a system of valuation; everyone HAS some sort of method of valuation, and therefore some sort of morality.

First, I never claimed to know what these core values were.

Then how can you talk about them in the first place!

Second, the idea of core values is that there are few exceptions. If you really want an example: Pain is bad. This is not to say that in all circumstances, pain is to be avoided. It is merely to say that it should weigh upon our decision making process.

So... there are exceptions to the rule? In other words, morality is not a sacrosanct precept, but just tools to interpret the world? -- That is, exactly what I have been saying about morality all along?

A hammer is a tool. Hammers are really good for pounding nails in. They're also really good for cracking people's skulls. They are not very good for screwing bolts. A wrench is good for screwing bolts, so you use that instead. However, if you tape a wrench to a hammer you are not making a new tool, nor are you making either implement any more useful. If you have no use for a tool, you discard it, you don't cling on to them.

Morality is a set of tools. However, unlike REAL tools, morality is comprised of ideas which can be applied or disregarded at any time. There might be some reasoning behind it, but there is nothing logical about it in itself.

Imagine you want to make a cake. You're given two choices. Either you just make the cake, or you make it while cutting th fingers of a nearby child off. I would contend that the vast majority of humanity would agree that the former is the correct choice.

That's a stupid argument. I mean, really. Most people would say that the second choice is stupid because it has nothing to do with the cake at all. Most people would also derive no pleasure from causing pain to a child for no reason, so this argument is completely nonsensical.

He informs John that there are no nuts in the vanilla ice-cream and John is converted. Due to their shared values, Barry and John could have a meaningful, subjective, aesthetic discussion.

That's not a CONVERSION. Barry would merely be INFORMING John that there are no nuts in the ice cream.

Just because it's not apparent does not mean it does not exist. Perhaps the shared core values of humanity will eventually lead us to a conclusive answer.

It doesn't exist at all; people merely hallucinate them. There are no right answers in ethics -- there are only optimal answers, and what is optimal for one party might not be for another. Even if we "share core values" it does not mean that there is a correct ethical solution for everything.

Suppose you were stuck on the island with another person with enough food for 45 days per person. A ship arrives in 90 days; if you shared the food equally with the other person you both would starve. You both value food and presumably you both value human life. However, since there is only enough food for one person, what you must do is KILL the other guy so you can have the food to yourself.

It's really not that hard.

1. People with similar value judgements can have a discussion in their areas of overlap.

This is the nature of all dialectic. Suppose you and I like video games and we are discussing whether Super Mario Bros. or Galaga was better. We come up with reasons for our viewpoints and exchange them, and then we part ways. If the other person modifies his opinion later on, that's his own business.

Bringing ethics into a political discussion is stupid because it doesn't put anything new on the table. A moral reaction is a gut reaction. It doesn't say anything beyond "I am making pretentious, moralistic judgments on things that do not really affect me."

I'm not saying there is an objective hierarchy of values. I'm saying that there is a subjective hierarchy of values shared by the vast majority of humanity.

Which are of course subject to change at any moment, so there is no use exploring them in any deep sense.

I think you have an unspoken belief here: that without objectivity, ethics dissolves into nonsense.

No; without a certain degree of objectivity, all debate dissolves into nonsense. Ethics already is nonsense. In other words, I don't want to hear anyone's dumb moralizing when they can't give a good reason for not doing something other than "it's wrong." I am interested inreasons, states of affairs, possibilities -- not "ethical exploration" or whatever.

---

At 3/4/11 04:13 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: To a certain point I agree, but on the other hand, ALL arguments that something is favorable/not favorable are based in ethics. If you make an economics argument, it assumes that it's good to make/save money, and so on. The only thing that can ever be argued in such a case are if something is or isn't, and in many cases, you can't that either.

It's based on implicit valuation. In an economics discussion, what one is really asking is not an ethical question, but something like "what is the optimum method of generating/distributing wealth in this context?"

I think it's fine to use ethical arguments if both have a similar ethical viewpoint.

Yes, but in a general forum like this people don't. Moreover, most people -- politicians included -- follow the contemptible slave morality when they look at things.

At 3/4/11 04:15 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 2/28/11 01:04 AM, KemCab wrote: In summary, rules are means to an end, where the end is that things run smoothly

Saying that things should run smoothly is basically a form of ethical/aesthetical argument.

Well, of course -- I think that things should run smoothly. I also imagine that other people want things to run smoothly as well. I didn't use the word "should" in this quoted part either. What I am saying is that rules are created to serve an end -- which is an objective statement, not an ethical argument.

At 3/4/11 04:39 AM, Ravariel wrote: this argument hinges on the assumption that morality is a discrete, binary factor.

Which most people see it as; morality is actually completely ineffable.

I would argue that the reasons for an ethical decision aren't subjective at all.

A reason from which one derives an ethical decision might be objective or subjective to varying degrees, but the resultant interpretation is always subjective.

And when we add that to the postulate that an action can be both moral and immoral at the same time (despite the apparent semantic contradiction), then we can have rational discussion about morality without marginalizing it to simple personal preference.

How can you have a rational discussion when you construct a proposition that contradicts itself?

---

At 3/4/11 04:24 PM, KemCab wrote: Nietzsche saw morality as a system of valuation; everyone HAS some sort of method of valuation, and therefore some sort of morality.

So you acknowledge all of the other examples?

So... there are exceptions to the rule? In other words, morality is not a sacrosanct precept, but just tools to interpret the world? -- That is, exactly what I have been saying about morality all along?

Actually you said it was nonsense. The idea of useful nonsense is incoherent.

A hammer is a tool. Hammers are really good for pounding nails in. They're also really good for cracking people's skulls. They are not very good for screwing bolts. A wrench is good for screwing bolts, so you use that instead. However, if you tape a wrench to a hammer you are not making a new tool, nor are you making either implement any more useful. If you have no use for a tool, you discard it, you don't cling on to them.

Morality is a set of tools. However, unlike REAL tools, morality is comprised of ideas which can be applied or disregarded at any time. There might be some reasoning behind it, but there is nothing logical about it in itself.

Please don't draw analogies which you immediately abandon. "Morality is like a tool, but unlike a tool." Just be honest and make your assertions. Also the notion of reasoning is pretty damn well linked to the notion of logic, so you might want to rephrase that.

That's a stupid argument. I mean, really. Most people would say that the second choice is stupid because it has nothing to do with the cake at all. Most people would also derive no pleasure from causing pain to a child for no reason, so this argument is completely nonsensical.

If you claim that ethics is nonsense, the decision between causing the child pain or not is just a matter of preference. If someone feels like doing it, that's fine. There would be no way of convincing them to do otherwise, even if they firmly held the reduction of human suffering as a value, because apparently even people with slightly different values exist in their own universe of ethics and could thus only spout nonsense at the person doing the harm. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that this sounds stupid.

That's not a CONVERSION. Barry would merely be INFORMING John that there are no nuts in the ice cream.

Informing? As in John is gaining information? Doesn't that make the conversation... MEANINGFUL? As in... not nonsense? But we're discussing aesthetics! How could it possibly not be nonsense!

It doesn't exist at all; people merely hallucinate them.

Assertion.

There are no right answers in ethics -- there are only optimal answers, and what is optimal for one party might not be for another. Even if we "share core values" it does not mean that there is a correct ethical solution for everything.

Relative to those core values there would be.

Suppose you were stuck on the island with another person with enough food for 45 days per person. A ship arrives in 90 days; if you shared the food equally with the other person you both would starve. You both value food and presumably you both value human life. However, since there is only enough food for one person, what you must do is KILL the other guy so you can have the food to yourself.

It's really not that hard.

In your example, both people shared the same subjective hierarchy of values. They could have had meaningful ethical discussions, resulting in both of them having the conclusion that the other should die. Which one ends up dying is ethically neutral in this example.

This is the nature of all dialectic. Suppose you and I like video games and we are discussing whether Super Mario Bros. or Galaga was better. We come up with reasons for our viewpoints and exchange them, and then we part ways. If the other person modifies his opinion later on, that's his own business.

Did the two people have a meaningful conversation? Could they have had a meaningful conversation?

Which are of course subject to change at any moment, so there is no use exploring them in any deep sense.

They aren't really subject to change at any moment. Humanity would have to become almost unrecognisable from its current state for that to happen. Change is very, very slow. Thus there is every use exploring them in a deep sense, so that we can use them to form the basis of our lives as humans.

No; without a certain degree of objectivity, all debate dissolves into nonsense. Ethics already is nonsense. In other words, I don't want to hear anyone's dumb moralizing when they can't give a good reason for not doing something other than "it's wrong." I am interested inreasons, states of affairs, possibilities -- not "ethical exploration" or whatever.

Give me an example of a motivating reason for action that does not have a subjective value judgement embedded in it.

---

Thought I posted here earlier, I guess not.

Anyway, the underlying point of government is to reach the perfect society where everyone is equal (or having sufficient needs) and no need for government after (implying the world being a unified one), however people debate on how to do this (Liberals) and if some aspects are already perfect (Conservatives) otherwise known as politics. And so since that's the goal you generally want laws you wouldn't mind being applied to you, ones that are morally acceptable hence the equality part, so yes morales are necessary as they are components of the perfect society where people support each other and since we strive to make the government as perfect as possible it does so.

---

At 3/4/11 05:06 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: So you acknowledge all of the other examples?

I don't know. I haven't read them and I don't care if they're right or not.

Actually you said it was nonsense.

I also wrote, earlier in the thread, this: "The problems begin when you look at morality as an end rather than a means. That is, laws, morals, ethical codes of conduct, procedure, et cetera, are all there to facilitate the business of things within a particular context."

The idea of useful nonsense is incoherent.

Political rhetoric is useful nonsense. It is useful in the sense that it can be used to trick stupid voters.

Please don't draw analogies which you immediately abandon. "Morality is like a tool, but unlike a tool." Just be honest and make your assertions.

An analogy is also a tool -- to make a point, that is. At some point it is divorced from reality and I discard it; for example, a moral value cannot be broken in the sense that a tool can be broken.

Also the notion of reasoning is pretty damn well linked to the notion of logic, so you might want to rephrase that.

Reasoning is distinct from logic. Reasoning employs logic but it is not actually logic in itself.

If you claim that ethics is nonsense, the decision between causing the child pain or not is just a matter of preference. If someone feels like doing it, that's fine.

But it's not "just a matter of preference" -- there are other factors at work here. I would not torture a child not only because I find it unpleasant and revolting, but because people would think extremely negatively of me and because I would most likely face legal consequences.

There would be no way of convincing them to do otherwise, even if they firmly held the reduction of human suffering as a value

No, there is at least one way: using force as a deterrent.

because apparently even people with slightly different values exist in their own universe of ethics and could thus only spout nonsense at the person doing the harm.

Ultimately what they are saying is nonsensical even if their response is reasonable. When one says, "this is wrong" they are not expressing an inherent truth about the universe or even about their own sense of morality, but expressing their revulsion and disgust towards the event in question.

Informing? As in John is gaining information? Doesn't that make the conversation... MEANINGFUL? As in... not nonsense? But we're discussing aesthetics! How could it possibly not be nonsense!

The value of the conversation to John has nothing to do with their tastes. Their statement of their own opinions about ice cream merely advanced the conversation and is empty in itself. John incorrectly thought that vanilla ice cream had nuts; Barry was simply informing him that it was not true -- this is the only part of the conversation that has "meaning" to John.

Assertion.

Well of course, how many more times do I have to explain that ethical questions are subjective and therefore have no right answer? Your entire argument was that we could find a "right answer" through the "shared core values" of humanity -- this is essentially an appeal to majority.

In your example, both people shared the same subjective hierarchy of values. They could have had meaningful ethical discussions, resulting in both of them having the conclusion that the other should die. Which one ends up dying is ethically neutral in this example.

It's hard to have a meaningful ethical discussion with somebody who wants to slit your throat. In fact there is not even any point in discussing it because it is self-evident.

Did the two people have a meaningful conversation? Could they have had a meaningful conversation?

Well, it depends on whether or not they think it was meaningful to them lol. "Meaning" is relative. The conversation would not be meaningful for someone who wasn't interested in videogames.

They aren't really subject to change at any moment. Humanity would have to become almost unrecognisable from its current state for that to happen. Change is very, very slow.

Change isn't that slow -- humanity has had a drastic revaluation of all values within the last two thousand years or so; it's called Christianity. It has only been a few centuries before even that was completely overturned as well.

Thus there is every use exploring them in a deep sense, so that we can use them to form the basis of our lives as humans.

No, not really. Ultimately the only thing that matters is what I think; I don't really care what other people think, except in the sense that what they think affects how they interact with me. All our interpretations are subjective; the only reason we engage in conversation is either because we find it entertaining or stimulating. There is nothing to gain from an a purely ethical discussion simply because every single person in the world is capable of making their own personal ethical conclusions -- even children.

Give me an example of a motivating reason for action that does not have a subjective value judgement embedded in it.

All reasons for doing things rely on value judgments, that would be pointless.

I am not against subjective evaluations on principle -- all evaluations are subjective. In a discussion, one is not so much interested about the other person's opinions as opposed to how they came to that conclusion. Anyone can make ethical conclusions on their own. The only reason one would engage in an ethical discussion is to trick the other person into realigning their values with whatever you want them to believe. It is not really discussion, it is propaganda.

---

At 3/5/11 07:33 PM, KemCab wrote: I don't know. I haven't read them and I don't care if they're right or not.

The reason I brought them up was because you said something was self-evident which was not.

Political rhetoric is useful nonsense. It is useful in the sense that it can be used to trick stupid voters.

Then we have different definitions of nonsense.

Also the notion of reasoning is pretty damn well linked to the notion of logic, so you might want to rephrase that.

Reasoning is distinct from logic. Reasoning employs logic but it is not actually logic in itself.

I didn't say that it was.

But it's not "just a matter of preference" -- there are other factors at work here. I would not torture a child not only because I find it unpleasant and revolting, but because people would think extremely negatively of me and because I would most likely face legal consequences.

So if a person did not find it unpleasant or revolting, and nobody would find out, there is nothing left to appeal to? I'd also point out that your aversion to unpleasantness, revulsion, the bad thoughts of others and legal consequences seem to appeal to the moral statement "I ought to look after myself", once more (according to you) just a matter of preference.

No, there is at least one way: using force as a deterrent.

And those that are not deterred by force? Another issue that arises from this is that your decision to use force as a deterrent implies that there is not sufficient reason for them to be deterred otherwise. How do you decide what to use force to prohibit? On some level you're always just applying your preferences to the world. What right have you to do that?

Ultimately what they are saying is nonsensical even if their response is reasonable.

Seriously, you need to choose another word than "nonsensical". The idea of a reasonable, yet nonsensical statement is ironically, nonsensical.

The value of the conversation to John has nothing to do with their tastes. Their statement of their own opinions about ice cream merely advanced the conversation and is empty in itself. John incorrectly thought that vanilla ice cream had nuts; Barry was simply informing him that it was not true -- this is the only part of the conversation that has "meaning" to John.

Doesn't it have meaning universally? The sentence "The Vanilla Ice cream has nuts in" has meaning. Maybe ethical discourse is this type of correction. Perhaps when people say "Abortion is always right!" They just haven't followed through some of their values. Ethical discourse is thus the attempted illuminations of these failings of follow through.

Well of course, how many more times do I have to explain that ethical questions are subjective and therefore have no right answer?

The answer to subjective questions depend upon the answerer. They have right answers relative to the answerer. If there are multiple answerers with identical answering criteria, there will be a right answer relative to the group. I believe that with regards to ethics, there is the possibility that humans have the same answering criteria and so there is a right answer to these questions (relative to us).

this is essentially an appeal to majority.

Close, but no cigar. It's more nuanced than that. The majority may not have easy access to their own core values. The majority may be like John in our example.

It's hard to have a meaningful ethical discussion with somebody who wants to slit your throat. In fact there is not even any point in discussing it because it is self-evident.

What is self evident? If you mean the ethical conclusion, once more I'd point you to the realists. Kant would have both men starve. A utilitarian would state that it did not matter which of you died (and would probably have both draw straws).

"Meaning" is relative.

We're talking about different definitions of the word meaning, then.

Change isn't that slow -- humanity has had a drastic revaluation of all values within the last two thousand years or so; it's called Christianity. It has only been a few centuries before even that was completely overturned as well.

And you think that a few centuries is not long enough to get ANYWHERE? Change is slow enough to make progress. Also it is arguable whether your examples are actual changes in the core values.

No, not really. Ultimately the only thing that matters is what I think; I don't really care what other people think, except in the sense that what they think affects how they interact with me. All our interpretations are subjective; the only reason we engage in conversation is either because we find it entertaining or stimulating. There is nothing to gain from an a purely ethical discussion simply because every single person in the world is capable of making their own personal ethical conclusions -- even children.

You made many assertions here, please back them up.

All reasons for doing things rely on value judgments, that would be pointless.

I'm glad we agree on this. Could you elaborate on why other forms of discussion about what action to perform are not "nonsense", despite being similarly based on subjective values that differ from person to person.

I am not against subjective evaluations on principle -- all evaluations are subjective. In a discussion, one is not so much interested about the other person's opinions as opposed to how they came to that conclusion. Anyone can make ethical conclusions on their own.

Perhaps in a world of perfect thinking machines this would work, but people tend to fail at deductive reasoning.

The only reason one would engage in an ethical discussion is to trick the other person into realigning their values with whatever you want them to believe. It is not really discussion, it is propaganda.

Or it is revealing the deductive errors of their ways.

---

At 3/5/11 08:50 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: The reason I brought them up was because you said something was self-evident which was not.

Maybe I need to re-evaluate my expectations of humanity -- considering that they cannot even realize simple things like that.

Then we have different definitions of nonsense.

Nonsense is something that lacks coherent meaning. All ethics is ultimately inexpressible; any attempt to express it into words results in something that can be boiled down to nonsense. Nonsense does not equal worthless, which is probably the term that you were thinking about, since the very concept of worth is relative anyway.

I didn't say that it was.

Then why would I need to rephrase that sentence?

So if a person did not find it unpleasant or revolting, and nobody would find out, there is nothing left to appeal to?

Uh, exactly? Is it really that hard to figure out?

If I were to be stuck on a deserted island for the rest of my life and I found another person there, there would be no imperative for me to respect that other person other than his ability to use force as a deterrent. If I could -- and wanted to -- overcome that person's ability to defend himself, I could kill him, enslave him, torture him, whatever, and still be able to sleep at night.

I'd also point out that your aversion to unpleasantness, revulsion, the bad thoughts of others and legal consequences seem to appeal to the moral statement "I ought to look after myself", once more (according to you) just a matter of preference.

Well, of course -- THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. What exactly are you trying to do here? Don't confuse my personal preferences with my arguments. It is not hard to differentiate between the two. I am only bringing it up in order to prevent anybody in this topic from bringing up an appeal to emotion.

And those that are not deterred by force?

You use force against them.

Another issue that arises from this is that your decision to use force as a deterrent implies that there is not sufficient reason for them to be deterred otherwise.

You can never truly "know" whether there is sufficient reason or not -- it is simply prudent to prepare for the worst and be able to use force as a deterrent (defense) instead of not preparing for such a scenario in the first place.

How do you decide what to use force to prohibit?

Easy, it's called using your head and determining what would be most beneficial for you.

On some level you're always just applying your preferences to the world.

Everybody does this; everyone strives to change the world in some way, however small or large it may be.

What right have you to do that?

I have every "right" to do so insofar as I can enforce it. Might makes right.

Seriously, you need to choose another word than "nonsensical". The idea of a reasonable, yet nonsensical statement is ironically, nonsensical.

Seriously, you need to stop confusing words and phrases. I said what they are saying is nonsensical but their response might be reasonable -- i.e. THEIR WORDS are nonsensical, but the OVERALL ACTION of fabricating a response may be reasonable.

It can be reasonable to utter something nonsensical. If you are the President, for example, it would be in your interest to deliver a speech filled with complete rhetorical nonsense for the masses to eat up -- that is the WORDS THEMSELVES are nonsensical -- but making the speech is not an unreasonable action in itself.

Doesn't it have meaning universally?

NO. NOTHING HAS MEANING "UNIVERSALLY."

Before you make the (now predictable) comment that this is an assertion, look at it this way: an idiot or a brick wall will derive nothing from me trying to explain the most profound concepts in philosophy to them -- such ideas would have NO MEANING TO THEM. There is no universal meaning -- that is completely ridiculous.

The sentence "The Vanilla Ice cream has nuts in" has meaning.

Not to someone who doesn't give a damn about vanilla ice cream or nuts.

The answer to subjective questions depend upon the answerer. They have right answers relative to the answerer. If there are multiple answerers with identical answering criteria, there will be a right answer relative to the group. I believe that with regards to ethics, there is the possibility that humans have the same answering criteria and so there is a right answer to these questions (relative to us).

And this is where you are completely mistaken -- you are assuming that humanity has consensus.

If you treat a group as an entity, the "right answer" is one that the group as a whole comes to. There may be dissenting opinions but they are generally suppressed by the weight of the majority -- the minority has no will or means to really resist. This state of affairs is "good for the group" but not necessarily for certain individuals therein.

Humanity does not have any consensus on anything. There are many competing interests, many competing "moral philosophies", religions, et cetera, all striving for dominance. To proclaim there are universal values would be an absurdity, even "relative to humanity." If you were to assert that, you would essentially be trying to assert the dominance of your values over others, the values that you think are right, and trick the vast majority of humanity into accepting those values as absolute truths to human beings even though there really are none.

In other words, you are trying to assert a herd mentality, a slave mentality -- "what is best for the whole" even though that does not even really matter.

The majority may not have easy access to their own core values.

So the majority shares these values but they don't know it yet. It is up to the enlightened to reveal it to them.

What is self evident? If you mean the ethical conclusion, once more I'd point you to the realists. Kant would have both men starve.

That's completely idiotic.

A utilitarian would state that it did not matter which of you died

Sort of right, yes... but then again what "matters" is entirely relative -- it would not matter to the clumsy utilitarian empiricist watching on the sidelines which person actually lived or not so what he thinks is irrelevant.

(and would probably have both draw straws).

That's pretty idiotic too. Why draw straws when you can just throttle each other?

You made many assertions here, please back them up.

Okay, do this: run through a list of ALL the reasons you would not try to kill the next person you come across. Do this as many times as you want. Once you have done this, tell me whether you were able to come to your own ethical conclusions, or that you needed someone to hold your hand and tell you what is right and wrong for you.

Could you elaborate on why other forms of discussion about what action to perform are not "nonsense", despite being similarly based on subjective values that differ from person to person.

Suppose we're both interested in television sets. I state that a particular model A is better than model B; you state the reverse. We present our arguments for our cases and then we change the subject or part ways -- and in the process we might gain some information or insight. Each person's arguments are based upon observations about facts in the world which may be right or wrong -- and in the process we may gain something from the conversation.

All ethics and morality is part of our system of valuation which is an inherent part of our consciousness -- trying to teach ethics is like trying to teach someone how to think or breathe.

people tend to fail at deductive reasoning.

You don't have to be a computer to do it. We do it all the time.

Or it is revealing the deductive errors of their ways.

If it were "revealing the deductive errors" of one's ways it would not be a discussion of ethics at all.

---

At 3/6/11 04:46 PM, KemCab wrote: All ethics and morality is part of our system of valuation which is an inherent part of our consciousness -- trying to teach ethics is like trying to teach someone how to think or breathe.

Wait hold up right there. I'm not trying to be picky (though I can't help myself half the time) but are you suggesting we have 'innate' knowledge of morality, or that we receive it organically from our environment?

From an empirical census, I'm sure Hitler taught ethics to the Arian race just fine, convincing them they were Ubermench and all.

---

At 3/6/11 05:28 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 3/6/11 04:46 PM, KemCab wrote: All ethics and morality is part of our system of valuation which is an inherent part of our consciousness -- trying to teach ethics is like trying to teach someone how to think or breathe.

Wait hold up right there. I'm not trying to be picky (though I can't help myself half the time) but are you suggesting we have 'innate' knowledge of morality, or that we receive it organically from our environment?

OR, or are you going to pull a Beyond Good and Evil, and run down the whole 'master and slave' morality path; which is something I'm very sceptical on.

Neitzche makes many many many assertions in Beyond Good and Evil, the other books I have not had the luxury of reading just yet though.

---

At 3/6/11 05:28 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Wait hold up right there. I'm not trying to be picky (though I can't help myself half the time) but are you suggesting we have 'innate' knowledge of morality, or that we receive it organically from our environment?

We create our own sense of morality, just like we develop other kinds of valuation. We do not have "innate knowledge" of it. We do this through learning as well as through cultural conditioning and outright brainwashing.

At 3/6/11 05:40 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: and run down the whole 'master and slave' morality path; which is something I'm very sceptical on.

He makes salient points. I don't see how you could be all that skeptical.