Creation/Evolution

Originally posted by vistesd
You’re right: that phrase is confusing, and I’ll rethink it.

You’re also right about the conventional conflation of ethics and morality. But they are not always so conflated by philosophers. And I think there can be some confusion there. For example, my impression is that most people, using either the word ethics or the word morality, have in mind som ...[text shortened]... at you and I are far apart on our thinking. But I will go back to the drawing board for awhile…

I think clarity has a subjective component since I think you were clear, but I wouldn't have thought so if I were not already familiar with the topic and terminology I suspect.

I think I had one minor quibble with what you said, but I'll wait until you present your new improved version I think.

I also suspect you might be a very long way from Andrew Hamilton's position, as am I, but time will tell perhaps.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think clarity has a subjective component since I think you were clear, but I wouldn't have thought so if I were not already familiar with the topic and terminology I suspect.

I think I had one minor quibble with what you said, but I'll wait until you present your new improved version I think.

I also suspect you might be a very long way from Andrew Hamilton's position, as am I, but time will tell perhaps.

…I also suspect you might be a very long way from Andrew Hamilton's position,
….

Just curious:

To anyone following this thread:

Does ANYONE here agree with my position on this?

-I am wondering if I am the only one here that thinks there is no such thing as “moral” or “immoral“.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I also suspect you might be a very long way from Andrew Hamilton's position,
….

Just curious:

To anyone following this thread:

Does ANYONE here agree with my position on this?

-I am wondering if I am the only one here that thinks there is no such thing as “moral” or “immoral“.[/b]

"The fool saith in his heart, there is no God".

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I also suspect you might be a very long way from Andrew Hamilton's position,
….

Just curious:

To anyone following this thread:

Does ANYONE here agree with my position on this?

-I am wondering if I am the only one here that thinks there is no such thing as “moral” or “immoral“.[/b]

Thinking about it, maybe what we should try to find out is whether the differences in our positions might be amplified by language.

To give an example, you say there is no such thing as "moral" or "immoral", and if by that you mean attributes that apply to actions or states of affairs that are independent of what humans think, then I agree. But you could say the same about "verbs". Does that mean there are no such things as verbs?

Originally posted by daniel58
"The fool saith in his heart, there is no God".

Give over.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I also suspect you might be a very long way from Andrew Hamilton's position,
….

Just curious:

To anyone following this thread:

Does ANYONE here agree with my position on this?

-I am wondering if I am the only one here that thinks there is no such thing as “moral” or “immoral“.[/b]

I don’t know whether or not we agree. If you define “morality” as following some “divine command” system of fiat behavior, then yes: I reject such a system.. If you mean Kantian deontology (which I see as a kind of “divine command” system without the “divine” ), then yes, I reject such a system.*

However, as one Nietzsche commentator (I’ll find the reference if you like) noted, a system such as Taoism clearly has an ethical component (as does Nietzsche, for that matter)—but one that could in no way be labeled “morality” under a Nietzschean understanding (i.e., as a fiat or command system).

But, if your alternative is simply one of conflicting likes and dislikes—e.g., you dislike that so-and-so seems to like child torture—then no. I think there is stronger grounding to what I am calling ethics than either historically developed social norms (e.g., slavery) or individual likes and dislikes, even as applied to social behavior. I might be wrong, but that is what my project is about.

Maybe the question can be asked in this way: Are there reason-giving considerations that guide how we consider and treat the “other”? What might they be? Are they purely subjective? Are they purely social constructs? Do they depend on some unquestionable agency of command? Can one argue that child torture is always and everywhere “wrong” without appeal to some unquestionable agency of command (e.g., God)?

I have no problem with acting against child torture, and even acting against it with ultimate violence, simply because I dislike it. But are there any other reason-giving considerations that merit thinking of child torture under a broader “ethical” rubric—but without some “divine command” theory (with or without the putative “divinity” )? Might one, for example, examine the basic emotion of disgust as a survival emotion, and extrapolate from there? (The notion of child torture disgusts me; but that seems to be a reaction well within the “area of central tendency” for humans. Not always so, and not on the “tails” of the distribution. But does the shape of the distribution reflect only cultural convention? On what basis are such conventions—e.g., sanity/insanity—questionable?)

So, you see, a simple statement rejecting “morality” raises a whole host of questions. Thus it is, as LS says, unsatisfying—at least until such questions are addressed. And that is, I think, the purpose of discourse such as this...

____________________________________________

* I ought to own up to personal bias when it comes to deontology (at least Kantian): when I tried to read Kant’s Toward a Metaphysics of Morality I regularly threw the book on the floor. I was raised within a system (though not one of the most egregiously severe ones) that sought existential justification (a notion I also reject) based on first- and second-order “should and oughts”. I should note that Kant tried to ground his views on “oughts” that would be recognized by a perfectly rational agent.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think clarity has a subjective component since I think you were clear, but I wouldn't have thought so if I were not already familiar with the topic and terminology I suspect.

I think I had one minor quibble with what you said, but I'll wait until you present your new improved version I think.

I also suspect you might be a very long way from Andrew Hamilton's position, as am I, but time will tell perhaps.

Please quibble! 🙂

I think Aristotle was on the right track. But I don’t think that (for historical and cultural reasons, etc.) that he can just be slavishly followed. And, until I can comfortably cast it in my own terms, I’m not convinced that I have a good enough grasp on it. But I do think he was on the right track, and that influences how I am grappling with the questions.

Originally posted by vistesd
Please quibble! 🙂

I think Aristotle was on the right track. But I don’t think that (for historical and cultural reasons, etc.) that he can just be slavishly followed. And, until I can comfortably cast it in my own terms, I’m not convinced that I have a good enough grasp on it. But I do think he was on the right track, and that influences how I am grappling with the questions.

I think you have elaborated on your position and the quibble might have been superseded.

It was to do with this clause:

"but, one might be able to say that such would be a rational, and natural human ethics."

My quibble is that, although I too think there is a lot of mileage in virtue ethics (I read After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre a while ago and thought there was much of value therein), I think that reason in pursuit of values makes sense only in the context of practices and traditions, but these things represent non unique solutions to the problems of human existence. So whilst I would say that physics, biology, game theory and all of those things that bear on how communities of social animals can flourish, do in fact impose fairly narrow parameters on what might be considered a set of virtues, there is no way in principle to settle on a unique agreed set without circularity.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Give over.

"Give Over" to my side, and see the Truth.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I also suspect you might be a very long way from Andrew Hamilton's position,
….

Just curious:

To anyone following this thread:

Does ANYONE here agree with my position on this?

-I am wondering if I am the only one here that thinks there is no such thing as “moral” or “immoral“.[/b]

Its a good question. My take is similar to vistesd's. I think he was saying (amongst other things), that there needs to be an ongoing debate about morality to make things more fairer in the real world.

I can see where you see coming from though and maybe that strong line of thought suggests that we shouldn't look at morality as some sort of 'pinnacle of understanding' , being so defined by black and white notions. Morality has its place in human understanding but at times it is given more importance than it deserves.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think you have elaborated on your position and the quibble might have been superseded.

It was to do with this clause:

"but, one might be able to say that such would be a rational, and natural human ethics."

My quibble is that, although I too think there is a lot of mileage in virtue ethics (I read After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre a while ago ...[text shortened]... of virtues, there is no way in principle to settle on a unique agreed set without circularity.

I think that exactly illustrates my problem with just drawing on Aristotle—who may have defined human beings too strictly in terms of rationality. (Good “quibble”! 🙂 )

But, at the same time, I don’t want to venture too far into what might be called “cultural determinism”. (Haven’t read MacIntyre; just pretty much finished up Jonathon Lear’s Aristotle: the Desire to Understand. Lear make several references to Bernard Williams’ Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, which I have—but I think Williams, from his own perspective, might define “ethics” and “morality” in just the opposite way that I have.)

But I wonder if our ability to construe these questions in different ways is also historically determined—at least in some respect? I acknowledge the imposition of cultural conditioning (for myself)—at the same time as I struggle to get beyond it. I am keenly aware of what, in another post, I called (directly quoting Antonio de Nicolás) “cognitive subservience”. But, one wonders about the cultural conditions that allow one to question cultural conditioning.

One of the reasons I post on here is to clear up—often through sustained argument—the murkiness of my own thinking…

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Its a good question. My take is similar to vistesd's. I think he was saying (amongst other things), that there needs to be an ongoing debate about morality to make things more fairer in the real world.

I can see where you see coming from though and maybe that strong line of thought suggests that we shouldn't look at morality as some sort of 'pinnacl ...[text shortened]... its place in human understanding but at times it is given more importance than it deserves.

And this is why I like being able to test my thinking against good minds on here. Andrew Hamilton (just for one example) and I have gone around the block with one another enough times now that, if he and I seem to disagree, I’d better be on my toes! That’s what I like about this site: I am going to be challenged, and sometimes challenged hard. And I might just have to—revise that: get to—change my mind.

I have been beaten up by titans on here. Many (not all) of the old titans seem to be gone, at least for the time being. But there are new titans. (Remember, I’ve been here since ’04, when I was a “newbie” to the likes of bbarr and No.1 Marauder and Nemesio and Dr. Scribbles and lucifershammer..., well, it’s a long list and I can’t do justice to them all, mea culpa.)

I am 58 years old, and I am not the same person I was five years ago—let alone 25 years ago. I am younger because I have clashed with titans (most of whom are, chronologically, younger than me). That is why I keep coming back (though I sometimes take a few months away).

¡Viva los titános! ¡Viva la vida y la luz!

Originally posted by vistesd
And this is why I like being able to test my thinking against good minds on here. Andrew Hamilton (just for one example) and I have gone around the block with one another enough times now that, if he and I seem to disagree, I’d better be on my toes! That’s what I like about this site: I am going to be challenged, and sometimes challenged hard. And I migh ...[text shortened]... k (though I sometimes take a few months away).

¡Viva los titános! ¡Viva la vida y la luz!

'titans' eh? lol!
But coming from you I will give it more weight than usual.
After all it seems you have kept 'the torch alight' these past five years.
I tell my daughter to watch for anything that might be ageist, sexist or racist. This piece of advice has seemed to serve her quite well thus far.
I have to keep on my toes though-she is getting older(13 and a half) and one day she will come back and ask for furthur guidance.
I just hope the right answers will be there at the right time. (oshivanamoashiva)

Well I'm glad that you were on here when I first joined. You were one of the few for me that kept my hopes up when I was making my first un-easy steps into this 'cyber-community'.
All this said dont expect any niceities from me in the future just know that I will read your posts with a greater 'concentration' than most others.🙂lol!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
'titans' eh? lol!
But coming from you I will give it more weight than usual.
After all it seems you have kept 'the torch alight' these past five years.
I tell my daughter to watch for anything that might be ageist, sexist or racist. This piece of advice has seemed to serve her quite well thus far.
I have to keep on my toes though-she is getting olde know that I will read your posts with a greater 'concentration' than most others.🙂lol!

oshivanamoashiva

Shiva ohum! Ayam atma Shiva! Sarvon khalvidam Shiva! (On my better days, anyway! 😉 )

(Goes along with my “Christology”, don’t you think? 😉 )

No niceties! (When blackbeetle whacks me on the head to wake me up, that’s the best. You just have, too. I bow.)

________________________________________________

Good advice to your daughter. The world needs strong women. Women who will not bow to men who are not willing to bow as well: Buddha to Buddha, Shiva/Shakti to Shiva/Shakti.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]oshivanamoashiva

Shiva ohum! Ayam atma Shiva! Sarvon khalvidam Shiva! (On my better days, anyway! 😉 )

(Goes along with my “Christology”, don’t you think? 😉 )

No niceties! (When blackbeetle whacks me on the head to wake me up, that’s the best. You just have, too. I bow.)[/b]

Do you know anything about the 'n(a)ga babas'?
I heard that they were these dread-locked dudes in India that did not much else than smoke pot and sway on their haunches forgoing nearly all material desires.

I was called 'baba shiva' once by a certain 'wandering monk' and he gave me the mantra " o-shiva-namoa-shiva"

The meeting of this particurlar 'monk' has changed my life majorly. My life was already changing and I was already on my own path,etc.
But he shook it up. Majorly. I have never been the same person since , and the experience has constantly made me question what 'spiritualtiy' is.

This is a very private part of my life but in so many ways it is just like a movie waiting to be made. If enough people are interested then this 'insight' can come out and hopefully others can learn these lessons without having to go through the 'horror' themselves. Otherwise start preparing for some hard-core situations because 'life' wont wait forever, and the 'earth' is tired and wants to move on