tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post7126438998970302213..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Critique of TSW Part 24d The Mind-Brain Muddle: EthicsGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-26404191319870783842014-12-06T12:30:42.268-08:002014-12-06T12:30:42.268-08:00GB: "Surely you understand that ethics descri...GB: <i>"Surely you understand that ethics describes only acceptable behavior and that it has little to do with logic."</i><br /><br />Ethics is a system of abstract moral principles dictating what is good or bad human behavior. The principles are either true or false, which we can determine by observing consequences and applying logic.<br />http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics<br /><br />GB: <i>"Sorry, but most contradictions in ethics are not resolvable. The rabbit sees the fox as bad ..."</i><br /><br />That's not ethics, which are only possible for humans. Lower animals only do what they <b>must</b> do: eat or be eaten. We can characterize that natural instinct as "pure pragmatism", with no abstract rules, principles of propriety, or systems of thought ... but that's just a euphemism.<br /><br />Granted, many humans are unethical animals, doing whatever pleases them, without regard for the consequences or any logical consistency. Those in civil society consider them primitive savages: sentient, but deliberately not sapient.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-45638152154099144582014-12-05T20:31:48.665-08:002014-12-05T20:31:48.665-08:00Bill:
Thanks so much for the comment and your for...Bill:<br /><br />Thanks so much for the comment and your forbearance as I provide rather direct answers to some of your challenges.<br /><br />Yes, I agree that ethical road maps are not always the immediate results of relationships. The beliefs that you point out as important are the products of previous encounters.<br /><br />Strictly speaking "reactionaries" are those who react to a particular change, although the word has a right-wing connotation. I actually prefer the regressive-conservative-progressive designation. That is why I use the word "regressive" in describing the indetermistic aspects of modern physics.<br /><br />Surely you understand that ethics describes only acceptable behavior and that it has little to do with logic.<br /><br />Sorry, but most contradictions in ethics are not resolvable. The rabbit sees the fox as bad and the fox sees the rabbit that gets away as bad. Paradoxes, on the other hand, have at least one underlying assumption that is false.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-81867099163424012632014-12-05T10:02:03.078-08:002014-12-05T10:02:03.078-08:00[GB: ... All the beliefs associated with ethics ar...[GB: ... All the beliefs associated with ethics are products of those relationships. Without people, no relationships, no ethics.]<br /><br />I agree with the latter, but ethics are not merely the "product" of relationships, they are beliefs about which kind of relationships are beneficial and which harmful. Those beliefs don't necessarily change with every variation of each individual relationship.<br /><br />[GB: ... BTW: You seem to have mistaken “conservatives” for “reactionaries.” In strict definitions, conservatives favor the status quo, while reactionaries favor a former period...]<br /><br />I hadn't considered that distinction, which may have some merit. In common usage, I find the word "conservative" applied to those who want to "conserve" historic principles, which are jeopardized by "progressives", or are diminished in the "status-quo". I've always thought of "reactionaries" as those who merely react (negatively) to any proposed changes in the status-quo. It's a fine distinction.<br /><br />[GB: ... Ethics are society’s innumerable rules for acceptable behavior ...]<br /><br />That seems to diminish ethics to a study of what is merely distasteful, frowned upon, or otherwise offensive. I'm not sure that mere sentiments can be construed as ethics, which requires *some* logical coherence or justification.<br /><br />[GB: ... to instill and enforce loyalty, which was advantageous for primitive societies engaging in war or any other form of competition ...]<br /><br />Loyalty doesn't tell you toward who or what your devotion should be aimed. In primitive societies, it was purely submission to the stronger force, without regard to the merits or logic of what they may require. I would hope that most of human society has moved beyond that barbaric relic of ethics.<br /><br />[GB: ... Ethics have plenty of contradictions...]<br /><br />Yes, contradictions abound, which is evidence of error in at least one of the premises. Logic and evidence are critical to forming a *valid* system of ethics, rather than one that's merely handed down by powerful authorities or religious apostates. I vastly prefer the former to the latter and disagree with your statement:<br /><br />[GB: ... The judgment about whether a particular behavior is seen as “good” or “bad” depends on who is making it and what power he has over others ...]<br /><br />BillWestmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.com