General

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

William — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:25 GMT

That is why we are all arguing here but most of us are really agreeing. My contention is even stronger than Wittgenstein's: I say nearly all disagreements in philosophy are rooted in the words we used to express ourselves. Communication is THE bottleneck we face as a social species, but we are uncomfortable acknowledging that precisely because we are a social species and hence words are apt to take on a larger-than-life character to us.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." -John 1:1

I do think forums have very strong advantages to helping one clear up and sharpening their ideas, but one has to wonder how much of the disagreements come from "using language in a vacuum", and if it is neccasarily a bad thing (as it may be good to hear roughly the same idea spoken differently, nitpicking semantics may be useful in a forum even if the task seems suited for Sisyphus). I do think most here are in agreement, but I think the real goal is "untangling" the various points and see where the point is comming from, and why that language is being used.

As for the larger than life charecter of words, I wonder how much of that is because of people's over concern with trying to "speak the language of logic". I do not think this was always the case. I don't think, the virtue and ethics that the Greeks or early theologins spoke of is used in the same context as most people today use the words, I think the language got "tangled up" some where (my guess would be the Enlightenment).

Obviously the author of John (one of his titles is "St. John the Theologin" as the works with his name on them are considered actual theology) was not trying to communicate in the "value free" (for lack of a better word) way we are accostomed to when he wrote his book, but in a much more "poetic" sense.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Jackson LaRose — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:03:52 GMT

Angurse:
Its only the chef that matters.

That's why you do research.

Here would be a good start.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Angurse — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:48:08 GMT

You'll have to elaborate a bit.

Where is it too unclear?

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:48:24 GMT

Angurse,

You'll have to elaborate a bit.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Angurse — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:19:41 GMT

Of course, for there to be action there must be motive. But an observer will not necessarily know what that motive is.

Its only the chef that matters.

Obviously, but this has little to do with applying normative statements to an entrpreneur with no information on either the motivation of said entrepreneur, or his clientele.

That's why you do research.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Jackson LaRose — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:17:02 GMT

Andrew Cain:
You would need to explain how intersubjective consensus is even possible without it becoming objective in the sense that it does not take into account an individual viewer. If something is subjective then the outlook is dependent on that specific individual. How can you have consesus when to each person it may look/act differently?

"Did you see that duck?"

"Yeah"

Viola, intersubjective consensus. Two subjective observers agree upon what they have observed.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Jackson LaRose — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:15:07 GMT

Clayton:
I vaguely recall Mises discussing the fact that valuation is not necessarily the result of a deliberate process of reasoning.

Makes sense, but I'm not talking about valuations (how actors set the priorities of desired outcomes) but how they determine what actions to follow to acieve an end, regardless of what/how the end is determined.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Andrew Cain — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 04:34:13 GMT

'If you believe that intersubjective consensus is capable of divining truth, fine. That doesn't automatically, necessarily, mean it is truly capable.'

You would need to explain how intersubjective consensus is even possible without it becoming objective in the sense that it does not take into account an individual viewer. If something is subjective then the outlook is dependent on that specific individual. How can you have consesus when to each person it may look/act differently?

'What is it?'

Aesthetics to me is a question of beauty. Ethics is a a code of conduct which specifies what is good and what is bad, not what is beautiful and what is ugly.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Clayton — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:07:36 GMT

I don't think this is a fitting analogy. If I wanted to buy a car, and we had a discussion about it, more than likely I would provide you with the end I hope achieve with the vehicle, which would provide a definite goal which we can attempt to reason means to accomplish.

I think your account of valuation corresponds with only a small subset of valuations. I don't have time to dig through HA right now but I vaguely recall Mises discussing the fact that valuation is not necessarily the result of a deliberate process of reasoning.

Clayton -

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Laotzu del Zinn — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 17:51:26 GMT

The problem with being authoritarian is that, whatever you might think you know is good for me, is from your own subjective valuations of the world. Being authoritarian means you think you can objectively verify ethics and values, which is just rather silly.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Left-libertarian — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 17:42:59 GMT

Which knee jerk emotional response?

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

liberty student — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:53:26 GMT

Left-libertarian:
And what's wrong with being authoritarian? :D

That's a very good question. The answer isn't as simple as the knee jerk emotional response might indicate.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:45:06 GMT

Clayton:
I mean that you and I have a shared, cognitive capacity for aesthetic evaluation and that at least some aspects of that capacity are "hardwired" and we know this because some aesthetic evaluations are cultural universal (nature, not nurture).

Statement of faith. You are taking scientific conclusions and treating them as truths. A normative based upon this necessarily implies that your opinion is superior to mine becuase of your greater knowlwdge of the "true" aesthetic, the observer-independent "actual" beauty, which you believe justifies the superiority of your conclusion.

people discuss what to buy with one another even though their subjective valuations do not require any external input to be formed.

I don't think this is a fitting analogy. If I wanted to buy a car, and we had a discussion about it, more than likely I would provide you with the end I hope achieve with the vehicle, which would provide a definite goal which we can attempt to reason means to accomplish.

For the analogy to work, it would have to go something like this:

"I'm going to buy a car"

"Buy a Honda"

"Well, I wanted something I could..."

"Buy a Honda. Research shows they are the most reliable, fuel efficient cars."

"Yeah, but I was really looking for something..."

"Buy a Honda."

"Yes, but I need to tow..."

"HONDA!!!"

Now whether or not preferences in aesthetics or ethics are somewhat hardwired and similar between individuals is not relevant. As soon as an exception is found, you must begin to take the universal applicability of your norms as faith.

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Clayton — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:18:04 GMT

If I had those very same instincts, we would not be having the conversation, since the couch would already be where our shared instincts compelled me to place it.

Good catch. Obviously, we're not talking about an instinct as primal as having sex or eating where no one needs to tell you what to do in order to get you to do it. Maybe "instinct" is the completely wrong word. I mean that you and I have a shared, cognitive capacity for aesthetic evaluation and that at least some aspects of that capacity are "hardwired" and we know this because some aesthetic evaluations are cultural universal (nature, not nurture).

To borrow from economics, people discuss what to buy with one another even though their subjective valuations do not require any external input to be formed. That is, if I prefer a Lexus to an Infiniti, I don't need to talk to you first to be sure of it. Yet people do talk to each other about what to buy.

Similarly, I don't need to talk to you to prefer symmetric forms over asymmetric. Nevertheless, people do talk to each other about what clothes to wear, how to arrange the furniture in their house, and so on.

My only contention is that we are not aesthetic 'blank slates' and so there is something already there for me to appeal to when I am attempting to persuade you to see things from my point of view, aesthetically.

Ethics is more complex than this but I think it is the right approach to begin the analysis of ethics from an analysis of aesthetics (if for no other reason than that it is infinitely easier to reason dispassionately about aesthetics than it is to reason dispassionately about ethics).

Clayton -

Re: Is ethics/morality nonsense?

Jackson LaRose — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:08:56 GMT

Clayton:
No, I would be appealing to your aesthetic instincts.

If I had those very same instincts, we would not be having the conversation, since the couch would already be where our shared instincts compelled me to place it.

The "validity" of human aesthetics is beside the point - either humans generally prefer symmetric forms or they do not. We can study people's preferences and find that there is, in fact, a culturally universal preference for symmetric forms. That observation, of course, carries no normative force but I was merely asserting that my aesthetic evaluation of the couch's situation is not arbitrary and my recommendation that you adopt my aesthetic evaluation and take action on that basis (move the couch) is based on an appeal to the same aesthetic circuitry in your brain that prefers symmetry over asymmetry that I have in my brain.

You seem to have accepted scientific deductions as truth so completely, you are misunderstanding me. The science is based on our imperfect observations, making the conclusions we draw, even using the scientific method, similarly imperfect. You justify your action as righteous because you belive that interpreting phenomena with the scientific method allows you to grasp the truth. It is on faith you command me.