S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:52 am

thinkdr wrote:What promethean presents us with is a curious argument that has a number of difficulties. He writes : "i wouldn't consider normative ethics to be anything more than an inter-subjective convention shared by people who willingly agree.... That George Washington was the first President is such a convention, yet it is a fact. And that stones fall toward the center of the Earth is such a convention also. What else is "fact" but an inter-subjective agreement?
Those are different categories. The non-ethical examples are conclusions based on evidence. The normative ethics are based on values, on what people think is good, and which they cannot agree on.

Of course, the fact about anything is also a set of properties which when fluidly payed with constitutes 'creativity.' R. S. Hartman held that there is an infinitely thin line between fact and value. I myself observe that factual discussions are riddled with values.
Sure, they are. But there is a place to start. YOu can start with stones and see what happens. You can read documents, newpaper articles, letters from the late 1700s and use other evidence to reach the conclusion about Washington. To find the axioms dealing with ethics, the only thing you can start with is people's desires.

Hartman defined the concept "value" as a perceived (or experaienced) one-to-one partial correspondence between two sets - the set of attributes describing a concept of x, and the properties possessed by this specific x being judged or evaluated, at time t. The judge cannot be left out of this relation. If you perceive a full correspondence, you are likely to call x 'good.' And that is what "'good"means. Spelling out the implications of this gives us the discipline known as Formal Axiology.
You can find a whole bunch of differing goods that way, yes. So then you have a vast set of contradictory axioms.

promethean, in describing the U.S. (so-called) justice system, employs such terms as "hypocrisy" and "corruption." Both of these are Ethical terms and are well-defined in the Unified Theory of Ethics. To him, the existence of these states in the justice system is a fact. If others see it the same way, then it is an objective fact.
Hypocrisy and corruption can be shown via evidence. IOW both use the axioms of the system and test the system BY ITS OWN VALUES. There you don't have to worry about whether the axioms are true, since you are pointing out that the system fails on its own axioms. That can be objective. The axioms still cannot be.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby promethean75 » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:44 pm

The non-ethical examples are conclusions based on evidence. The normative ethics are based on values, on what people think is good, and which they cannot agree on.


right, and we can expand on this to demonstrate those basic tenets of non cognitivism and emotivism mentioned earlier. first, divide 'truth' values of statemnets into only two sorts; analytically (deductive and necessary) and synthetically (inductive and contingent) true (you guys probably already know all this). analytical truths are true by virtue of their definitions; you don't need to 'get off your couch' (paraphrasing carnap, i believe) to check and see if they're true. synthetic statements however need some kind of verification in order to be known as true... and we'll skip the controversy around what constitutes 'reasonable justification' at the moment because this problem is irrelevant to the point being made here.

the verification principle works hand-in-hand with logical empiricism, and these examine the meanings of terms and the logical relations between them. they would never raise or answer questions like 'what is the meaning of life' or 'are men mortal' because these questions admit no empirically verifiable reply. so most normative assertions, whether moral or religious or aesthetic, are empirically unverifiable and therefore meaningless as expressions of 'fact' in an objective sense. these kinds of statements express only personal judgments, values, preferences, opinions. and these of course are relative and non-analytical... but they are also unable to be empirically verified, so they aren't inductive truths either. non cognitivists claim that such statements are not 'truth-apt', meaning that there is no logical content beyond the structure of the grammar used to declare them.

an example: 'thou shalt not violate ecmandu's consent'. this statement is not meaningful (as a command) because it is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable. it expresses a belief or a preference, not a statement of fact. we may believe that it is wrong to violate ecmandu's consent, but can we verify that it is in fact wrong to do so? certainly, we can discover that people believe it is wrong... but this would only verify the factual statement 'people believe violating ecmandu's consent is wrong', see.

non cognitivists call such statements 'emotive', but there can also be emotive statements that impart cognitive content. a non cognitive emotive statement example would be if i said 'that is the wrong thing to read' to ecmandu as he reads a playgirl magazine. my statement would be an attempt to direct ecmandu's future reading, and would not be imparting any cognitive knowledge. on the other hand, if i tell ecmandu to read a playboy magazine that explains some topic 'very well', i'd be imparting cognitive content. such a statement can be checked by examining the magazine and verifying the statement directly.

but the latter statement is still emotive. why? because it expresses a value; 'very well'.

and here is where that tinsy weensy almost imperceptible subtle difference in declarative mood causes so many people to mistake ethical statements as statements of fact. if we were to describe a person's behavior as corresponding to some moral 'good' as an example of 'very well' behavior, we can check that by examining how the behavior conforms to what is expected in order to be moral. and presto, it is a 'fact' that the person is being moral. but wait. that there is correspondence between the behavior, the expectation, and the concluding factual claim that the person is being moral, does nothing to verify whether or not there is 'rightness' or 'wrongness' in that correspondence. if we were to say 'what joe did was good', this would be equivalent to an emotive exclamation like 'yay joe!', and nothing more.

on the other hand, if we say 'joe did the right thing by leaving early', we can check the value of this notion of 'right' by considering how heavy the traffic is, or how slow his car is. such a statement would impart cognitive content in that it can be verified by examining the circumstances surrounding joe's travel.

but none of this does away with ethical discourse. it only significantly changes the context of it. you can do normative ethics, but you can't do it like the doc wants to. the trick with being successful with ethics is to not try to get all epistemological with it, and just try to appeal to people's sensibilities rather than try to convince them through logical force. fortunately most people don't know of the secret sauce i've just given you, so they'd not offer much protest to a common sense, normative ethics. if we wish to save ethics, we must remove it from philosophy, for here it does not fair well.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby thinkdr » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:45 am

if we wish to save ethics, we must remove it from philosophy, for here it does not fair well.
--promethean75

They know enough who know how to learn.
---Henry Adams

It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.
---Ralph Waldo Emerson

"When it is dark enough, you can see the stars.
---Charles A. Beard

Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly.
---Langston Hughes

Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it kind, is it true, is it necessary, does it improve upon the silence?
---Sai Baba of Shirdi


Yes, promethean, it is time that Ethics was ushered out of philosophy and into science. According to the Science of Value, Ethics is one of its subfields, one of its derivatives. As noticed by those who read and studied the little STRUCTURE OF ETHICS booklet, an axiomatic approach is employed. All the rest of it follows from that axiom set, from the synthetic a priori, which is part a construct and part empirical.

The author does not want to be one of those Rationalists who merely build a coherent intellectual structure which is not tied to the empirical world. He wants both coherence and to comply with the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

And he also wants Intrinsic Truth: he wants to comply with what people know intuitively to be true. People, for the most part, know injustice when they see it. They sense something is wrong ... with hypocrisy ...with cheating ...with theft ...with dishonesty ...with cruelty ...with needless suffering.

Acts of kindness are good; and "good" has been exactly and precisely defined, as part of a systematic frame-of-reference. Personal development toward moral health is good. Being compassionate is good. As long as it is not over-done nor under-done. Prudence is a virtue. This is NOT just a game ...as promethean75 would have us believe.

Your comments? Your questions?
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you Google the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby promethean75 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:02 am

I'd like to extend my gratitude to the doc for putting my words at the head of that series of quotes. Finally I've been given my natural place among the great thinkers.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby thinkdr » Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:59 pm

8)

LOL


Glad to be of service :!:
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you Google the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby promethean75 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:17 pm

feel free to quote me any time you like.

actually if you could go ahead and put some of my quotes beside some from shlick and ayer and maybe pierce, that would be great.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby promethean75 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:29 pm

... and you can't make a science outta ethics, doc. remember what your homeboy skinner said; it's not that mental events aren't real, it's that they're irrelevant. if you wish to modify human behavior you gotta do it through operant conditioning, not by reading the critique of practical reason to everyone. the 'good' and the 'bad' don't exist in some conceptual space that can be traversed theoretically. these things exist in learned behavior and experience.

the philosophy of ethics is incredibly ambiguous man, so much so that i could turn aristotle's concept of the virtuous into something absolutely evil. i don't want to be able to do that, so i need something i can depend on... something that isn't fickle enough to be so easily played with.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby thinkdr » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:52 pm

promethean75 wrote:... and you can't make a science outta ethics, doc. .


Here's the way it works; here is why Ethics is a science with evidence, with measurement, with verification, with elimination of counter-factuals.

On second thought, I'm going to put this information at the end of my thread entitled Hardcore Ethics, after Part Three has been posted. So firstly I will attend to that. Here is a link to that site: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195052
There, when I finish the theme "Kindness is not enough" I will elaborate on the frame-of-reference, the scientific meta-theory, and the theory of Ethics, the science. I will give the empirical operations that confirm and verify the hypotheses.

Okay.
This current thread is more about Peace with Justice ...topics in Applied Ethics.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you Google the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

Postby thinkdr » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:33 am

promethean writes: "if you wish to modify human behavior [in a more-ethical direction] you gotta do it through operant conditioning, not by reading the critique of practical reason to everyone."

In a 23-page pamphlet, entitled LIVING WELL, the third selection listed below (to which a pdf file link is offered) I have a section on" How Ethics spreads Around the World," and it doesn't say a word about reading Kant to anyone, let alone to "everyone."

What it does say is that "ethical technologies" will help do it. They are social or physical inventions; they are the results of applied scientific research and/or sheer brilliant creativity.

They often result from improvements in design. They have a powerful social impact. Examples are given in the paper, q.v.


Questions? Comments? Rejoinders?
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you Google the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fixed Cross