3 ms·

But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler o

But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? External supernatural force? We are then met with the old questions of "which one" along with the problem of interpretation (do we take Levitical restrictions on beard trimming literally, for example). It seems like knowledge is the only thing we can use to form good ethical structures...perhaps with enough data our ethics will become better.

lettergram 10y ago
> But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? Thats actually why I argue objectivism as being aligning better with what's possible within the field of ethics. The whole idea is you can only morally do what you want, without intentially removing others freedom, unless they pose a direct threat to your freedom. As a rule of thumb, this actually works exceptionally well. Murder for example is wrong (morally), by that code of conduct. Traffic laws would be moral because it keeps others from removing your freedom by either not letting you access the road or accidentally killing you by being reckless. It also handles the Hitler argument, whereas some utilitarians my argue what Hitler did was moral. The whole point of this philosophy is to maximize personal happiness, while minimizing conflict. Data has little to do with it, because respecting one another is the whole point. When you start discussing ethics in terms of "sociatial good" it starts requiring one to know the future. For this reason, I'd argue objectivism, when applied, provides the more useful form of ethics, where one only has to worry about their own happiness, while not intruding (too much), on others.
- bleachedsleet 10y ago
  Yes, but objectivism suffers from decay on its own fringes as well. An objectivist can both be personally against gay marriage, for example, while publicly decrying any law against it because that would "infringe upon freedom." In that case it becomes more of a good law making structure rather than a valid ethical system since the individual's morality is compromised at the expense of society's ethics.
- _yosefk 10y ago
  One problem is defining what "intruding on others' happiness too much" means - it's not obvious how to derive from this principle the hours when making loud noises within city limits is OK, or what about necrophilia in public, or pollution, etc. Almost anything I do might make someone very unhappy and I'm not sure what philosophical principle can be used to distinguish cases where I should stop doing it from cases where I should be able to reply "toughski shitski." Another problem is whether it's OK to require a thirsty person in a desert to give up all their assets in exchange for water, and whether it's OK for the thirsty person to knock you out and take the water in response; most people would side with the thirsty guy for what I think are very good reasons in terms of the practical implications while objectivists would not.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    To your first point, making someone unhappy isn't unethical. Making loud noise pretty much at all, is infringing on people's freedom. No one will bicker if you can't avoid the sound like starting a car, but if you play a loud TV it's unethical. Necrophilia is totally fine by this ethical standard, as it disgusting you is not infringing on your freedom (to say sleep, as the noise example). Pollution is a tough one, but trying to minimize it would be more ethical as it infringes on less people, etc. To your other problem, I fully understand the practical implications. Knocking the guy out and stealing his water is pretty unethical. However, coming to equitable terms is fairly easy. More humans can think one step ahead and just gouging the guy for all his posetions means he won't help you in the future. Long term, that is bad for you, thus you'll likely not charge too outrageous
    - _yosefk 10y ago
      You might see logical consistency in the above; I see a bunch of things tied not by any logic but solely by the fact that a set of people agree with all these things. For instance, why is making noises infringing on your freedom from noise, but the requirement of silence is not an infringement on your freedom to make noises? Freedom from noise and freedom to make noises are both "freedoms" and one comes at the expense of the other. What is the way to weigh their relative importance which is universally applicable to other cases and not rooted in culture or personal preference?
imagist 10y ago
I'm not sure what basis you have for the implicit claim that we don't exist in "loose animalistic structures".

lettergram 10y ago

> But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? Thats actually why I argue objectivism as being aligning better with what's possible within the field of ethics. The whole idea is you can only morally do what you want, without intentially removing others freedom, unless they pose a direct threat to your freedom. As a rule of thumb, this actually works exceptionally well. Murder for example is wrong (morally), by that code of conduct. Traffic laws would be moral because it keeps others from removing your freedom by either not letting you access the road or accidentally killing you by being reckless. It also handles the Hitler argument, whereas some utilitarians my argue what Hitler did was moral. The whole point of this philosophy is to maximize personal happiness, while minimizing conflict. Data has little to do with it, because respecting one another is the whole point. When you start discussing ethics in terms of "sociatial good" it starts requiring one to know the future. For this reason, I'd argue objectivism, when applied, provides the more useful form of ethics, where one only has to worry about their own happiness, while not intruding (too much), on others.

bleachedsleet 10y ago
Yes, but objectivism suffers from decay on its own fringes as well. An objectivist can both be personally against gay marriage, for example, while publicly decrying any law against it because that would "infringe upon freedom." In that case it becomes more of a good law making structure rather than a valid ethical system since the individual's morality is compromised at the expense of society's ethics.
_yosefk 10y ago
One problem is defining what "intruding on others' happiness too much" means - it's not obvious how to derive from this principle the hours when making loud noises within city limits is OK, or what about necrophilia in public, or pollution, etc. Almost anything I do might make someone very unhappy and I'm not sure what philosophical principle can be used to distinguish cases where I should stop doing it from cases where I should be able to reply "toughski shitski." Another problem is whether it's OK to require a thirsty person in a desert to give up all their assets in exchange for water, and whether it's OK for the thirsty person to knock you out and take the water in response; most people would side with the thirsty guy for what I think are very good reasons in terms of the practical implications while objectivists would not.
- lettergram 10y ago
  To your first point, making someone unhappy isn't unethical. Making loud noise pretty much at all, is infringing on people's freedom. No one will bicker if you can't avoid the sound like starting a car, but if you play a loud TV it's unethical. Necrophilia is totally fine by this ethical standard, as it disgusting you is not infringing on your freedom (to say sleep, as the noise example). Pollution is a tough one, but trying to minimize it would be more ethical as it infringes on less people, etc. To your other problem, I fully understand the practical implications. Knocking the guy out and stealing his water is pretty unethical. However, coming to equitable terms is fairly easy. More humans can think one step ahead and just gouging the guy for all his posetions means he won't help you in the future. Long term, that is bad for you, thus you'll likely not charge too outrageous
  - _yosefk 10y ago
    You might see logical consistency in the above; I see a bunch of things tied not by any logic but solely by the fact that a set of people agree with all these things. For instance, why is making noises infringing on your freedom from noise, but the requirement of silence is not an infringement on your freedom to make noises? Freedom from noise and freedom to make noises are both "freedoms" and one comes at the expense of the other. What is the way to weigh their relative importance which is universally applicable to other cases and not rooted in culture or personal preference?

imagist 10y ago

I'm not sure what basis you have for the implicit claim that we don't exist in "loose animalistic structures".