Rational Ethics: Introduction, Part 1

A Basic Introduction to Rational Ethics, Part 1

Written version (of all parts) here: http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1645895

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• virtue
• ethics
• consequentialism
• morality
• nihilism
• egoism
• eudaimonia
• compatibilism
• determinism
• objectivism

[loserbum3]

One weak point in your argument (which I very much like) is that one can ask: ought human nature be this way? If there is non-human intelligent life in the universe, whether from another planet or due to changes in humanity, would it follow the same ethics? Would the non-universality of the ethical system make it not quite objective?

[XOmniverse]

Thats a really interesting point!

I think it would still be objective in the sense that the ethical system is grounded in reality and human nature, but it wouldn't necessarily apply to aliens.

As far as the implications of transhumanism and the ability to fundamentally alter the human condition, that is a much more interesting question. How much of our nature is grounded in sentience itself, for example?

I don't claim to have the answer to that but it'll definitely be on my mind now.

[EsotericThrone]

Bridging the is-ought gap and establishing any sort of foundation for objective ethics has been, and does keep me up at night. This is really interesting to me so far, and similar to thoughts I've had as well. I suppose we can all agree that there is obviously no such thing as "Absolute" ethics in the sense that there is no cosmic force which cares how we behave. But "absolute" and "objectively valid" or "objectively valid about human beings or on the human plane" are very different things.

[FatGermanBastard]

My second problem is that you define ethics as any type of codified principles (by your definition anything is objective so adding the word objective doesn't really do anything).

I.e. mafia rules or Nazi laws are codified principles and they deal with the rational efficiency of an action in regards to the goals preferred by those groups. However, ethics does not deal with that. Ethics refers to the question which goal ought to be preferred. I.e. why prefer happiness over self sacrifice ?

[Esoparagon]

Really good way to explain it. This is what I had been thinking. It's not that you ought to do it, it's that you do, it's deterministic, you will by your human nature. There is no choice in it.

[BamBam41510]

@XOmniverse I think all of our nature is grounded in sentience itself. and it all is subjective, while being an objective point of view (assuming rational logical decisions.... making the presumption that all people try and make the best decisions for themselves). The perseption of the event is what gives anything its power.

[EyesLikeHoles]

@rickdelagarza You can measure the usefulness of ideas, their function, their outcomes, benefits, their cohesiveness with what we know or believe to be true etc.

[rickdelagarza]

Its impossible to have ethics in reality or human nature because they can't be tangibly measured so the notion of ethics' being significant is diminished to nothing.You can't see or touch ideas.And I mean this as politely as possible.They are only relevant to conditioned ethics, that is, learned behavior.

[SBRslacker00]

I know.

I was trying to continue the analogy by suggesting that your audience is a lot smaller than you may think it is. Is that the point of ethics? I'd prefer to think of ethical discussion as inclusive rather than exclusive.

[XOmniverse]

I was making an analogy.

[SBRslacker00]

"However, that does not invalidate the utility of such a book to the vast majority of people who do have arms."

Baseballs?

I'd say the vast majority of people with arms have no valid utility for throwing baseballs, much less reading a book on the subject.

Besides, I was hoping we were talking about something more meaningful than idle recreation involving baseball throwing.

[XOmniverse]

And a book on how to throw baseballs probably would have no utility for such a person.

However, that does not invalidate the utility of such a book to the vast majority of people who do have arms.

[SBRslacker00]

Not every human has arms. ;)

[skater3shefik]

i dont believe in man made global warming i believe its all natural.....

we have had cars and factories since before WW2 why is it just now warming up?

and i heard of a water runned car, dont water vapors realease even more green house gasses...

al gore, is the smartest man ever!! he was able to pull off the biggest money and politic scam, the world has ever seen or heard, and people still believe it...