NORMS: THEORETICAL AND APPLIED
This theory emphasizes these three kinds of norms:
(S) Formal norms. (E) Facultative norms. (I) Obligatory norms.
Examples. A formal norm may to be Xs are to be Ys. This is a proposition in Logic, as part of a formal system of Ethics.
The facultative norm for this statement might be: ]Humans are to be (morally) good persons: decent to one another, kind, helpful, ready to be of service if possible, responsible and accountable, compassionate, inclusive, tolerant, respectful, courteous, devoted to making things better, etc. ...all of which follows if one regards a conscious human being as Intrinsically valuable.
The obligatory norm relevant here would be: I want to be a good person, and I intend to be! My attitude will be: Whatever it takes! Thus I will be mindful of what Demerest & Schoof have named “The Central Question of Life,” - seeking to engage in deliberate practice of it - focusing on each detail involved and making tiny adjustments to stay on track... until it becomes a habit to ask it of myself. The question amounts to this How can I make things better for all concerned? How can I, in this situation, upgrade it? How can I add value?[
Kalashnikov wrote:Can i follow this rule alone and be happy or am i dependant on others so it works?
thinkdr wrote:Kalashnikov wrote:Can i follow this rule alone and be happy or am i dependant on others so it works?
Thank you for a good question!
The obligatory norm mentioned in the earlier post is not a rule; it is a norm one may elect to follow. It is more-relevant to Morality than to other aspects of Ethics.
However, if one wants to be ethical, other people definitely do come into play: The Central Question of Life, of Practicality, and of Logic arises when one encounters others.
It motivates one to inquire (within oneself) "How can I make this a win-win interaction? How can I best be of service? How can I make someone happy, or give them a good laugh to enjoy, relieve them of stress, or help them achieve a worthwhile goal they have, showing them love, while at the same time fulfilling my purpose in life?
This implies that you have selected or found a purpose. This implies you want to live a purposeful life. This suggests you want your life to have meaning, so you intend to live a meaningful life.
To I-value them is to show them love. 'Intrinsic-value' is a technical term, an academic term, for 'love.' ...not so much philia, nor eros, but rather (spiritual aga-p`e) -- to employ some Greek words for the process of Intrinsic valuation.
AAnd love can drive out fear.
[We note that many power figures around the world today instill fear as a way of governing.They pursue the "divide and conquer" tactic to maintain power. Where Ethics and Political Science intersect is in the concept that the job of government is to see that its citizens attain increasing opportunity to live higher-quality lives than they did earlier. The criterion is: are the people truly better off than they were before this current administration came into office? And are their prospects for doing so continually getting better?]
What say you??
Kalashnikov wrote:thinkdr wrote:If one wants to be ethical, other people definitely do come into play: The Central Question of Life, of Practicality, and of Logic arises when one encounters others.
It motivates one to inquire (within oneself) "How can I make this a win-win interaction? How can I best be of service? How can I make someone happy, or give them a good laugh to enjoy, relieve them of stress, or help them achieve a worthwhile goal they have, showing them love, while at the same time fulfilling my purpose in life?
This implies that you have selected or found a purpose. This implies you want to live a purposeful life. This suggests you want your life to have meaning, so you intend to live a meaningful life.
?
It sounds possible but it wont be possible to accomplish until something major changes for example low educated people dont have any knowledge of morals and ethics and only act selfish. Some people are just not capable of thinking morally and that at the end it will benefit them also when acting morally. People want everything easy and "now". There are many moral theories out there but you need the masses to act on them so it works.
Is that really a fair summation of his position? Perhaps those are his descriptions, I'd have to go back and check. In any case, I agree that there is not a science of ethics because we cannot differentiate between the axioms of ethics scientifically. We cannot experiment our way to the core values. Once we agree on core values, one can then build rationally, but differing priorities and evaluations will keep ethics from ever being something like Physics. In physics you can measure and measure. But we cannot measure anything to determine if, for example, deontologists are better than consequentialists in their starting points. Nor can we resolve the abortion issue by measuring something. Nor can we use science to resolve the differences between those who think that everyone should be supported and those who take a more social darwinian approach. Why? because these people measure different things. And we cannot prove either side is wrong. We cannot, as in science, falsify various opposed positions.thinkdr wrote:.
How many of you, reading this, agree with promethean75 who argues that there cannot be a science of ethics, because science is a logical rational activity; and ethics is merely a case of emoting, like sneezing, or shouting" Rah rah," or saying "Boo," or "Hooray!" It is non-cognitive.
Is that really a fair summation of his position?
promethean75 wrote:Is that really a fair summation of his position?
why i think that's a fine summary of my position. you did great, doc. thank you.
look alls i'm trying to say is that ethics does not, and cannot, belong in epistemology. i have no qualm with a prescriptive ethics which has as its purpose to establish imperatives.
Notice that he appreciated you for defending his summation of your position, but did not respond to your position. He simply restates his own position. Presumably he considers this ethical behavior. Me, I don't see anything like a demonstration that there is objective ethics in what he or the others write.promethean75 wrote:Is that really a fair summation of his position?
why i think that's a fine summary of my position. you did great, doc. thank you.
look alls i'm trying to say is that ethics does not, and cannot, belong in epistemology. i have no qualm with a prescriptive ethics which has as its purpose to establish imperatives... but i cannot accept that moral propositions express anything other than attitudes and preferences. such propositions are generically different from inductive and deductive statements of fact. its time for us to grow some hare on our chests, gentlemen, and accept that we cannot appeal to such silly notions as objective values of 'right' and 'wrong' that are out there in the world waiting to be discovered. we must build morality ourselves, and this requires that one philosophizes with a hammer.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:... I don't see anything like a demonstration that there is objective ethics in what he or the others write.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Once we agree on core values, one can then build rationally, but differing priorities and evaluations will keep ethics from ever being something like Physics. In physics you can measure and measure. But we cannot measure anything to determine if, for example, deontologists are better than consequentialists in their starting points.
...We cannot, as in science, falsify various opposed positions.
This doesn't mean ethics is like sneezing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users