Thoughts on Ethics: What is an Ethical Demand?

[TrueEpic08]

Spun off from the poster of the year thread.

@VictorVonDoom and @BarNone were discussing me, and in their discussion of my posting and the like, they threw around the words "idealist" and "ethical" in relation to the ideas that I post and the way in which I posit them. In response, I ended up typing up some thoughts on ethics and the way in which I conceive of them:

Also (and I'm not saying that you're off in calling me this), I stopped considering myself ethical (in a certain sense) quite a bit ago. I've been shying away more and more from notions such as ethics as an absolute moral given of reality and a human nature, right and wrong as a constructed binary in the same way, and good and evil as a constructed binary in the same way. I simply accede to two principles when discussing political matters, philosophical matters, their metaphysical presumptions and any actions that may or may not come from it: 1). Things (material, metaphysical, whatever. All that exists in a real or irreal sense) are and are not and from that there are things that can be. 2). "Things can be otherwise than what they are". This post is long enough, so I won't bore you with details, but what I'm saying is that all is a construction, there is no absolute moral ground other than what is created by man attempting to narrativize and interpret the world in a unified way. Ethics as an absolute moral given has no meaning in the way that it and most that use it would like to posit.

I will call myself ethical in this sense: As a bit of a anarchist, politically and (increasingly) epistemologically, I try to unbind myself from what I find to be cultural, epistemological and political oppressions and presumptions about morals, culture, race, knowledge, politics, etc. But if I do that, then there's a demand that comes up that I must share what I know and recognize that others may want to do the same. Now, some will call me a crank and tell me to piss off. But in that sense, there is an ethical demand. I guess I don't consider any ethical demand in that sense to be separate from what I do intellectually or philosophically (and in that sense, you're [Note: BarNone had called himself a "semi-consequentialist" in comparison]just as ethical as I am).

Now, given all of this, the question above is pretty much self-explanatory: What is the ethical demand in regard to human society and culture? Is there such a thing? If so, how do you define that ethical demand, and if there isn't, explain your position on the nature of the notion of ethics and an ethical demand in any sense. Also, feel free to comment on what I wrote as well.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

JUST DON'T HURT MY FRIENDS, BECAUSE YOU'LL HURT MY PRIDE, BROTHER!

 

[NZA]

there's a good chance that i dont even adequately understand the question, but i will say it's all relative. you have ethical demands in so much as you identify yourself as having membership in relationships with various people. outside of that, there is nothing.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I didn't really speak to ethics in my comment about you. I don't believe in moral absolutes either, really. I just said I think where you and I part ways on certain issues and perspectives from talking to you is I think you have a thoroughly constructed worldview based on how you think things should be ("Things can be otherwise than what they are") and that seems to be the narrative from which your viewpoints on decisions and policy stem.

Whereas though I might agree with you on some pressing ethical concerns in a vacuum, I see things in a context of the underlying conditions are what they are, and that may render some of my ideals inconsequential.

I think we had a conversation about Occupy, voting and political participation here a long time ago when this forum first came up, and it was pretty good. In the end it basically boiled down to you basically saying you reject the legitimacy of the corporately-run pseudo-democracy governed by monied interest and manufactured consent, so you don't see working within the restrictions of it having any utility toward achieving the society you would deem tenable, and me being more like like it or not, the system is what it is, we have to work with the tools we have to try and strive for a better future, but removing yourself from it entirely would be counter-productive.

I was basically just saying I think you're more of a "look at things that aren't and say, why not?" guy than me. And I said you might be right...I don't know.

As far as ethics, like I said, I don't believe in moral absolutes, I think mine basically stem from what I would say rationality and biology to be very simplified. Everyone and every living creature doesn't like pain and disease and wants to live free, happy, and peaceful so we should all do our best to maximize happiness and minimize strife.

I will be in a few hours, so forgive me if I don't respond anymore tonight.

 

[TrueEpic08]

I didn't really speak to ethics in my comment about you. I don't believe in moral absolutes either, really. I just said I think where you and I part ways on certain issues and perspectives from talking to you is I think you have a thoroughly constructed worldview based on how you think things should be ("Things can be otherwise than what they are") and that seems to be the narrative from which your viewpoints on decisions and policy stem.

Whereas though I might agree with you on some pressing ethical concerns in a vacuum, I see things in a context of the underlying conditions are what they are, and that may render some of my ideals inconsequential.

I think we had a conversation about Occupy, voting and political participation here a long time ago when this forum first came up, and it was pretty good. In the end it basically boiled down to you basically saying you reject the legitimacy of the corporately-run pseudo-democracy governed by monied interest and manufactured consent, so you don't see working within the restrictions of it having any utility toward achieving the society you would deem tenable, and me being more like like it or not, the system is what it is, we have to work with the tools we have to try and strive for a better future, but removing yourself from it entirely would be counter-productive.

I was basically just saying I think you're more of a "look at things that aren't and say, why not?" guy than me. And I said you might be right...I don't know.

True, but BarNone mentioned it in his response to you about me, so I just included you in there. I just thought that what you had said about my idealism was somewhat relevant to what I wrote.

 

[OsO]

do unto others as you would have them do unto you.












































































but if you a sick mofo who enjoys pain and suffering, then we got another remedy for you

 

[NZA]

do unto others as you would have them do unto you.












































































but if you a sick mofo who enjoys pain and suffering, then we got another remedy for you

so you are saying do only good things or get laid out in front of a night club by a barber?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

True, but BarNone mentioned it in his response to you about me, so I just included you in there. I just thought that what you had said about my idealism was somewhat relevant to what I wrote.

I added a couple more sentences at the end about ethics in an edit right after I clicked submit if you feel like addressing it.

 

[OsO]

so you are saying do only good things or get laid out in front of a night club by a barber?

 

[Gallo]

Spun off from the poster of the year thread.

@VictorVonDoom and @BarNone were discussing me, and in their discussion of my posting and the like, they threw around the words "idealist" and "ethical" in relation to the ideas that I post and the way in which I posit them. In response, I ended up typing up some thoughts on ethics and the way in which I conceive of them:



Now, given all of this, the question above is pretty much self-explanatory: What is the ethical demand in regard to human society and culture? Is there such a thing? If so, how do you define that ethical demand, and if there isn't, explain your position on the nature of the notion of ethics and an ethical demand in any sense. Also, feel free to comment on what I wrote as well.

Ethics is a system devised by an entire community, not one or two individuals. What you think of yourself is only of moderate importance. What matters is whether you are contributing your share of effort (physical, intellectual etc.) to the support and advancement of your society-your community, and these days the whole world. You and I may think that we are a$$holes or paragons of virtue, but what really matters is how the rest of the people judge us. Obviously a few people are ahead of their time and cannot be judged accurately until a few generations later, but the odds of any individual (such as you or I) being one of those people are too small to worry about. Try to leave the world at least slightly better than you found it. That's what it all boils down to.

 

[TrueEpic08]

Ethics is a system devised by an entire community, not one or two individuals. What you think of yourself is only of moderate importance. What matters is whether you are contributing your share of effort (physical, intellectual etc.) to the support and advancement of your society-your community, and these days the whole world. You and I may think that we are a$$holes or paragons of virtue, but what really matters is how the rest of the people judge us. Obviously a few people are ahead of their time and cannot be judged accurately until a few generations later, but the odds of any individual (such as you or I) being one of those people are too small to worry about. Try to leave the world at least slightly better than you found it. That's what it all boils down to.

I utterly disagree with the bolded.

When you conceive of ethics in this way, it smacks of a type of transcendental solipsism in my eyes. And what I mean by that is this: In that formulation, you have a society that, alienating itself from the human beings and relations that make it up and reifying itself, formulates ethics for itself in this way: Society makes static a notion of correct human relations in a certain way, thus Ethics must be defined in a way that is in accord with the correct notion of human relations for the sake of Society itself. It's a totalizing formulation that creates not a society freely and fluidly lived by humans, but a society that creates humans and human relations for itself and inheres its values in all that it does. A precession of ethical beings, for allusion's sake.

Rather than this formulation of a reifying ethic, you have the ethical demand, never thinking itself, never modeling, never seen as a discrete object, but inhered in the actions and praxis of man, which consists of the desire to live and experience the world as freely as possible. In this, the only ethical demand is to facilitate this for all, and even then, its never formulated outside of the action, nor as some type of responsibility; an ethical demand is immanent to the action that takes place, for lack of a better word, in its name.

(If this makes any sense, of course. I'm mixing and synthesizing for this, so its all inchoate. And then there's the fact that I would've written more, but I got sidetracked by something else, so I had to cut it off here.)

 

[No1]

I utterly disagree with the bolded.

When you conceive of ethics in this way, it smacks of a type of transcendental solipsism in my eyes. And what I mean by that is this: In that formulation, you have a society that, alienating itself from the human beings and relations that make it up and reifying itself, formulates ethics for itself in this way: Society makes static a notion of correct human relations in a certain way, thus Ethics must be defined in a way that is in accord with the correct notion of human relations for the sake of Society itself. It's a totalizing formulation that creates not a society freely and fluidly lived by humans, but a society that creates humans and human relations for itself and inheres its values in all that it does. A precession of ethical beings, for allusion's sake.

Rather than this formulation of a reifying ethic, you have the ethical demand, never thinking itself, never modeling, never seen as a discrete object, but inhered in the actions and praxis of man, which consists of the desire to live and experience the world as freely as possible. In this, the only ethical demand is to facilitate this for all, and even then, its never formulated outside of the action, nor as some type of responsibility; an ethical demand is immanent to the action that takes place, for lack of a better word, in its name.

(If this makes any sense, of course. I'm mixing and synthesizing for this, so its all inchoate. And then there's the fact that I would've written more, but I got sidetracked by something else, so I had to cut it off here.)

I can't copy and paste what I said all that well from my phone. But you're welcome to copy and paste that response to this. I basically said what I feel about this matter in there. It was in response to you as well. I'm off, hopefully we'll have some fiscal deal when my plane lands.

 

[TrueEpic08]

I can't copy and paste what I said all that well from my phone. But you're welcome to copy and paste that response to this. I basically said what I feel about this matter in there. It was in response to you as well. I'm off, hopefully we'll have some fiscal deal when my plane lands.

Where? In the Poster of the Year thread?

 

[No1]

Where? In the Poster of the Year thread?

Yeah.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Now, given all of this, the question above is pretty much self-explanatory: What is the ethical demand in regard to human society and culture? Is there such a thing? If so, how do you define that ethical demand, and if there isn't, explain your position on the nature of the notion of ethics and an ethical demand in any sense. Also, feel free to comment on what I wrote as well.

I'm still a little unclear on your exact stance. can you clarify?

The ethical demand in regards to human society and culture is set for by each society and culture. It is defined within that culture (which is why we see it different across various cultures.)

Typically the demand/framework for morality stem from the society itself by way of "common law" or unwritten "understood" laws. You don't steal from people. Don't kill people, etc.

Most "baseline" morality concepts come from the expansion or contraction of status. If someone's actions increase your status (via property, money, reputation) then that is a "moral" action. If someone seeks to decreases your status then typically that is seen as an immoral action. In this way our morality links back to the very basic of human instinct; survival.

Morality stems from survival.