Ethics

[Anonymous No.14916347]

Can someone tell me of an ethical theory that doesn't have holes? It just seems to me that what people say you ought to do always goes back to people having emotional reactions to thing. Please help I'm going insane.

[Anonymous No.14916351]

>>14916347
every theory has holes
action doesn't

[Anonymous No.14916359]

>>14916351
*shoots you in the stomach as you arrogantly walk forward*
where is your holeless action now fag

[Anonymous No.14916366]

>>14916347
>Can someone tell me of an ethical theory that doesn't have holes?
Hegel or Nietzsche, 2 sides of the coin of being and becoming.

[Anonymous No.14916404]

Jesus Christ is the only truthful without holes, nobody can't contradict him. The problem is that is too truthful that we prefer to go into others so we can escape from Truth and we can just be shitty human beings.

[Anonymous No.14916421]

>>14916347
Sure:
It is good to do good; it is evil to do evil.

[Anonymous No.14916429]

>>14916421
Lol

[Anonymous No.14916447]

>>14916347
Ethics is just individual practical reason extended to n persons. It's exactly as straightforward as selfishness is.

[Anonymous No.14916462]

>>14916347
Morality is simply doing that which benefits you. Suppose that you could see and experience all possible lives that you could live, and discover which life is most preferable to you. The sum of experiences in that life is most preferable, and is therefore the most moral. This is the life that you should live, because you wouldn’t want to do otherwise. If this isn’t morality, then what is? And why should you be moral? Why should you settle for a lesser life?

As for being good to others, this is usually moral, since creating good relationships with others tends to good consequences for yourself. You shouldn’t even risk harming others, because the fear of punishment itself will be enough to worsen your experience of life. For those who say that we are good to others purely out of selflessness: why, then, are you good to them? And why not be good to other species just as equally? And why not sacrifice yourself for a pebble, if you are truly selfless? So we see that total selflessness is illogical. All actions are ultimately motivated by the self.

It follows that atheists can have a sense of morality, since they have an idea of what’s good for them. Everyone knows not to kill because this leads to bad consequences for yourself. However, an atheist isn’t far from believing that he can get away with murder or theft, because these actions aren’t inherently immoral, since it’s possible that they produce good results. So though atheists have a sense of morality, it is not a permanent, universal, morality, known to humans, as in theism. But both the theist and atheist depend on faith for their morality, since no one truly knows what is best for him in the end.

The problem with a moral system such as Kant’s is that he forgets the importance of our non-rational nature, our subjective side that feels and experiences. His moral principles are empty because we have no real reason to do them. If consequences are irrelevant, and our feelings are irrelevant, then how do we determine what to do? We are not robots, so we cannot live on reason alone.

[Anonymous No.14916490]

>>14916462
And as for utilitarianism, it must be the case that this philosophy is also centered around the self, since there is no other good reason why we should favor the happiness of the whole. Consider the case in which the greater good is to kill off humans so that some other larger, superior species may profit and be happy. Why should utilitarians support humans, then? Only because they themselves are humans.

[Anonymous No.14916512]

>>14916447
based HEINLEIN poster

[Anonymous No.14916529]

>>14916347
on the basis of morality

[Anonymous No.14916551]

>>14916529
Based Schopiebro

[Anonymous No.14916554]

>>14916359
based

[Anonymous No.14917033]

>>14916421
this is your brain on religion

[Anonymous No.14917091]

ethics are multi-momentary intuitions
the aggregate intuition you feel in the face of some act /event or during some act/event or after some act/event; but also inter-subjectively, not solely individually. For we do not feel think nor move in Vacuum, but in a matrix of faces. And while morality for you is you history, morality of you and Man's omni-generational history.
And to understand that man is limited is to know man is not omniscient, imperfect memory, etc,.

[Anonymous No.14917097]

>>14916347
Objective morality is a spook

[Anonymous No.14917098]

>>14916447
that's just utilitarianism

[Anonymous No.14917101]

>>14916347
Morality has to due with values. It is not an "is" question, it's an "ought" question. For example, because of my evolutionary heritage I have a conscience, which makes me value things like honest and love. The way humans have traditionally tried to explain this is with moral ideologies, but in reality it's as natural as breathing.

[MASS ASS NAME DROPPER: CASH RO(...) No.14917134]

>>14916421
i dont know where op is coming from - but it is pretty much this simple.
it doesnt mean dont slap a fucker when needed.
the worlds complex, but doing right really isnt.

[MASS ASS NAME DROPPER: CASH RO(...) No.14917137]

>>14916462
>Morality is simply doing that which benefits you
that is false and you know it.

[Anonymous No.14917139]

>>14917098
Only if you regard promoting your own well-being as utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.14917155]

Got a dilemma for you boys:
What would you choose - to lose an eye, or cause someone else to lose an eye? No retaliation is guaranteed if you choose the latter.

[Anonymous No.14917175]

>>14917155
Someone else.... how is this an interesting question?

[Anonymous No.14917565]

>>14917137
not an argument

[Anonymous No.14917568]

>>14917155
That's the dumbest dilemma I've ever been given. Unless the second person is someone I personally give a shit about, obviously I'm going to choose to put their eye out instead of mine.

[Anonymous No.14917576]

>>14917155
A more interesting dilemma is this: suppose you could only go to heaven if everyone else went to hell, and you could only go to hell if everyone else went to heaven. Your experience of either heaven or hell is exactly the same as it would be under normal conditions, with the knowledge of your choice being wiped from your mind. Do you choose heaven or hell?

[Anonymous No.14917586]

>>14917155
One interesting thing that this question does is show that when you remove all the variables choosing yourself over another is the most obvious thing so shouldn't we just always choose ourselves and every situation if the only thing getting in the way is logic or variables

[Anonymous No.14917593]

>>14917097
what is morality and what does it mean for it not to be objective?

[Anonymous No.14917605]

>>14917155
I wouldn't call this a dillema but rather an argument, a really great one at that, for people who have too much empathy ir schizophrenia to the point they worry about having other people's problems and say the world is unfair, this is extremely eye opening and enlightening as it makes you stop caring about other people's problems which they can't help, makes you realise in how good of a place you actually are. Thanks for this post.

[Anonymous No.14918284]

>>14916347
>people having emotional reactions
this is enough justification.
you fag

[Anonymous No.14918967]

>>14916462
can’t be refuted

[Anonymous No.14919318]

>>14916347
Ethics are a subjective concept. Good is subjective to each and every person. Ethics are simply refuted since they have to be dynamic in order to fit each person accordingly. What you are looking for is materialism.

[Anonymous No.14919337]

>>14916490
>>14916462
This is just materialism. Not that I disagree.

[Anonymous No.14919409]

>>14919337
> This is just materialism.
Only if the immaterial has no effect on subjective experience. If the soul can experience or contribute to the experience joy, in here or the afterlife, then it’s not necessarily a materialistic position.

[Anonymous No.14919422]

conventional morality is whatever lends support and legitimacy to the existing mode of production - feudual ethics justifies feudalism, capitalist ethics justifies capitalism. there are neither right nor wrong ethical theories, there are just those that are in agreement with the driving force of historical dialectic and are therefore progressive and those that oppose the expansion of material productive forcess and are therefore reactionary and regressive

[Anonymous No.14919430]

>>14919409
To put it in simple words, if I understood you correctly:
If the color red causes you joy, are you experiencing joy due to the sensation of the color red? Or, are you experiencing joy due to the brain experiencing the wavelengths of 'red'?

[Anonymous No.14919432]

>>14916462
This is just circular reasoning. You just assume that benefiting yourself is the best (see moral), and then conclude that the most moral thing is benefitting yourself.

[Anonymous No.14919546]

>>14919432
>conclude that the most moral thing is benefitting yourself
Did you read what he wrote?
>no one truly knows what is best for him in the end.
The most moral thing is what you are able to estimate as benefiting yourself at the most, you fantasize about the various scenarios that result from your actions, like a chess program that calculates future moves, and then you make the decision which you visualize leading to the best outcome, which is one that results in your own benefit the most. Smarter people make better decisions since they can visualize more scenarios.

[Anonymous No.14919570]

>>14919432
As I pointed out, we are not creatures of reason alone. We cannot escape our desire to have positive experiences. I cannot argue why we should follow this irrational desire. Morality, and all things, generally, inevitably fall back on something circular or axiomatic, so I’m simply suggesting a most sensible axiom, that is, self-benefit.

[Anonymous No.14919599]

>>14919546
>Did you read what he wrote?
Yes

I'll just do a retard explanation
Normative ethics: what actions are the best to do.
>"Morality is simply doing that which benefits you" = the best action is that which benefits you.
>"And why should you be moral?" If the assumption wasn't that benefiting yourself was better, then this would be a nonsensical thing to ask as the moral thing is the best thing, and the best thing is the best thing to do.
>"And why should you be moral? Why should you settle for a lesser life?"
Being moral here is simply defined as all possible things that don't benefit yourself, "not the best". The question then is nonsensical given the assumption. The assumption is showcased clearly by "why should you settle for a lesser life" where lesser is a moral judgment, for "less of goodness than the best".

[Anonymous No.14919613]

>>14919570
Actually you could probaly argue for it by having a pragmatist theory of truth.
Like; a statement is true if it is useful, ethical egoism is pretty useful for me, therefor ethical egoism is true.

[Anonymous No.14919620]

>>14917155
The other person and me are identical. Both outcomes are the same. Might as well pick myself to lose it though since I know I can get over it whereas I don't know that for the other person.

[Anonymous No.14919675]

>>14919599

[Anonymous No.14919690]

>>14919599
Okay. So it's about why benefiting yourself is the best thing?
Maybe because you cannot fantasize, or process something from any point of view that isn't your own? You are simply incapable to experience something from a point of view that isn't "I", therefore you cannot truly succeed in doing something for the benefit of someone else?

[Anonymous No.14919705]

>>14916347
Catagorical imparative obviously. Dont know why you faggots havent mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.14919706]

>>14919690
No?
It's about the fact that the argument in the original point was circular. The original post should just have been.
"I assume that acting in my self benefit is good becuase of my emotional disposition to do so. Therefor it's moral to benefit yourself".
(Also your argument isn't valid as the conclusion doesn't follow from the premisses, but that's neither here or there)

[Anonymous No.14919713]

>>14919690
>therefore you cannot truly succeed in doing something for the benefit of someone else?
You can surely benefit others, but you can’t do that without appealing to some sort of self-benefit through the process. The simple satisfaction of being good to others is a “selfish” cause for these actions. If you didn’t think being good would improve your experience in some way, then you wouldn’t do it.

[Anonymous No.14919720]

>>14919705
already refuted >>14916462

>>14919706
what else could morality be? How could it not be circular?

[Anonymous No.14919725]

>>14919720
Base morality on epistemological grounds?

[Anonymous No.14919730]

>>14919725
go ahead then, show us

[Anonymous No.14919738]

>>14919730
It's extremely easy;
A statement is true if it is useful (Jamesian theory of truth), ethical egoism is pretty useful, therefor ethical egoism is true.

[Anonymous No.14919752]

>>14919738
Define useful

[Anonymous No.14919755]

>>14916347
All ethical systems have "holes" because they all necessarily rely on certain things being accepted as axiomatic which cannot be proven. This is the problem theists thrive on pretending to solve.

You're just gonna have to live with it.

[Anonymous No.14919757]

>14919706
If you can't experience existence from the point of view of a different being, then every act you preform is done from the point of view of yourself. So, doing something for someone else, is simply doing it for the sake of the "I" in his place, therefore, it is still for your own self-benefit.

[Anonymous No.14919765]

>>14919757
meant for
>>14919706

[Anonymous No.14919767]

>>14916347
My system has no holes but I can't tell you cuz it's a secret. Sorry anon.

[Anonymous No.14919784]

>>14919752
"able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways."
Hello dictionary department?
Also, if you want to define useful as "that which benefits me", then my improved version of your position still isn't circular.
A statement is true if it benefits me to believe in it, egoism benefits me if I believe in it, therefor egoism is true.

When you go about memeing about egoism, instead of just assuming your position, you should base it on a notion of Jamesian truth. Otherwise there is no real reason to take your circular argument seriously, in favor of something like kantianism that bases its morality on epistemological grounds. If not, then the argument is essentially;
"I believe in Kantianism becuase I can justify it based on my epistemology"
"Lmao you're wrong"
"Why?"
"I just assume it"

[Anonymous No.14919800]

>>14919784
>A statement is true if it benefits me to believe in it, egoism benefits me if I believe in it, therefor egoism is true.
A statement is true if it benefits the whole. Utilitarianism benefits the whole. Therefore utilitarianism is true.

[Anonymous No.14919804]

>>14919752
This
>>14919720
Doesnt refute it. In practice, yes, it usually is what benifits you, but from a purely conceptual notion "benifit" is abstract and imprecise. If we wanted to use a more percise term it would be "cause", since benifit implies some level of self determination, but even then, that begs the cause-effect gap. Benifit requires multiple levels of episomological jumps. Telling the truth you think is true will never be false, as your are not presuposing an object, just refining the clarity of what we think we can think.

[Anonymous No.14919809]

>>14919757
Actually you are. All people are essentially the same cogito, just with different qualia and physical factors. When you imagine that you are another person, and you have all the relevant factors in your imagination, then you are sympathizing with what it's like to be them. If you then do something out of sympathy, then it's out of sympathy for their very being.

[Anonymous No.14919811]

>>14919804
To benefit myself is to make my life more preferable.

[Anonymous No.14919822]

>>14919800
>A statement is true if it benefits the whole.
When it comes to epistemology, our epistemological theory needs to be able to validate our common everyday process of arriving att truth. The "A statement is true if it benefits me to believe in it" can do this while "the whole" can't becuase it can't guide us in situations were we are alone and so on.

[Anonymous No.14919839]

>>14919811
And? what is preferable? Again, that presupposes self determination. How is preferable, or useful more accurate than cause?

[Anonymous No.14919842]

>>14919822
Then truth is not the same for everyone, and the word “truth” loses its meaning. I think James has the right idea about pragmatism, but we should still separate objective truth from what benefits us. You can believe in something that isn’t true, and it still benefit you. There’s no reason to say that beneficial things are also true, for them truth could mean nothing else.

[Anonymous No.14919845]

>>14919839
>what is preferable?
That’s subjective and non-rational. With reason alone, there’s no reason to do anything.

[Anonymous No.14919888]

>>14919845
>Reason
>cause
>Preference is a subset of cause
You are describing the human condition, not the hypthetical ethics as its own thing. Yes we can only surmise it from the human experience since we are limited to the state, but we cannot discount that reality might exist outside of ourselves (of course saying that it absolutely does is equally as falicious, we should say that it may or may not). and the correct turn that encapsulates both the human, and hypothetical non human evaluation is "Cause", not Preference.

[Anonymous No.14919899]

>>14919842
When it comes to a pragmatist theory of truth, it's useful to split truth up in two parts, predictive truth and prescriptive truth. Predictive truth is ;"If x happen, then y happens". Predictive truth is useful becuase it allows us to orient in reality while prescriptive truth is useful becuase it gives us a goal in our orientation of reality. Beliving in a false predictive statment does have immense negative consequences, as it wouldn't be useful to believe a lie when you try to orient yourself in reality. Prescriptive truths can be; "you ought to believe in x" and x could be a statement with no predictive truth. So while you could believe in something that benefits you, becuase you ought to believe it on moral grounds, it doesn't mean that it has predictive value. Note that the division between descriptive and predictive truth is based on the fundamental concept of truth being beliving useful things. Also the concept of objective truth is pretty gay as we don't have a direct access to reality itself, but a biopragmatic simulation. So you could believe in something becuase it benefits you as a prescriptive truth (positive thinking and so on), if it contradicts descriptive truth, then it stops being pragmatic.

[Anonymous No.14919908]

>>14919899
Then it stops being pragmatic and becomes false, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.14919913]

>>14916404
>the dinosaurs
>all of science
>the bible

[Anonymous No.14919991]

>>14919809
Qualia sounds like it is dictated by physical factors, like your physical brain's wiring.
If you sympathize with a deaf person, then you fantasize not hearing, because you are aware what silence is like. It's still the 'you' that is rooted in your physical body, so doing something for the benefit of that deaf person, is for the benefit of the 'you' that originates from your physical body, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.14920154]

>>14919713
What would even be an example of an "unselfish" behaviour if we're defining selfishness so broadly as to include both self-sacrificial and sociopathic behaviours?

[Anonymous No.14920189]

>>14920154
Selflessness means acting without reasons from within, which is illogical. Even more illogical is selflessness with an emphasis on benefiting others, as these actions are much less likely than the infinite other actions that are also selfless.

[Anonymous No.14920217]

>>14920154
>>14920189
If all actions are done for the sake of self benefit in their core, then no action is unselfish. Can only the result of an action be "altruistic" then?

[Anonymous No.14920227]

>>14920217
Intents can be altruistic but this intent is still derived from selfishness. You desire to be good to others because this is good for you. If I water my garden and feed my livestock, am I being selfless to them?

[Anonymous No.14920253]

>>14920227
No, you are not, because you do it for the sake of the "I". Your intent is selfish because even if you fed them not for their survival, but their happiness, it was for the happiness you would have experienced as a sheep in their place, being fed. You don't know their happiness, you can't take responsibility for it, you simply estimate it because you would've been happy in their place.

[Anonymous No.14920665]

>>14916462
Promising post. You're on a good way. Unfortunately, you didn't walk it long enough, yet.

>Everyone knows not to kill because this leads to bad consequences for yourself.
So I shall not kill animals to feed off them? I shall not kill bacteria with antibiotics when I'm ill? I shall not kill someone who attacks me and threatens my life and I don't have any other choice?
And if you say I'm allowed to do these things, because it doesn't lead to bad consequences for me, why shall I not kill a rich person to get his money, if I'm sure I won't expect any bad consequences? Or why shouldn't I hold a girl as my sex slave if I'm on an empty island with her and she's unable to defend herself? And is it bad to torture, murder, rape masses of other people at all as long as it's fun for you and you can get away with it?

>You shouldn’t even risk harming others, because the fear of punishment itself will be enough to worsen your experience of life.
You punish bad behaviour. That means, you first have to define what bad behaviour is, then you can punish it. You do it exactly the other way round: bad behaviour is bad because it can get punished. This concept of "bad" is totally empty. Everything which gets punished is bad. Thus, what's bad becomes totally arbitrary since everything a certain society punishes is bad and everything it doesn't punish is good. That's exactly what constitutes an authoritarian personality - and that's pretty much the opposite of a real ethician.

>His moral principles are empty because we have no real reason to do them.
That's one of the main problems here: you didn't understand Kant properly. I give you a hint: the moral principle isn't empty, it's formal. In other words: it's not a specific moral judgement, it's more a kind of the correct "syntax" of moral judgements. The moral principle is the condition of possibility to make moral judgements at all.

I won't tell you more, because the moment you understand why that's the case is actually a great experience since it's so beautifully simple and I won't spoil that experience for you.

Good luck. (I know, this sounds quite arrogant, but I'm actually honest.)

[Anonymous No.14920710]

>>14920227
Care of the brood is actually real altruism. That's why it's a common joke among some biologists to say "commit slow suicide" instead of "giving birth".

[Anonymous No.14920719]

>>14920665
>So I shall not kill animals to feed off them? I shall not kill bacteria with antibiotics when I'm ill? I shall not kill someone who attacks me and threatens my life and I don't have any other choice?
I meant murder, just as in “Thou shalt not kill.” But the Bible obviously condones killing of animals, so the context is that the word “kill” means murder.
> And if you say I'm allowed to do these things, because it doesn't lead to bad consequences for me, why shall I not kill a rich person to get his money, if I'm sure I won't expect any bad consequences?
Because you cannot be sure of the consequences, neither in this life nor the afterlife. If you know for certain that you could do these things and profit, then I see no reason why you shouldn’t do them.
> That means, you first have to define what bad behaviour is, then you can punish it.
Harming others results in punishment. Who punishes the man that gives him what he wants and makes him happy? Regardless, I don’t need to rigorously define bad behavior anyway, since everyone has their own subjective view of what’s harmful or beneficial to them. We can only guess what people like and do not like. For example, most people don’t want you to kill their families. We cannot be certain about that, but that’ll do.

[Anonymous No.14920843]

>>14920719
I meant murder, just as in “Thou shalt not kill.” But the Bible obviously condones killing of animals, so the context is that the word “kill” means murder.
So it means, "thou shalt not murder Israelites" since said Israelites are happily murdering a lot of outsiders with God's blessing (partly treacherously as for example one party they murder suffers from gangrene due to the circumcision they underwent to ally with the Israelites). Even a suicide attacker is praised in the Bible (Samson).

>Because you cannot be sure of the consequences, neither in this life nor the afterlife.
You do realize, this sentence completely destroys your own ethics? If we can't be at least a little bit sure about consequences, it doesn't make sense to ask what's a good or a bad act at all - if the consequences are unpredictable, we can act arbitrarily as well.

>Who punishes the man that gives him what he wants and makes him happy?
Plato writes in the Republic, that people tend to love the cook which served them delicious, unhealthy food and hate the physician which had to hurt them because they ate so much of it, they got ill. You're on the other hand saying, it's better to be the poison then to be the medicine as long as it satisfies other people's desires.

[Anonymous No.14920858]

>>14919913
ever heard of the fall?

[Anonymous No.14920958]

>>14920843
>You do realize, this sentence completely destroys your own ethics? If we can't be at least a little bit sure about consequences, it doesn't make sense to ask what's a good or a bad act at all - if the consequences are unpredictable, we can act arbitrarily as well.
The risk of murder or other crimes is too high, and it often comes with unpleasant fear and guilt. It makes more sense to live without resorting to these things, unless in extreme circumstances. But even then, you would risk suffering in the infinite afterlife. I know why I don’t do these things. Do you?
> You're on the other hand saying, it's better to be the poison then to be the medicine as long as it satisfies other people's desires.
I didn’t say what we should or shouldn’t do to them in that instance. I only said that people won’t punish you if you make them happy.

[Anonymous No.14921114]

>>14920958
>The risk of murder or other crimes is too high, and it often comes with unpleasant fear and guilt. It makes more sense to live without resorting to these things, unless in extreme circumstances. But even then, you would risk suffering in the infinite afterlife. I know why I don’t do these things. Do you?
That's what I said above. You rely on rules given to you by other people/God. An act is bad if it can get punished (which means it's against rules other people gave you) and it's good if it's fun and can't get punished (which means, it's conform to rules other people gave you). Either you ignore the question if acting in a certain way is really good or bad or you refuse to answer it. Like a soldier who only obeys orders. That means, even if an act is bad (for example because the people who judge about it instead of you want you to make bad things out of their own interest) you still do it according to their rules and you don't even have the ethical tools to judge it on your own since good simply means no punishment and bad means punishment. Therefore, you could easily become a marionette other people use for their bad acts without even realizing it. And the strings they conduct you with are called punishment/no punishment.

That's one of the reasons why Kant says - and that's pretty much the quintessence of Kant's ethics - "Freedom is the ability to give oneself the rule (or principle) of one's own behaviour". And that's btw. the exact meaning of the word "autonomy".

[Anonymous No.14921134]

>>14921114
>you still do it according to their rules and you don't even have the ethical tools to judge it on your own since good simply means no punishment and bad means punishment
in the end, you still didn’t show the problem with this. There’s no reason not to do what tends to good consequences. It’s not as if I obey the rules of others in a deontological sense. If following their rules benefits me, then I will. But at that point, it’s hardly their rules, but mine as well, since I agree with them.

[Anonymous No.14921158]

>>14921134
>If following their rules benefits me, then I will.
And if they don't benefit you? Would you break them even if you will get punished for it?

[Anonymous No.14921178]

>>14921158
>Would you break them even if you will get punished for it?
If it means gaining a greater benefit than by following the rules, then yes. It doesn’t really matter what the rule is or who makes it, but all things are simply conditions that affect my decision. In the end, I’ll still do what I perceive to be good for me