| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy - Meta Forum » Framework for Ethical Decision Making & Justification of Eth
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Publius |
 Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"jer0en" <jer0en@freemail.nl> wrote in
news:1d70c$45ce1774$3ea303fd$20274@news.chello.nl:
Quote: As to the compliance, that's in the social contract. Our lives belong to
society, which in Europe would be plain from the fact that you recognise
police authority to the extent of not carrying a weapon.
Er, what social contract is that? Where can I get a copy? Why wasn't I given
a copy when I signed it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jer0en |
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Perhaps this is what is going on when we see someone crying with compassion
and we ask ourselves how much of it is actually real? If we consider the
possibility that indeed 100% of it is real, it may not be in the sense that
most people would understand it to be.
So what is real compassion? A girl crying for a dying butterfly? Best case
scenario would probably be she's just fulfilling the expectations of others
that follow from her role as a good girl. Because that's what she's doing,
she's constantly monitoring how the others react to her playing out this
role. I doubt the butterfly has any other part than a prop. Ask any mother.
If it would be her mother dying, she would of course be crying because she
is afraid of being left alone.
If ethics are to be understood as based on real, unadulterated feelings for
others, I can show you were ethics belong. Perhaps real unadulterated
compassion may be found as an allegory in a painting, or as a metaphore in a
book, but you won't find it on earth. On earth, feelings for others are not
mainly but merely feelings for ourselves. They are the results of the system
or complex of our expectations for reward or punishment from others. And so
are ethics.
The concept of this altruïstic puritanism people profess ethics to be, is
basicly born from a poor understanding of our own fears. If people were to
better understand their fears this would probably make for better ethics as
well. This doesn't of course mean that we should all suddenly deny all our
fears. There are times that we have to show courage and times that we do
definitely not. Whether that be on top of a scyscaper or when someone
threatens to kill your wife and children is, IMHO, still within the scope of
the obvious. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Phil Roberts, Jr. |
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jer0en wrote:
Quote:
If ethics are to be understood as based on real, unadulterated feelings for
others, I can show you were ethics belong. Perhaps real unadulterated
compassion may be found as an allegory in a painting, or as a metaphore in a
book, but you won't find it on earth. On earth, feelings for others are not
mainly but merely feelings for ourselves. They are the results of the system
or complex of our expectations for reward or punishment from others. And so
are ethics.
I would argue that an essential ingredient in morality would
be the capacity to experience a sense of one's own worthlessness
when failing to "measure us" to one's self-imposed ethical
standards. Here was my response to a similar question framed
in terms of the evolutionary function of a conscience over at
sci.bio.evolution:
Conscience (the superego) is a maladaptive manifestation of
our need to justify our existence, in this case by conforming
to a shared subconscious theory of rationality in which
'being rational' is simply a matter of 'being objective',
as exemplified in the moral maxim, 'Love (intrinsically
value) your neighbor as you love (intrinsically value)
yourself'. Although none of us can actually measure up
to this standard, we nonetheless come to experience
feelings of worthlessness (guilt) along with a
corresponding reduction in the will to survive
(depression) when we deviate from the standard to an
unreasonable degree. In other words, conscience is a
part of the price we humans have had to pay for having
become a little too objective for our own good.
PR
www.rationology.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ZerkonX |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:30:28 +0100, jer0en wrote:
Quote: I think you confuse empathy and compassion.
No I did not.
Quote: Empathy by itself is just an
(underdeveloped) sense. As to compassion, that is just the fear of society
allowing the same thing to happen to you.
Sorry, we are so far out of agreement here that we would spend too much
time arguing over basic definitions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ZerkonX |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:05:32 +0100, jer0en wrote:
Quote: I don't remember having done an ethical thing in my life if I didn't expect
either punishment or reward...
Do you believe then that no one else can? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:39 pm
|
|