WWW Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Ethics- Moral principles that governs a person's or group's behavior. Morality- Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Both the forces of creation and destruction are intrinsically present throughout the universe as a necessary dichotomy that fuels our existence. Somehow we manage to label one as right and one as wrong when we exist in a reality in which everything is interconnected symbiotically as one. Ethics and morality are inherently rooted from the perspective of human beings, and often require an increased level of awareness and understanding sprinkled with empathy to universalize these ethical and moral, socially accepted principles entirely. Generally, what is good for the human race is often deemed morally justifiable or "good" in the eyes of society, and what is not beneficial to mankind as "bad" or unacceptable. This predisposition towards the growth or expansion of the human race is genetically engrained in our psyche from our conception, and tends to fabricate a kind of "skin-bag bias" prevalent throughout all of humanity, where what is beneficial to us in the short term or long term is often the preferred propensity of behavior. At what point does the well-being of the earth, the moon, sun, stars, galaxies, etc. outweigh the importance of the existence of man? Is it only when our existence as a species is threatened as a result? Why should we care about anything?
dsayers Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I'm not sure I grasp how the "well-being" of the moon explains a topic title of good vs evil.
WWW Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 Would you consider the destruction of the moon a "good" or an "evil" act?
tiepolo Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Humans have every right to prioritise what is good for humanity, and call it 'good'. If we lost the moon without great disasters befalling mankind then it would be no great loss compared to disasters befalling mankind! Killing a baby would be a worse act, in and of itself, than blowing up the moon.
WWW Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 Tiepolo, The destruction of the moon would have much larger, devastating implications affecting mankind than you are giving the scenario credit for, but that is really besides the point. What gives mankind the right to label anything "good" or "evil"?
dsayers Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Would you consider the destruction of the moon a "good" or an "evil" act? This doesn't even acknowledge my curiosity. Why should I take your input seriously if you cannot be bothered to do as much? Is this not a topic you created? Isn't it your responsibility as the initiator of communication to make an effort towards making your communication understandable? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
WWW Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 You asked how the title "Good vs. Evil" pertains to the well-being of the moon. I responded with the question "Would you consider the destruction of the moon a 'good' or an 'evil' act?". Your answer to this question would hopefully answer your initial question. My intent was to further the conversation with you on this topic. Does that make sense?
labmath2 Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I would rephrase the question as "how far removed from an action does one have to be to avoid taking responsibility for the action?" We would all agree that murder is immoral. What if i did not murder someone, i just put snakes in their apartment? is that far enough removed that i can be absolved of responsibility? To bring it back to his discussion, knowing that if i blow up the moon, it would have effects on a lot of things (like tide) that could have catastrophic effects on humanity, does the act become immoral. I think an easier example would be setting fire in a forest without knowing how far it would burn through the forest possibly affecting people's ability to hunt or nearby towns.
WWW Posted May 2, 2014 Author Posted May 2, 2014 Ethics and morality essentially describe universally preferable behavior ever-changing and prevalent throughout humanity, but according to the perspective of human beings leaving out 99.9999999% of the rest of the universe. In other words, it is completely bias towards human beings. We are merely a parasitical species on host planet earth. At what point does the human race as a whole become an obstruction or hindrance to life itself as it exists throughout the rest of the universe? Shouldn't universally preferable behavior be applied universally, for lack of a more appropriate synonym, taking into account all of existence as opposed to favoring our species (skin-bag bias)?
cynicist Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 What gives mankind the right to label anything "good" or "evil"? Seems like you are looking at the topic of ethics through a subjective lens. UPB is based on logic, which itself is derived from the consistent behavior of matter/energy in the universe. Morality, being objective, is not dependent on the labels that humans give it. Shouldn't universally preferable behavior be applied universally, for lack of a more appropriate synonym, taking into account all of existence as opposed to favoring our species (skin-bag bias)? How is it not universal?
WWW Posted May 2, 2014 Author Posted May 2, 2014 Ethics, morality and UPB are fundamentally subjective ideologies by their very nature, because they are derived solely from the human experience. The forces of creation (life) and the forces of destruction (death) are both essential for a reality in which everything operates symbiotically as one to exist. Right and wrong is subjective because it is rooted from perspective when obtained in such a paradigm that requires two opposing forces in order to manifest existence. This understanding or perspective of "good" and "evil" is the knowledge forbade by a multitude of mainstream religions, and for good reason. The comprehension of this objective truth goes against our very nature as living beings because it is counterproductive to our existence as a species. This is the objective truth, anything more is simply foreplay for consciousness.
cynicist Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Ethics, morality and UPB are fundamentally subjective ideologies by their very nature, because they are derived solely from the human experience. Science is UPB. Do you think science is subjective?
fractional slacker Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 "Ethics, morality and UPB are fundamentally subjective ideologies..." Compared to what?
dsayers Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Ethics, morality and UPB are fundamentally subjective ideologies by their very nature These concepts would have absolutely no value if they were subjective. I don't know how effective this feedback will be, but your post history appears to be that of somebody who is all output and no input. Such people tend to have very little to offer in terms of honesty and accuracy as a result of their lack of effort towards refinement.
WWW Posted May 2, 2014 Author Posted May 2, 2014 cynicist, Science = UPB? Then why not use the term 'Science" rather than 'Universally Preferable Behavior'? It would definitely save some time and alleviate confusion. The methodology certainly appears objective, but since both Science and UPB are prone to human error and are based solely on human perspective technically they both are subjective ideologies. Only absolute truth can ever be objective, and given our limited spectrum of senses, I don't think it is possible for our minds to possibly conceive Truth. Objective is a term that is thrown around to haphazardly in Philosophy.Objective- Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in representing facts; not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. fractional slacker, Compared to absolute truth, reality, etc. dsayers, These ideologies certainly have value, but remember Science fundamentally is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. In other words it's an observable (derived from the human perspective) methodology used to describe our reality meaning that it is inescapably subjective by its very nature. In the defense of Science, Morality and Ethics may very well be as objective as humanly possible, but cannot be defined as objective including comprehensively or totally encompassing, absolute truth. I appreciate the constructive criticism, I will certainly keep that in mind. Thank you for your honesty. Also, I do like your signature, it speaks volumes of your intentions.
cynicist Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 cynicist, Science = UPB? Then why not use the term 'Science" rather than 'Universally Preferable Behavior'? It would definitely save some time and alleviate confusion. The methodology certainly appears objective, but since both Science and UPB are prone to human error and are based solely on human perspective technically they both are subjective ideologies. Only absolute truth can ever be objective, and given our limited spectrum of senses, I don't think it is possible for our minds to possibly conceive Truth. Objective is a term that is thrown around to haphazardly in Philosophy. Wait, so we are unable to conceive truth?
WWW Posted May 2, 2014 Author Posted May 2, 2014 Our intelligence and our senses are limited, therefore we can never really conceive, understand, comprehend absolute truth only a vague interpretation of it derived from the human perspective/ experience.
dsayers Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 In other words it's an observable (derived from the human perspective) methodology used to describe our reality meaning that it is inescapably subjective by its very nature. In this context, the word objective then has no meaning. I've heard Searle talk about that, so I understand what you're saying. But objective means independent of one's mind. Just because I experience a chair subjectively does not make the statement "That is a chair" subjective. Just as starting from first principles, we arrive at the statement "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral," which is objective morality.
cynicist Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Our intelligence and our senses are limited, therefore we can never really conceive, understand, comprehend absolute truth only a vague interpretation of it derived from the human perspective/ experience. I don't know if you are aware of this but you are essentially arguing Plato's Theory of Forms, which has some serious logical problems. See Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy series and you will get a better understanding of why this argument is problematic.
WWW Posted May 2, 2014 Author Posted May 2, 2014 dsayers,I agree with what you have stated except for the second to last word. We develop abstractions or principles within the context of our limited perception of reality (which is subjective practice by definition) in order to further improve or enhance the quality and overall understanding of our existence. To claim otherwise would be like claiming: subjective abstraction plus subjective abstraction equals objective truth, or 0 + 0 = 2. This methodology (logic and reason as opposed to spiritual enlightenment, which is topic for an entirely different forum ) is the closest that we can come to objectivity within the scope of the human experience, which is why I adhere to the methodology of Philosophy or truth seeking in general, as it improves the quality and meaning of my life and brings me closer to the understand and comprehension of absolute truth.To continue on with the original topic, it is not the polarity or spectrum of our experiences (desirable or undesirable) that improves the caliber of the essence of our existence, but rather the quality of these experiences (desirable or undesirable). I know Stefan isn't a big fan of Ghandi, but this quote is completely relevant in this context: Everything that you do in life will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. What would the implications of this notion have on society in general if it were understood, accepted and put into practice by the masses? Would it completely destroy our species as a whole, or would it bring us collectively closer to the understanding or comprehension of absolute truth, greatly improving the overall quality and meaning of our lives? cynicist, I am aware of Plato's theory of forms, and it too is subjective by definition because it is still derived from our perception of objective or absolute truth. Our interpretation of reality, or in Plato's case: perfect forms, is just that, an interpretation of reality, unfortunately there is no way around it (that I'm aware of). There are many theories as to the effectiveness of drugs, spiritual enlightenment through meditation, etc. that are effective alternatives, but there is no case to be made rationally or logically.
Pepin Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 Sorry, this may be a little annoying. Both the forces of creation and destruction are intrinsically present throughout the universe as a necessary dichotomy that fuels our existence. No clue what this means and how it relates to ethics. Somehow we manage to label one as right and one as wrong when we exist in a reality in which everything is interconnected symbiotically as one. Is the claim that: Reality is a single thing Right and wrong are apply to reality This is a contradiction in a sense in that opposites properties apply to a single concept If so, the error is in the definition of reality. Reality is a concept which contains all things that exists. Since the concept is measuring only whether something exists, and not the properties of any particular existent, the claim can be reduced to Reality is comprised of all existents Right and wrong apply to existents Right and wrong apply to different classes within the set "reality" If not, then ignore the above. Ethics and morality are inherently rooted from the perspective of human beings, and often require an increased level of awareness and understanding sprinkled with empathy to universalize these ethical and moral, socially accepted principles entirely. I can guess what this sentence entails, but there is far too much going on in it to understand. For instance, with the first statement, are you claiming that ethics and morality are only understood by humans? That the concepts do not exist without humans? What does "inherently rooted from the perspective" mean?. With the second statement, I have no idea why awareness and empathy contribute to ethics and morality, what they have to do with universalization, nor what "socially accepted principles" mean. Also, why is the qualifier "often" applied? Trust that I am not being nitpicky, but rather that it is incredibly difficult for someone to really understand the argument if it isn't expanded and simplified. These sorts of phrases are perfectly acceptable when discussing these ideas with those who are familiar with these particular ideas, but not with others. A large difficulty is that these phrases and words have completely different meanings when used by other people. As I'm certain that you have debated plenty of people online and in person, they might use a word or a phrase and you think you know what it means, but then to find out they are using it in a way you've never seen. Understand that I wouldn't be putting so much effort into criticizing your post if I didn't think you were intelligent, or if I thought you were spewing nonsense. It is obvious there is a lot of thought going on behind the scenes, but it is difficult for people to understand these ideas if not translated to a friendly format, otherwise people will hallucinate and misunderstand the things you said every couple of sentences. I can guess as to what you mean, but chances are that I am going to guess wrong, and the conversation will focus on irrelevancies to your actual argument. I have gone through this far too many times. Generally, what is good for the human race is often deemed morally justifiable or "good" in the eyes of society, and what is not beneficial to mankind as "bad" or unacceptable. By many people yes, but ought this be the case? Are there issues with this theory? The primary issue I have with the claim is that it is a concept applied to a set of individuals, yet does not apply to each individual, like in social contract theory. Since humans retain their individualistic properties in any quantity, "the good of mankind" would reduce to "the good of every individual". This predisposition towards the growth or expansion of the human race is genetically engrained in our psyche from our conception, and tends to fabricate a kind of "skin-bag bias" prevalent throughout all of humanity, where what is beneficial to us in the short term or long term is often the preferred propensity of behavior. I am having a difficult time understanding what this means, especially "skin-bag bias", and am unable to comment on it. At what point does the well-being of the earth, the moon, sun, stars, galaxies, etc. outweigh the importance of the existence of man? Is it only when our existence as a species is threatened as a result? Why should we care about anything? Well-being isn't a concept that can apply to the moon, stars, or galaxies. Importance is a subjective concept and cannot result in definite answers. Comparing well-being to importance, also while attempting to establish a relation between man and the cosmos, is pretty non-nonsensical. No clue how the second sentence relates to the first, nor the rest. Same goes for the final question.
WWW Posted May 3, 2014 Author Posted May 3, 2014 Pepin, Thank you for your response. I only know of a handful of people who can effectively translate their thoughts into a format that can be almost entirely comprehended by the majority of a general audience, so I apologize ahead of time for any confusion my ability to accurately (or not accurately) describe my thoughts may bring you. The limitations of language are aggravating to say the least. Basically what I am suggesting is that given the nature of reality (reality requires two opposing forces: creation/destruction, something/nothing, life/death, etc.) how is it that we (as human beings) can differentiate between the two by labeling one as "good" and one as "evil" solely based on our perception of these forces as being desirable or undesirable? Let me know if that makes sense or if you need me to reword it.
Pepin Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 I appreciate your response. I think I might understand what you are saying, so I'll attempt to make the argument, of course in my own way. Tell me what you think. Opposites exist in the universe. Though there are many examples, a simple one is that up is the opposite of down. These are binary states in that if it is one, it cannot be the other. If something is moving up, it cannot also be moving it the opposite direction: down. We as humans perceive these properties through our senses, and conceptualize them. For instance, the specific instance is If this rock is moving up Then it is not moving down A rock cannot move up and down at the same time A generalization of this is If A is X Then it is not Y A cannot be X and Y at the same time The observation is ultimately empirical, though the thought experiment of imagining a point moving up and down at the same time is also likely to have some sway. The above line or reasoning is condensed into the word "opposite". This conceptualization allows for a wider application and identification of opposites. With this conceptualization of opposites, it can be applied to ethics through identification of opposite characteristics. As a proponent of UPB, this measurement of good or evil would look at an interaction and the preferences involved. Preferred and preferred behavior are opposites in that they cannot apply to the same interaction at the same time. If ethical theories intend to apply to the entire human race, and if ethical theories intend to make claims about preferred behavior, then ethical theories must be put through various logical tests to ensure that any preferred behavior can be universalized.
WWW Posted May 5, 2014 Author Posted May 5, 2014 Pepin, Your perspective is certainly valid, and I enjoyed reading your response. It definitely seems like you've put some serious thought into it. This perspective seems to still apply within the context of UPB as it pertains to the human perspective. Stefan makes an excellent case in proving that UPB exists within the constructs of our minds as a way of socially connecting or interacting with each other, with the intrinsically present common or universal goal of preserving, growing, and improving the quality of life of the human species in general. Essentially what I am suggesting is that outside of the preferences within the constructs of our minds exists the forces of creation and destruction necessary for existence. How is it that we (as human being) can label these forces as "good" or "evil" solely based on our perception of them as being desirable or undesirable. We see everything from the viewpoint of the human perspective, but if you were to flip that and look at it from the perspective of the rest of the Universe, what we perceive as "good" and "evil" are neutral forces necessary for the existence of reality. The Universe sees us as a parasitical species living on the host planet Earth similar to how we would view an ant nest in the middle of a forest. What is perceived as "good" and "evil" to the ant nest isn't considered "good" and "evil" for the human species, and what is perceived as "good" and "evil" to humans isn't "good" or "evil" according to the rest of the universe, they are considered neutral forces. I hope that makes more sense, let me know what you think.
square4 Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Ethics and morality essentially describe universally preferable behavior ever-changing and prevalent throughout humanity, but according to the perspective of human beings leaving out 99.9999999% of the rest of the universe. In other words, it is completely bias towards human beings. True ethics must take into account all sentient beings. We should not have an unfounded bias towards ourselves. Ethical vegetarianism is an example of ethics that is not completely biased towards human beings. At what point does the human race as a whole become an obstruction or hindrance to life itself as it exists throughout the rest of the universe? If we find evidence this is the case, let us incorporate it into our ethical theory. Shouldn't universally preferable behavior be applied universally, for lack of a more appropriate synonym, taking into account all of existence as opposed to favoring our species (skin-bag bias)? Yes, it should be applied universally. What gives mankind the right to label anything "good" or "evil"? Some behavior is harmful and based on selfishness, which shows it to be evil. Suppose this evil act had unintended beneficial consequences for an alien civilization. It would still be an evil act, because evil is dependent on the intention. We cannot be required to take into account what we don't know. The Universe sees us as a parasitical species living on the host planet Earth similar to how we would view an ant nest in the middle of a forest. What is perceived as "good" and "evil" to the ant nest isn't considered "good" and "evil" for the human species, and what is perceived as "good" and "evil" to humans isn't "good" or "evil" according to the rest of the universe, they are considered neutral forces. I hope that makes more sense, let me know what you think. We should view each being separately, not as a whole (the rest of universe). Each individual counts. Even if the other beings in the universe are individually superior in intelligence and consciousness, there is still reason for them to have empathy towards us, in the same way that human beings can have empathy with animals. Suppose a SETI program would give us communication access to an alien civilization. I suppose we would not be indifferent towards their well-being.
WWW Posted May 6, 2014 Author Posted May 6, 2014 I can definitely understand your perspective. You are essentially suggesting that the universe has a slight bias towards life as opposed to death, or towards something as opposed to nothing by proposing that the universally preferred behavior of species contained within this reality can explicitly label forces as "good" or "evil". Almost as if there is a purpose to existence itself and that it is somehow preferable to non-existence. That ideology or mindset could very well be subconsciously rooted from our intrinsic propensity towards survival or existence as a species rather than death or non-existence. Basically what I am suggesting is that according to the universal laws of reality in general, "good" and "evil" are meaningless terms because both life/ death, something/ nothing, existence/ non-existence are required, so these prerequisites for reality would be considered neutral forces incapable of being labeled "good" or "evil". Kinda deep, but it's a cool collection of concepts to contemplate.
square4 Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 I can definitely understand your perspective. You are essentially suggesting that the universe has a slight bias towards life as opposed to death, or towards something as opposed to nothing by proposing that the universally preferred behavior of species contained within this reality can explicitly label forces as "good" or "evil". Almost as if there is a purpose to existence itself and that it is somehow preferable to non-existence. That ideology or mindset could very well be subconsciously rooted from our intrinsic propensity towards survival or existence as a species rather than death or non-existence. Basically what I am suggesting is that according to the universal laws of reality in general, "good" and "evil" are meaningless terms because both life/ death, something/ nothing, existence/ non-existence are required, so these prerequisites for reality would be considered neutral forces incapable of being labeled "good" or "evil". Kinda deep, but it's a cool collection of concepts to contemplate. I don't know if there is a slight tendency in the universe towards life. We don't have to follow the bias of the universe. Actually, I strongly dislike the cycle of death that humans are exposed to. In which sense would you call death a prerequisite of reality? Because we need to eat other organisms to live? but plants are not conscious beings (as far as I know), so the death of a plant is very different from the death of a human being. It is difficult to compare existence to non-existence, because non-existing beings are not really beings, but fantasies. But those people that do exist, they mostly value a happy continued existence. What they experience, their suffering and joy, is real. It is rooted in our being, but that does not make it unimportant or an illusion. I don't have to prove that pain is negative, I experience it as a negative, and that is sufficient "evidence" for me. By the way, the UPB framework of Stef aims to be applicable regardless of whether people value life or death. It could be applied to people struggling for whatever they consider important.
DanielB Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Walker, It seems to me that you are trying to unify two different paradigms. One is the reality in which we live, the consensual reality. It is a reality of duality, of yin and yang. The other (and here it gets a bit iffy) is what is outside that. I take it that most members here are not open to the idea of a truth (let me use a capital here) a Truth outside that consensual reality. One needs to turn to Vedanta to even get an inkling of what I mean here (and I certainly have almost no grasp of this concept myself). Tat Tvam Asi points at this greater Truth. So what I am saying is, there can be no bridge between these two paradigms, because in a dualistic universe, there is good and evil, ugly and beautiful, etc, etc, but outside it (if you accept the concept) there is only One(ness), there is only Truth. Really the only thing that leads me to mentions this at all is that I do think that all good and evil is indeed subjective, and moreover so subjective that most of us have called things bad or evil, only to see later in life that it turned to a greater good. The reverse is even easier to see: something happens which we call good, only to mess up our lives later on, at which point we no longer think it's good. Suppose a meteor struck the Earth tomorrow, wiping out humanity, clearing the way for a new species. When that species found out about us and our civilization, they'd say, "well, that meteor was bad for them but good for us." And who could argue with that?
cynicist Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 One needs to turn to Vedanta to even get an inkling of what I mean here (and I certainly have almost no grasp of this concept myself). Tat Tvam Asi points at this greater Truth. Wow, that's a bunch of nonsense. Consensual reality? Oneness? Subjective morality? This is a philosophy board, not a place to discuss self-contradictory concepts as if they are real. The number of newer posters bringing this type of stuff to the board is alarming. I think expressing knowledge of something that you admit you have no grasp of should be a clear warning sign...
DanielB Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Wow, that's a bunch of nonsense. Consensual reality? Oneness? Subjective morality? This is a philosophy board, not a place to discuss self-contradictory concepts as if they are real. The number of newer posters bringing this type of stuff to the board is alarming. I think expressing knowledge of something that you admit you have no grasp of should be a clear warning sign... You are easily alarmed then. Don't worry, I won't confront you with these disturbing ideas again. LOL. I was kind of hoping to receive some actual feedback, but closed minds and dismissive comments make up the bulk. Good luck with that.
cynicist Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 You are easily alarmed then. Don't worry, I won't confront you with these disturbing ideas again. LOL. I was kind of hoping to receive some actual feedback, but closed minds and dismissive comments make up the bulk. Good luck with that. That's like asking for feedback about god or square circles. I'm sorry I don't have anything to add to your ideas on imaginary things, maybe you should try a different venue?
WWW Posted May 10, 2014 Author Posted May 10, 2014 Cynicist If we kept reiterating that which we already know, we would inevitably be trapped in an endless cycle of ignorance for eternity. That my friend is a world I would rather not be a part of. What better place to discuss abstract concepts than on a Philosophy forum? If you aren't interested in the topic, please feel free to not respond.Philosophy- The study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
Lians Posted May 10, 2014 Posted May 10, 2014 Ethics, morality and UPB are fundamentally subjective ideologies by their very nature, because they are derived solely from the human experience. This is an objective statement made by a human being who claims that all knowledge derived from the human experience is subjective.
Recommended Posts