Ethics

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You would say that, Imran.

Of course I would, because I have this thing called intelligence. It allows me to analyze things I'm told, rather than accept them blindly.

---

Ethics is, and, has always been a theoretical science, conner. I mean the whole idea that ethics come from logic is theorectical. I reject that idea though. I believe Ethics come from social norms and values, which leads to different Ethical beliefs in different areas. For example, while the death penalty is ethical in the Islamic world and the US, it is unethical in Europe, because of different social starting points.

[Victor Galis]

I wish I could remember them all...

But here's a couple things to consider:

-Abstract constructs (like words) are always relative.
-Truth is in the mind of the perciever.
-Different people percieve different things different ways. Some people are "disabled" and percieve some things in "abnormal" ways than normal people because of some "impairment." Thus the "normal" view is actually relative.

His weakest point was probably on universal constants. Though their numerical value is easily relative: consider R = .0821 or 8.31 depending on what your units are. (I might have screwed up by a factor of ten on one of those, but that only goes to further prove my point.)

[Victor Galis]

A set of ethics based on logic is cold and realistic. A set based solely on morals is warm, fuzzy, idealistic (, and thus stupid.)

[SlowwHand]

What it allows you to be is the biggest taker, liar, and fraud in the forum.
Congrats, dude. You're the best at something.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Victor, most systems of ethics are based on morals. There are very few, that rely on logic. But even relying on logic have to start with a moral good somewhere, I'd think. Right?

And Slow... as least I'm not a mental midget. You got the market cornered on that.

[Q Classic]

being raised in a rather strict household with liberal leanings, i have come to the conclusion that i am an ethical absolutist in regards to myself, but an ethical relatavist in regards to other people.

in other words, i can't have fun because of my morals, but i can watch other people have fun because i think they have different morals.

[Victor Galis]

"Victor, most systems of ethics are based on morals. There are very few, that rely on logic. But even relying on logic have to start with a moral good somewhere, I'd think. Right?"

-I suppose if you define your goals as a moral good yes. A pure logic system would be one that would have certain goals. All acts are judged on how they further those goals. Let's say, I say: I am radically pro environment. Overpopulation is bad, it's a drain on resources and makes reducing pollution harder. Abortion is good, because it reduces population more effectively than mass murder (people tend to get upset about that sort of thing). I suppose you could see the environmental protection agenda as a moral good, but the logic is cold, harsh, brutal, and efficient.

[SlowwHand]

There was this Taliban member that came to America.
Liked everything about it, but absolutely loved Star Trek.
One thing he didn't get, and he asked his buddy from work about it.
"There' are whites, blacks, asians, american indians, and all else. Why are there no Taliban?"
"His buddy says, "That's because it's in the future ".


*edited for offensive content, and it WAS offensive.
If you still find offensive, tough.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Victor, most systems of ethics are based on morals. There are very few, that rely on logic. But even relying on logic have to start with a moral good somewhere, I'd think. Right?

And Slow... as least I'm not a mental midget. You got the market cornered on that.

I've always thought of ethical systems being built the same way mathematical formal systems are, with moral axioms (human beings have a right to life, etc.) and logical conclusions based on these axioms.

I wonder if I can construct an ethical equivalent of Godel's Theorem...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Victor, but, you will admit there is something moral underlying the logic.

KH: You would make ethics into math . On a serious note, yes, there are moral axioms, but that does mean it is based on morals. You can take logic from there, but the underpinnings are a moral something or other.

Don't mess with me, Imran.

Oooh, oh no.. Slow threatened me with a little story about an Arab... What a moron! Wonder if he thinks Pakistanis are Arabs? On the subject of that... guess Hitler was one of your fans. After all, advocating genocide of a group isn't too common these days.

[Sikander]

Yea Slowwbrain is only worthwhile when he posts things that are so stupid that they are funny. Most of the time though he is just stupid and dull.

[Roland]

"Wonder if he thinks Pakistanis are Arabs?"

Blame it on Fox"news".

[General Ludd]

I have always seperated 'logic' from my ethics, I base my ethics on my morals and philosphies. (by definition, that is what ethics are; a set of right and wrongs base on moral/philosophical values) This is not to say that my ethics are illogical, though.

Besides, who am I to decide what logical behaviour is, anyways? That'd be unethical.




I don't understand how anyone could think ethics are absolute. Doesn't the fact that there are debates about ethics, or even this pole where not everyone thinks they are absolute, prove that they are relative?

Or am I misunderstanding what you meant by absolute and relative?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

there might be absolute values at the beginning of an ethical system, like: Do good to others.

Than someone will ask: What is good?

Hitler would say killing all Jews is good.

And if you are relative you might respect his view.

However if you are absolutly sure this is wrong, you will say. Sorry Adolf but this is a No No. You would not want to be killed yourself, how can killing others be good.

That could be another absolute value in your system that should hold true for everyone.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Roland
"Wonder if he thinks Pakistanis are Arabs?"

Blame it on Fox"news".

Sikander can get in line to kiss my ass.

As for your brilliant remark, Roland; Pakistan joined the Arab Nations 30 Sept 1947.
There are other member nations that are more surprising, such as Mexico, Thailand, and Scandanavian countries.
No, not from Fox "News".
What highly educated people some of you think you are.