• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

On the nature of ethics

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
There is no individual drive for survival, anything that looks that way can be reduced to the drive towards personal affirmation.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Exactly.

The 'value-centered thinking' which SolitaryWalker considers so irrational is often an attempt at solving the problems which arise when everyone acts hedonistically. When each pursues their own well-being (happiness, contendedness, goals, or whatever) interests come into conflict. Ethical theories propose rules of conduct which resolve these conflicts such as, for example, property rights.

It is true that people often employ value centered thinking to combat unwise and irresponsible hedonistic behavior. For example, when somebody says, I do not care what any of you want, I will simply do whatever I feel like it. Many will stand up and say, you cannot do that, you must take the interests of others in consideration!

It is certainly the case that if we institute the proper rules of behavior, we will have a harmonious society, or people will get along with each other. But then again, is such an ethical system complete? It is not complete, because then we still will have unanswered questions. Such as, what do I do with the rest of my life? Or how do I make decisions that are not directly relevant to my interaction with other people? To answer such questions it is important to consider the question of what makes me the happiest and do exactly what leads to such a result.

On that note, ethics has two aspects. The first aspect is the one that you have mentioned, or ethics of man's relationship to society, and the ethics concerning the decisions man must make that are independent of his relationship to society.



---------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets forget the latter ethics for the moment. Lets assume that all of ethics is about man's relationship to society. Or in other words, the ONLY purpose of ethics is to ensure that people get along with each other. The question to ask then is, why should people wish to get along with each other? The obvious answer is that because they wish to be happy. If the people have such a perspective in mind, they will see adequate justifications for establishing harmonious relationships with others. In other words, because they wish to be happy, they will seek out ways to get along with others. (Unless of course doing the latter does not conduce to their long-term happiness, which is almost never the case.) Yet, if they do not have such a perspective in mind, they will seek to establish harmonious relationships with others for reasons they do not understand. They will be merely driven by the aforementioned irrational value-cenetered thinking, or in other words, doing what they are 'supposed to do'. This is problematic because very often the endorsed values will not conduce to harmonious relationships between people as in that case people will do not what truly conduces to people getting along, but whatever they should do in order to stay true to their principles.

Accordingly, the only reliable way to avoid the problem of dogmatically adhering to the principles which do not conduce to establishment of harmony between people is by keeping the long term objective in perspective.

In summary, ethics has two aspects, one is concerned with man's relationship with society and the other with his own happiness. If a man does not consider the second aspect of ethics he is unlikely to contribute to the ethic that conduces to a harmonious society. Thus hedonism conduces to resolution of conflicts between the members of society more than it causes conflicts because only such hedonism can give people the true motivation to get along with each other.

There is no individual drive for survival, anything that looks that way can be reduced to the drive towards personal affirmation.

What is the difference between a drive for survival and a drive for personal affirmation?
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
What is the difference between a drive for survival and a drive for personal affirmation?

There is no such thing as a drive for survival. All drives reduce to instinct (personal affirmation, whatever), which has no awareness of concepts like 'survival'.

The only mechanism at play is that animals that have instincts that cause them not to survive will be killed off. But maladaptive traits will never be fully weeded out because of mutation and variance. Additionally, some traits that are selected for may have maladaptive side effects.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
There is no such thing as a drive for survival. All drives reduce to instinct (personal affirmation, whatever), which has no awareness of concepts like 'survival'.

The only mechanism at play is that animals that have instincts that cause them not to survive will be killed off. But maladaptive traits will never be fully weeded out because of mutation and variance. Additionally, some traits that are selected for may have maladaptive side effects.


Indeed, but why do animals have such instincts in the first place?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
is such an ethical system complete? It is not complete, because then we still will have unanswered questions. Such as, what do I do with the rest of my life? Or how do I make decisions that are not directly relevant to my interaction with other people?
Be a hedonist if you choose, or not, whatever. Should an ethical theory dictate right and wrong in every given circumstance? It is as though you seek something like a rulebook for life.

Or in other words, the ONLY purpose of ethics is to ensure that people get along with each other. The question to ask then is, why should people wish to get along with each other? The obvious answer is that because they wish to be happy. If the people have such a perspective in mind, they will see adequate justifications for establishing harmonious relationships with others. In other words, because they wish to be happy, they will seek out ways to get along with others. (Unless of course doing the latter does not conduce to their long-term happiness, which is almost never the case.) Yet, if they do not have such a perspective in mind, they will seek to establish harmonious relationships with others for reasons they do not understand. They will be merely driven by the aforementioned irrational value-cenetered thinking, or in other words, doing what they are 'supposed to do'. This is problematic because very often the endorsed values will not conduce to harmonious relationships between people as in that case people will do not what truly conduces to people getting along, but whatever they should do in order to stay true to their principles.
Sure, it is possible for people to adopt values which work against peaceable coexistence. Some may even do so on purpose because they have no desire to resolve disagreements and conflicts of interest peaceably, and in which case, have little use for pursuing a rational investigation of ethics.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Indeed, but why do animals have such instincts in the first place?

Varying genetic mutations. It happens resulting from a misplaced molecule in the DNA, or more prevalently, (and efficiently -- hence the increased commonality), at least in the local era; chromosome mingling by way of sexual reproduction.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
There is no individual drive for survival, anything that looks that way can be reduced to the drive towards personal affirmation.

What the eff are you talking about?
You mean that survival is less a cognitive activity and just a series of unconscious chain reactions?

True enough the steps taken to survive are rarely intellectualized. Heartbeat increase and release of adrenaline, slowing of digestion, increase of muscle tensity that's all way too much for us to worry over by deliberation.

If we had to do all of that intentionally when the bear trundles over the hill, growling and foaming at the mouth, he'd eat us by the time we got to step two.
Much better to leave this to unconscious and instinctual chain reactions.
Apparently, evolution figured this one out before you and I.

But I don't see that it's working toward affirming ones self.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Be a hedonist if you choose, or not, whatever. Should an ethical theory dictate right and wrong in every given circumstance? It is as though you seek something like a rulebook for life..

What I seek is not a system of ethics which will have specific prescriptions with regard to how we should act under all circumstances, but rather something that will allow for us to make desirable decisions under all circumstances. Thus, what I suggest is not a set of rules to follow under all circumstances, but a critical evaluation of our circumstances on case by case basis. In other words, simply thinking through each situation to make sure that the decisions you make in such situations are those that you will be happy with.

Sure, it is possible for people to adopt values which work against peaceable coexistence. Some may even do so on purpose because they have no desire to resolve disagreements and conflicts of interest peaceably, and in which case, have little use for pursuing a rational investigation of ethics.

My point was, in order to avoid the problem you describe above, we need rational investigation of ethics, abandoning value centered thinking conduces to such investigation of ethics.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
My point was, in order to avoid the problem you describe above, we need rational investigation of ethics, abandoning value centered thinking conduces to such investigation of ethics.
Just because one has values does not mean that one must accept such values uncritically (even the value that one ought not to accept ideas uncritically if possible).

I should also note that many values may have actually evolved in response to specific adaptive problems which arise in complex social groups.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Natural selection? Determinist physical laws?

What answer are you looking for?

The point is, when an animal strives for a good feeling, it inevitably has a tendency towards survival. Anything that does not conduce to survival cannot be affirmative of the being of the animal.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Just because one has values does not mean that one must accept such values uncritically (even the value that one ought not to accept ideas uncritically if possible).

I should also note that many values may have actually evolved in response to specific adaptive problems which arise in complex social groups.

If you have values other than rational inquiry, your value will be antithetical to your critical thinking. For example, suppose you value honesty or compassion more than anything else. You will do what you think is honest or compassionate, and will not critically analyze the consequences of such behavior. In this regard, your value-centered thinking retards your critical thinking.

What I recommend is ensuring that there is not one principle that you have that you value more than critical thinking. That is tantamount to my thesis of abnegation of value centered thinking.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
But I don't see that it's working toward affirming ones self.

I was trying to use "affirming ones self" in the way it seemed BW was using it. I would have chosen different words myself...

In other words, simply thinking through each situation to make sure that the decisions you make in such situations are those that you will be happy with.

The problem with "thinking through" as an answer to everything is premises. We simply do not have access to absolute truths, and therefore can never be sure our premises are correct. Faith is inescapable. In order to be sure of any conclusion, you need to have faith in your premises. Consequently, two people can have completely opposite views that are each logically valid. This whole "being rational in all situations" thing (a delusion in my opinion) doesn't really get you anywhere, because at the most basic level, all disagreements are faith vs. faith.

Also, how do we know what will make us happy? From my observations, it seems extraordinarily uncommon for people to know what makes them happy, and NO ONE knows what will make them happy in all situations. Our consciousness just does not have the computational power, nor can we ever be sure of how our internal states will affect the environment or how the environment will change.

Based on the information that we actually do have, we may as well look at it as a maximization of happiness problem, I agree. But we need to be humble in our conclusions, and open to other people's views and premises. Because otherwise there's no way two people starting from different premises will ever come to a compromise.

The point is, when an animal strives for a good feeling, it inevitably has a tendency towards survival. Anything that does not conduce to survival cannot be affirmative of the being of the animal.

I disagree. Haven't you heard of experiments where mice have had the option of heroin or food? They keep pressing the heroin button until they die (with food available the whole time).

Animals just do what feels good, it doesn't matter if it's good for their survival or not.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Based on the information that we actually do have, we may as well look at it as a maximization of happiness problem, I agree. But we need to be humble in our conclusions, and open to other people's views and premises. Because otherwise there's no way two people starting from different premises will ever come to a compromise..

Faith is not required, or merely whimsical, uncritical acceptance of a certain proposition. When we do not have all the premises that we need, we can establish the proper premises with deductive or inductive arguments. We should be humble about the conclusions that we make, but we should demonstrate our humility not through faith, but by consistently re-evaluating our reasoning process and results as well as remaining open to further collection of information.



I disagree. Haven't you heard of experiments where mice have had the option of heroin or food? They keep pressing the heroin button until they die (with food available the whole time).

Animals just do what feels good, it doesn't matter if it's good for their survival or not.


You are missing the point. An animal is affirmed momentarily when it gets the high from the heroine. However, the animal is not affirmed by the consequences of the heroine drug. Hence, the immediate affirmation the animal receives from heroine is indeed a step towards existence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evan, you are correct that most of us do not know what makes us happy. That is because most people do not know themselves well enough to know what makes them happy. I have argued in this thread that we can learn what makes us happy through careful introspection and analysis of external circumstances.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Well I don't particulalry care for the words BW typically employs Evan, and I think you know that.

Let me hear what you have to say.


Also BW, you might be forcing him to miss the point with your old English and your bad conceptual priority.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Faith is not required, or merely whimsical, uncritical acceptance of a certain proposition. When we do not have all the premises that we need, we can establish the proper premises with deductive or inductive arguments. We should be humble about the conclusions that we make, but we should demonstrate our humility not through faith, but by consistently re-evaluating our reasoning process and results as well as remaining open to further collection of information.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Evan, you are correct that most of us do not know what makes us happy. That is because most people do not know themselves well enough to know what makes them happy. I have argued in this thread that we can learn what makes us happy through careful introspection and analysis of external circumstances.

What if it would make you happier to think through things less (which is certainly the case for most people, if not all)? Then what?

Thinking as much as you suggest is an activity in itself. There are opportunity costs.

Think about marginal utility -- thinking a certain amount is good, but after a while it becomes almost worthless -- checking and rechecking your answers, etc. The difference between 0 minutes of thinking per hour and 1 minute of thinking per hour might be huge. But the difference between 14 minutes an hour and 15 minutes an hour is definitely much much smaller. The more you think, the less bang for your buck (buck = time) you get.

So if you sit there and think for 30 minutes per hour, there are two important things to note:
a) you only have 30 minutes an hour to act, which puts you at a disadvantage for seeking pleasure.
b) you probably aren't even discovering much more than someone who spends 10-15 minutes an hour thinking, and THEY get 15-20 extra minutes to pursue happiness every hour!

Not to mention that careful pursuit of truth to this degree is certainly a coping mechanism for burying deeper emotional truths -- if you turn every problem into an intellectual one, you can't get hurt (I do this myself). But you end up ignoring a chunk of reality that affects life and happiness levels almost every second. Each day you intellectualize everything, you're NOT doing emotional processing AND even more emotional damage is being done. So it just sits there in the future, getting bigger and bigger everyday. Until one day your metaphorical dam breaks and intellectualizing stops being good enough.


What I'm suggesting is this:
1) Thinking is good
2) Physical activities are good
3) Relationships are good
4) Emotional processing is good
5) Gaining resources is good
6) Fun activities are good

You have some resources, like money, time, and brainpower. You have to distribute those resources over the above points in a way that maximizes happiness (for example, 4 takes time and brainpower, 2 takes time, etc.). Now, it's true that thinking is the only way to approach the maximization problem, but now we can see that each second spent thinking takes away from the potential seconds spent doing other things. The longer you spend thinking, the less helpful it gets, too (marginal utility). So, you should think -- you should think as much as you can as long as the opportunity cost is lower than the cost of thinking.

Thinking is NOT free.
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
i agree with CCs first response. its really just the ABCs of ethics
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
That's exactly what I'm saying.



What if it would make you happier to think through things less (which is certainly the case for most people, if not all)? Then what?

Thinking as much as you suggest is an activity in itself. There are opportunity costs.

Think about marginal utility -- thinking a certain amount is good, but after a while it becomes almost worthless -- checking and rechecking your answers, etc. The difference between 0 minutes of thinking per hour and 1 minute of thinking per hour might be huge. But the difference between 14 minutes an hour and 15 minutes an hour is definitely much much smaller. The more you think, the less bang for your buck (buck = time) you get.

So if you sit there and think for 30 minutes per hour, there are two important things to note:
a) you only have 30 minutes an hour to act, which puts you at a disadvantage for seeking pleasure.
b) you probably aren't even discovering much more than someone who spends 10-15 minutes an hour thinking, and THEY get 15-20 extra minutes to pursue happiness every hour!

Not to mention that careful pursuit of truth to this degree is certainly a coping mechanism for burying deeper emotional truths -- if you turn every problem into an intellectual one, you can't get hurt (I do this myself). But you end up ignoring a chunk of reality that affects life and happiness levels almost every second. Each day you intellectualize everything, you're NOT doing emotional processing AND even more emotional damage is being done. So it just sits there in the future, getting bigger and bigger everyday. Until one day your metaphorical dam breaks and intellectualizing stops being good enough.


What I'm suggesting is this:
1) Thinking is good
2) Physical activities are good
3) Relationships are good
4) Emotional processing is good
5) Gaining resources is good
6) Fun activities are good

You have some resources, like money, time, and brainpower. You have to distribute those resources over the above points in a way that maximizes happiness (for example, 4 takes time and brainpower, 2 takes time, etc.). Now, it's true that thinking is the only way to approach the maximization problem, but now we can see that each second spent thinking takes away from the potential seconds spent doing other things. The longer you spend thinking, the less helpful it gets, too (marginal utility). So, you should think -- you should think as much as you can as long as the opportunity cost is lower than the cost of thinking.

Thinking is NOT free.


Daniel Dennet once remarked that an unexamined life is not worth living, but an examined one is not something that is worth writing home about.

Contemplation by its nature expunges emotion, without which you'd doubtlessly be slothful.

There needs to be a balance, however, one should make it a point to first think things through in order to understand how he should live, before acting on impulse. Everything should not be thought through as this would render life boring. However, if you make it a point to think things through all the time you can easily answer all important questions with regard to what is in your best interest. One of such questions is concerned with what you should be thinking about and how much time and energy you ought to devote to such an endeavor.
 
Top