Normative Ethics

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby WendyDarling » Thu May 09, 2019 4:43 pm

Prismatic wrote
Here are some of the targets that need to be achieved for the average human being;

If the average IQ at present is 100, then we need to increase to 150, 200, 250 incrementally over a certain period of time.

It the same for emotional intelligence [EQ], if the average is 100, then we have to increase to 500, 600, 1000 over a certain period.

It is also the same for other human quotients, e.g. spirituality [SQ], rationality, wisdom [QWQ], morality [MQ], ethical philosophy [PQ], teambuilding [TQ] and various quotients where we need to increase the average by at least 3-5 folds.


I kind of feel that those below average and those well above average are the dangerous ones to your team humanity concept. The goal should be to raise IQ and EQ to at least average so those people can be reasoned with. The crazy superior people either trample human affairs with their creativity to humanities detriment or avoid using their intelligence to push progress knowing that their inventions are often manipulated to do greater harm in the long run. It always amazes me to meet people with IQs over 160 working construction or some other normal labor intensive jobs, but I can understand the appeal to do something with your hands as they say an honest days work.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby barbarianhorde » Thu May 09, 2019 4:54 pm

Yeah, this society doesn't provide for a lot of healthy work for supreme IQs.
High IQ gives a lot of strain, high strung nerves, as thinking is incredibly energy consuming.
To work with the hands, especially lifting heavy stuff and all that, is the most relaxing thing for an all too intelligent person.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri May 10, 2019 8:53 am

WendyDarling wrote:Prismatic wrote
Here are some of the targets that need to be achieved for the average human being;

If the average IQ at present is 100, then we need to increase to 150, 200, 250 incrementally over a certain period of time.

It the same for emotional intelligence [EQ], if the average is 100, then we have to increase to 500, 600, 1000 over a certain period.

It is also the same for other human quotients, e.g. spirituality [SQ], rationality, wisdom [QWQ], morality [MQ], ethical philosophy [PQ], teambuilding [TQ] and various quotients where we need to increase the average by at least 3-5 folds.


I kind of feel that those below average and those well above average are the dangerous ones to your team humanity concept. The goal should be to raise IQ and EQ to at least average so those people can be reasoned with. The crazy superior people either trample human affairs with their creativity to humanities detriment or avoid using their intelligence to push progress knowing that their inventions are often manipulated to do greater harm in the long run. It always amazes me to meet people with IQs over 160 working construction or some other normal labor intensive jobs, but I can understand the appeal to do something with your hands as they say an honest days work.

I would give less weightage to IQ - perhaps 5%.

What is more critical and carry higher weightages are EQ - emotional intelligence, Moral Quotient, spiritual Quotient, encompassing philosophical Quotient [40%], and wisdom quotient.

My condition is these average quotients should be increased by > 500% as compared the current status of the average person. Then an efficient fool proof Team Humanity will emerged spontaneously.

When there is a critical comprising the average of >500% then those in the minority will not be powerful to create problems for the majority.
In addition, the majority will contribute to increase the various quotients of those in the minority.

There will come a time in the future, where those in the lowest 10% will have a score of 500% over the current people today.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby WendyDarling » Fri May 10, 2019 5:25 pm

What is a high EQ officially anyway? What sort of beliefs and actions constitute it?

With all the untreated and rampant mental illness today as well as societal degeneracy in general, how would these extremely high EQs for all come into being?

Also much of what we breathe and consume is poisoning our nervous systems which controls the EQ. Sounds like nice pie in the sky the IQ and EQ improvements.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Sat May 11, 2019 2:46 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Gloominary wrote:The natural needs of oneself and those closest to oneself (closest genetically, spiritually and literally) precede the artificial wants of those furthest from oneself.
The former is of primary importance, indispensable, both extrinsically, for one's long term happiness, and intrinsically, the latter is of secondary importance, expendable.
Ideally we should satisfy both, but realistically if circumstances force one to choose, the former shouldn't be compromised or jeopardized for the sake of the latter, the latter should be compromised or jeopardized for the sake of the former.
I defacto agree. I am like this. I care more about those I care more about. Genetics hasn't had so much to do with it, beyond my family that is, but in various ways I got close to certain people beyond the family, I and I care about their needs more than I do others.

1) In the background to this, I might have more abstract goals. IOW I will tend to root for and even strive for decent treatment of people in a general way, even though I could, I suppose, spend that time focusing just on my near and dear. I haven't had some activist or especially active political life, but still in discussions and in organizations where I have worked and even online, I put some effort into generalized fairness or decent treatement, when I could just and always focus on my people, so to speak.

Abuses of power bother me, even if I may not be on the bad end of them. (abuses of those without much power can also bother me, but these tend to be punished by power, and further they just bother me less.)

2) I think as part of this latter, I am always wary of being told who my people are and when we are at odds with other people. IOW while I share your priorities, I want to immediately notice how the powerful tend to use this. On a simple level when they tell me our nation should go to war, but it can include all sorts of less dramatic creations of us/them battles. I tend to think the whole Republican vs. Democrat is a lovely good cop bad cop thing with this kind of manipulation.

So I am saying that while I prioritize my closest, I am also hyperaware of how this gets used, and even if it does not get used against me on some particular issue - I may put some energy in there because I hate con games of all kinds, especially when it is real superplayers who just want more. The guys with a fixed card thingie on a cardboard box on the corner might bug me, but they'll be lucky to pay the bills off that one.

Of course, the powers that be can also tell me that I am evil if I engage in prioritizing those I love most. And I am wary of this also. When people with incredible power come to tell me I need to do X, so that everything is good or fair, I am also skeptical. Their I, me, mine is likely lurking in there is my default reaction.

It's always worth pursuing the former, but sometimes it isn't worth pursuing the latter, not only because the latter can compromise or jeopardise the former, but because pursuing the latter, just isn't worth it.
I think this is complicated. I think we have to call out abuse of power, regardless. I could argue that i the long term this might benefit my in group, but, I think there is some game theory stuff in there also right off the bat. If my in group calls bullshit on power abuse, then pershaps other in groups will do this when I am under the thumb.

Another way to put this is I think big power gets a lot of mileage on making me think I have to choose between my ingroup and other groups for the benefit of bit power. They want Zero Sum game thinking.

This is complicated by more lefty types of abuse of power, where it seems like we are helping all in groups, but actually what is happening is a spreading of surveillance, control, rules and centralization of power in other abusives ways.

I got no simple answers.

I jsut want to say that propaganda can really abuse to all our detriment how and when we decide now is a time I must focus on my group and ignore the needs of the other groups.

And then in reaction to myself I need to add, this can play the other way, where supposedly loving ideas about inclusion, can actually be about power consolidating itself. And it ain't easy to know the difference.

I do want to say that it isn't just us/them or even us/thems.

I see the world as more like us/us/us/.....(etc)/THEM

I try to be fair in my dealings with others, whether they're friends, family, associates, acquaintances or strangers, whether they're white or non-white, it's just I'm more likely to be generous with friends, family and whites, and of course there's nothing abnormal about that, yet conventional consequentialist ethics like utilitarianism don't take friends, family and race into account, even tho it's human nature to do so, because there's a left-wing bias in philosophy, not just in political philosophy, but even in strictly ethical, perhaps even in epistemological and metaphysical.

The right uses these feelings of kith and kinship we have to manipulate us, but my feelings are my own, as far as I know myself, I won't support their wars just because they tell me it's in our best interests to, it's usually only in the elite's best interests, and even if it were in ours, like we wanted their oil or some other resource for our collective benefit, I would never support a war against another people unless we were desperate and there was no alternative, I'd rather cut back on consumption.

With the left it's the opposite, since they're anti-white, they'll guilt trip us into thinking we need to invade this or that country to spread democracy.

Of course liberals and conservatives will invoke nationalism, anti-nationalism or some combination thereof in order to justify war and further subjugate us, I'm speaking more archetypally than practically.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sat May 11, 2019 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat May 11, 2019 4:09 am

WendyDarling wrote:What is a high EQ officially anyway? What sort of beliefs and actions constitute it?

With all the untreated and rampant mental illness today as well as societal degeneracy in general, how would these extremely high EQs for all come into being?

Also much of what we breathe and consume is poisoning our nervous systems which controls the EQ. Sounds like nice pie in the sky the IQ and EQ improvements.

Btw, I am not stating my proposals will work immediately today and now.
Humanity must start right now and hope to reap benefits within 50 years, if not 75 or 100.

What is Emotional Intelligence?

Emotional intelligence (EI), emotional leadership (EL), emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence quotient (EIQ), is the capability of individuals to recognize their own emotions and those of others, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, and manage and/or adjust emotions to adapt to environments or achieve one's goal(s).

Empathy is typically associated with EI, because it relates to an individual connecting their personal experiences with those of others. However, several models exist that aim to measure levels of (empathy) EI. There are currently several models of EI.
-Wiki


At present the EQ models are quite crude and this will be improved with greater precision in the future.

One promising view of EQ is its dependence on empathy.
Empathy is in one way related to mirror neurons in the brain, thus providing a possible objective basis to EQ.

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.[11]


Note many of the above hypothesis are work in progress but there are high optimism due to the current trend in the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [IT and AI] leveraged on two significant fields, i.e.


Note beside EQ, I mentioned;
It is also the same for other human quotients, e.g. spirituality [SQ], rationality, wisdom [QWQ], morality [MQ], ethical, philosophy [PQ], teambuilding [TQ] and various quotients where we need to increase the average by at least 3-5 folds.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Tue May 14, 2019 1:07 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:@Prismatic

The term 'mutual' sounds agreeable. Maybe it is optimal at present but it is not universal in the longer run into the future.

However your basis provide room the the evil prone [significant %*] of one group [your fellows] and the others to express their unmodulated primal instinct of 'us versus them' which will manifest into evil and violent acts.
* a small % say 10% of 1 million people is 100,000 evil prone people. Note the significant quantum from a small % if the group is 100 million or in term of billion.

What humanity need to strive for[toward the future] is Team Humanity, where everyone is a member of Team Humanity, such that when faced with the greatest threat of the extermination of the human species [note the recent talk of such threat from rogue asteriod or meteor from outer space] we will act as ONE, i.e. Team Humanity to deal with such a potential threat.

Closer at hand, the extermination of the human species could come from some undeterred [no respect for M.A.D] religious groups when they get access to cheap WMDs [nukes and biological].

Do you think humanism is objectively superior to egoism, familialism and ethnocentrism, and if so, in what respect, or is humanism just what you believe your preference is?

My focus is on Team Humanity not on 'humanism' as it is understood at present. I do agree with many aspect of 'Humanism' as defined at present but not totally.
The limitation is the current ideology of Humanism focus on human beings as individuals and in loose groups but not in the sense of a 'Team'.

A 'team' is generally defined as;

    "[a] team is a group of people who are interdependent with respect to information, resources, and skills and who seek to combine their efforts to achieve a common goal"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team

In the case of Team Humanity, the team comprised on every individual humans on Earth [or in space] aligned to common goals with the best of their ability.

Note I mentioned such a Team Humanity is not efficient in the present circumstances but I am confident it is possible in the future.

Actually it is possible to sense such a possibility of Team Humanity. For if suddenly the astronomers discovered a rogue asteroid the size of the USA heading towards Earth and which could split the Earth into pieces, such knowledge if announced to the world will definitely trigger a sense of Team Humanity to try to work as one to save the Earth and the humans therein. Unfortunately having a sense of Team Humanity out of emergency is not the way to go and in addition this is not sustainable if the asteroid missed Earth.

To strive toward achieving, maintaining and sustaining Team Humanity, a lot of strategies and processes need to be done and I think they are feasible given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [esp IT and AI].

Here are some of the targets that need to be achieved for the average human being;

    If the average IQ at present is 100, then we need to increase to 150, 200, 250 incrementally over a certain period of time.

    It the same for emotional intelligence [EQ], if the average is 100, then we have to increase to 500, 600, 1000 over a certain period.

    It is also the same for other human quotients, e.g. spirituality [SQ], rationality, wisdom [QWQ], morality [MQ], ethical philosophy [PQ], teambuilding [TQ] and various quotients where we need to increase the average by at least 3-5 folds.

We have already has a trend of increments for the above average quotients if compared to 1000 years ago, so it is possible to achieve the targets above given the current knowledge and technological advances.

Once the there is an increasing trend for the various quotients, then there will emerge Team Humanity spontaneously with continual increments.

Note if the average theoretical and practical philosophical quotient including morality and ethics is increased by 1000%, then we can ensure the strategies will be fool proof against evil and will be continually optimized.

In the above sense, yes, Team Humanity [with subset humanism] will be objectively superior to egoism, familialism and ethnocentrism.

Btw, Team Humanity must not survive at the expense of other living things since all living things are interdependently connected to all.

We can rely on thinkdr and Dr. Hartman's axiology to provide the objective measures in terms of quantified values on the above.

I think humanity has about as much chance of destroying itself and life as we know it in our post/transhumanist quest to expand our capabilities, as we have of expanding our capabilities.

When it comes to the physical sciences and understanding the here/now, I think science is pretty reliable, but when it comes to understanding the distant past/future, I think it's just guessing.

I don't know how life began (abiogenesis, panspermia, Abrahamic or Vedic creationism, something else?), I don't know exactly how it evolved, I don't know how many mass extinction events there've been, or whether we're on the verge of one because of some earthbound asteroid, or because of our greed, not only greed for wealth and power, but greed for knowledge.

There're some truths we can't handle...there may be some truths we'll never be able to.

But I know science is hiding loads of stuff about UFOs and prehistory.

Life may be far more ubiquitous than they want us to believe.

So in light of all that, I'm not in a rush to expand our capabilities.

I think we should tread carefully, or stay put.

And I don't think valuing oneself, one's tribe and one's species over others is in any way, shape or form irrational, or on its way out for that matter anytime soon, if ever.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Wed May 15, 2019 1:27 am

For me, results precede actions in importance for determining good, bad and right, wrong.
It's not that actions aren't intrinsically important, just not as intrinsically important.
It's intrinsically good to be honest, reciprocative and noncoercive with others, but if you or someone you care about is in need, and there's no alternative, there's such a thing as white lies, white theft if you will, and under extraordinary circumstances, even white murder.
essentially there's such a thing as, necessary evils.
While it's better for people to meet their needs honestly and noncoercively by helping others meet theirs, this's not always possible, for society is corrupt and resources are limited.
While it's better for people to turn to government to fairly and/or necessarily redistribute resources, that's not always possible either, for the same reasons, and in such cases, theft may be justified.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Wed May 15, 2019 1:49 am

In determining what is good, we don't always have the time and energy to carefully weigh situations out, sometimes we need to rely on our intuition.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Wed May 15, 2019 4:36 am

And I believe that without feelings, morals and values are impossible.
There's no such thing as a strictly rational ethics.

Reason, as well as intuition, can help us find some consistency in our feelings over times and places, and it can inform us about the likely results of acting on our feelings in this or that manner, but without any feelings at all, we'd have no motivation to act.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 15, 2019 4:46 am

Gloominary wrote:And I believe that without feelings, morals and values are impossible.
There's no such thing as a strictly rational ethics.

Reason, as well as intuition, can help us find some consistency in our feelings over times and places, and it can inform us about the likely results of acting on our feelings in this or that manner, but without any feelings at all, we'd have no motivation to act.


Tell that to your computer, or cell phone, or the change counting machine at your local bank.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8319
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed May 15, 2019 5:29 am

Gloominary wrote:I think humanity has about as much chance of destroying itself and life as we know it in our post/transhumanist quest to expand our capabilities, as we have of expanding our capabilities.

When it comes to the physical sciences and understanding the here/now, I think science is pretty reliable, but when it comes to understanding the distant past/future, I think it's just guessing.

I don't know how life began (abiogenesis, panspermia, Abrahamic or Vedic creationism, something else?), I don't know exactly how it evolved, I don't know how many mass extinction events there've been, or whether we're on the verge of one because of some earthbound asteroid, or because of our greed, not only greed for wealth and power, but greed for knowledge.

There're some truths we can't handle...there may be some truths we'll never be able to.

But I know science is hiding loads of stuff about UFOs and prehistory.

Life may be far more ubiquitous than they want us to believe.

So in light of all that, I'm not in a rush to expand our capabilities.

I think we should tread carefully, or stay put.

And I don't think valuing oneself, one's tribe and one's species over others is in any way, shape or form irrational, or on its way out for that matter anytime soon, if ever.

Tribalism is an a natural and necessary instinct to facilitate survival of a tribe in ancient times perhaps still necessary to a small degree at present.
The negative side of tribalism is the consequences of genocides arising from the extreme effect of the 'us versus them' impulses.

I agree some degree of tribalism is still necessary at the present but as I had argued above, there is a need to evolve and progress away from tribalism into the sense of the global Team Humanity towards the future.
Note the fact that while tribalism is still unfortunately necessary so it its potential for genocide and tribal conflicts between groups which is happening at present.

Thus we need to visionaries and plan for the future from the present state of potential turmoils.

This is the reason why I am proposing we [those who have the foresight] work toward a holistic Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that will modulate the tribal impulse to the minimum or Zero effect.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed May 15, 2019 5:39 am

Gloominary wrote:In determining what is good, we don't always have the time and energy to carefully weigh situations out, sometimes we need to rely on our intuition.

This is why I do not agree with Consequentialism as a complete and holistic Moral and Ethical theory.
Consequentialism often use the casuistry approach, e.g. the Trolley Dilemma.
In real life, there are infinite possibilities thus it is impossible to improve one Moral and Ethical state to cover all the effective solutions for all possibilities and scenarios.

This is why I advocated a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to encompass consequentialism together with other necessary sub-systems.

In a complete and holistic Framework and System, one of the strategy is to reduce and prevent the possibilities of moral dilemma occurrences in the first place. If the minimal of dilemmas ever occur, then one would do the best based on one's developed competence and do not brood over whatever the consequences, while taking steps to prevent future occurrences.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed May 15, 2019 5:42 am

Gloominary wrote:And I believe that without feelings, morals and values are impossible.
There's no such thing as a strictly rational ethics.

Reason, as well as intuition, can help us find some consistency in our feelings over times and places, and it can inform us about the likely results of acting on our feelings in this or that manner, but without any feelings at all, we'd have no motivation to act.

Both reason and feelings are essential but they have to be in complementarity within a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

One point is within a complete system, we have to differentiate Morality as confined to pure reason dealing with absolute moral laws, while ethics deals with feelings and the practical world.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Thu May 16, 2019 2:18 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Gloominary wrote:And I believe that without feelings, morals and values are impossible.
There's no such thing as a strictly rational ethics.

Reason, as well as intuition, can help us find some consistency in our feelings over times and places, and it can inform us about the likely results of acting on our feelings in this or that manner, but without any feelings at all, we'd have no motivation to act.


Tell that to your computer, or cell phone, or the change counting machine at your local bank.

The burst of energy computers and machines receive, that's programmed to go off when certain cognitive, mathematical and physical criteria are met, that compels them to do this and that, is the equivalent of their feelings.

I agree with David Hume when he said: "You can't get an is from an ought".
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Thu May 16, 2019 3:16 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:I think humanity has about as much chance of destroying itself and life as we know it in our post/transhumanist quest to expand our capabilities, as we have of expanding our capabilities.

When it comes to the physical sciences and understanding the here/now, I think science is pretty reliable, but when it comes to understanding the distant past/future, I think it's just guessing.

I don't know how life began (abiogenesis, panspermia, Abrahamic or Vedic creationism, something else?), I don't know exactly how it evolved, I don't know how many mass extinction events there've been, or whether we're on the verge of one because of some earthbound asteroid, or because of our greed, not only greed for wealth and power, but greed for knowledge.

There're some truths we can't handle...there may be some truths we'll never be able to.

But I know science is hiding loads of stuff about UFOs and prehistory.

Life may be far more ubiquitous than they want us to believe.

So in light of all that, I'm not in a rush to expand our capabilities.

I think we should tread carefully, or stay put.

And I don't think valuing oneself, one's tribe and one's species over others is in any way, shape or form irrational, or on its way out for that matter anytime soon, if ever.

Tribalism is an a natural and necessary instinct to facilitate survival of a tribe in ancient times perhaps still necessary to a small degree at present.
The negative side of tribalism is the consequences of genocides arising from the extreme effect of the 'us versus them' impulses.

I agree some degree of tribalism is still necessary at the present but as I had argued above, there is a need to evolve and progress away from tribalism into the sense of the global Team Humanity towards the future.
Note the fact that while tribalism is still unfortunately necessary so it its potential for genocide and tribal conflicts between groups which is happening at present.

Thus we need to visionaries and plan for the future from the present state of potential turmoils.

This is the reason why I am proposing we [those who have the foresight] work toward a holistic Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that will modulate the tribal impulse to the minimum or Zero effect.

For me, tribalism has intrinsic value.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Thu May 16, 2019 4:01 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:In determining what is good, we don't always have the time and energy to carefully weigh situations out, sometimes we need to rely on our intuition.

This is why I do not agree with Consequentialism as a complete and holistic Moral and Ethical theory.
Consequentialism often use the casuistry approach, e.g. the Trolley Dilemma.
In real life, there are infinite possibilities thus it is impossible to improve one Moral and Ethical state to cover all the effective solutions for all possibilities and scenarios.

We can carefully consider as many meaningful responses to a situation, and their potential ramifications as we can, before taking action, and leave the rest to improvisation, intuition and chance.
We can also develop guidelines: A action generally leads to a preferable outcome when executed by B people in C situations.
Of course no two actions, people or situations are exactly the same, but similar actions taken by similar people in similar situations tend to have similar outcomes.

This is why I advocated a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to encompass consequentialism together with other necessary sub-systems.

I agree, consequentialism alone seems insufficient.
Results are only part of what makes actions good, bad, right and wrong.
The actions or behaviors themselves are also part of what makes them good/bad.
I think honesty, reciprocity and noncoercion are intrinsically good, and generally extrinsically good, as well as whatever thoughts and feelings are conducive to such behaviors.

And then there's the matter of what consequences and for whom?
For me, rather than focusing solely on happiness ala utilitarianism, I believe in maximizing the chances of survival in an optimal state of physical and mental health (happiness being just one aspect of emotional health among many) for as many people as possible, especially for me, my kith and (extended) kin, and especially for those among my kith and kin who can give something back to our community.
Near perfect safety and health are difficult to attain and maintain, so it's enough we're relatively safe and in a fair state of health.
The difference between fair health and poor is greater than fair health and great.

In order to improve our odds of surviving in an optimal state of health, we ought to focus more on physical and mental needs than wants.
It's not that wants are bad, some are good in moderation, they're just definitionally secondary, and in many cases not worth the trouble, many wants are difficult to satisfy and come with too high a price.

We also ought to use more natural means of satisfying our needs than artificial.
Of course nature/artifice, like anything, can be thought of as a spectrum rather than binary, and it's impossible to completely dispense with artifice.
That being said, while not intrinsically bad, generally I think it's healthier for ourselves and the environment on which we depend to satisfy our needs more naturally if we can.
I think we've gone too far off the deep end with technology.

Conflict between the various goods, health, honesty, liberty, reciprocity...is unavoidable, and this is when figuring out which course of action to take becomes especially difficult.

In a complete and holistic Framework and System, one of the strategy is to reduce and prevent the possibilities of moral dilemma occurrences in the first place. If the minimal of dilemmas ever occur, then one would do the best based on one's developed competence and do not brood over whatever the consequences, while taking steps to prevent future occurrences.

Hm, I'm not sure if I've considered this point much, please elaborate if you're interested.
I know that if you reduce poverty, you reduce the need for some people to have to lie, cheat and steal.

Both reason and feelings are essential but they have to be in complementarity within a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

One point is within a complete system, we have to differentiate Morality as confined to pure reason dealing with absolute moral laws, while ethics deals with feelings and the practical world.

For me, reason can tell you more about what nouns (people, places and things) and their implications are, and knowing more about them will help us determine whether and when they're good, bad, somewhere in between, but ultimately it's feelings that tell you whether they're good or bad.
Morals and values are just more carefully assessed preferences we have.

Both reason and feelings are essential but they have to be in complementarity within a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

One point is within a complete system, we have to differentiate Morality as confined to pure reason dealing with absolute moral laws, while ethics deals with feelings and the practical world.

I'm not an absolutist, especially when it comes to morals and values.
My ethical framework is intended as more a guideline that works for me and perhaps some other people, rather than some kind of transcendent, metaphysical or natural law.
Last edited by Gloominary on Fri May 17, 2019 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 16, 2019 6:07 am

Gloominary wrote:And I believe that without feelings, morals and values are impossible.
There's no such thing as a strictly rational ethics.

Reason, as well as intuition, can help us find some consistency in our feelings over times and places, and it can inform us about the likely results of acting on our feelings in this or that manner, but without any feelings at all, we'd have no motivation to act.
This is backed up by neuroscience, Damasio I believe is the neuroscientist who started spreading the word on this. People with damaged limbic systems were perfectly capable of interacting well with many practical problem but their social logic was impaired. IOW they lost the ability to know how to actsocial situations. But more than this many skills that seem unrelated to emotions and are supposedlypurely rational, they not longer had. So one not only loses the ability to be moral, or as you say, the motivation, you even lose the ability to reason without emotions. YOu don't even know when to stop analyzing or how to prioritize.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Thu May 16, 2019 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu May 16, 2019 6:43 am

Gloominary wrote:
In a complete and holistic Framework and System, one of the strategy is to reduce and prevent the possibilities of moral dilemma occurrences in the first place. If the minimal of dilemmas ever occur, then one would do the best based on one's developed competence and do not brood over whatever the consequences, while taking steps to prevent future occurrences.

Hm, I'm not sure if I've considered this point much, please elaborate if you're interested.

I know that if you reduce poverty, you reduce the need for some people to have to lie, cheat and steal.

Yes, reduced poverty will reduce immoralities associated with poverty.

This is what I meant when I proposed humanity as a team must strive from now and as soon a possible to come together to increase the various quotients I mentioned above, i.e. morality, ethical, intelligence, emotional, psychological, wisdom, spiritual, philosophical and other relevant quotient.

For example on the issue of abortion [in general I don't agree with], it is not effective to introduce more laws on abortion.
But with the increase in the various quotient above, we will tackle the root cause, i.e. the modulation of the sexual impulse and people should be VERY mindful of the various negative consequences when indulging in sex. They will not be led blindly by the primal sexual impulses. The modulation of sexual impulses will definitely reduce unplanned conception to the minimal if not ZERO.

With the increase in the various quotients to hundreds fold or more in the future, most the problems we face today will be tackled at the root cause, i.e. within the human mind. If mistakes are made, people will strive for correction, prevention and improvement.

Both reason and feelings are essential but they have to be in complementarity within a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

One point is within a complete system, we have to differentiate Morality as confined to pure reason dealing with absolute moral laws, while ethics deals with feelings and the practical world.

For me, reason can tell you more about what things and their implications are, and knowing more about things will help us determine whether and when they're good, bad, somewhere in between, but it's feelings that tell you whether they're good or bad.
Morals and values are just more carefully assessed preferences we have for things.

What I am talking about is meta-reason that analyzes all sort of human experiences and feeling to abstract reasoned moral laws to act upon.
Then humans are trained to align with the reasoned absolute moral laws.
Point is when a person is trained competently, the action is spontaneous, i.e. not based on feelings at the point of execution.

Note the top professional sport people - they don't act based on their feelings but execute what is effective to gain the point in a spontaneous mode, note 'flow'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
    Flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.

Note the common absolute moral law of 'Thou Shall not Kill' period! [an ought] is abstracted from the feelings and experiences of the collective [the "is"].
But humans being fallible we do not expect such an "ought" to be an "is" but they work in complementarity within an effective moral framework.

Both reason and feelings are essential but they have to be in complementarity within a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

One point is within a complete system, we have to differentiate Morality as confined to pure reason dealing with absolute moral laws, while ethics deals with feelings and the practical world.

I'm not an absolutist, especially when it comes to morals and values.

My ethical framework is intended as more of a guideline that seems to works for me and perhaps some other people, rather than some kind of (natural) law.

As fallible human being by nature, you cannot be an absolutists.
However you can accept absolute moral values as a guide.

Would you prefer

    1 'No Killing of Human Being' as a personal moral guide

    or

    2. I can kill some or a few human beings unconditionally because the stats indicate human beings do have feelings and have killed other human beings based on their evil feelings to kill.

If you adopt the personal absolute moral value of
"No Killing of Human Being"
That will be your first standard and moral criteria in such an issue in whatever the circumstances.
But being human and fallible, you may have to kill under certain conditions not within your control, etc. or even if you have a choice on the issue, like being an executor.

In this case, you have an absolute moral standard to judge against future actions or actions that had been taken. This gap will trigger the conscience to respond.
As such upon the above there is a moral gap between the "ought" and "is".
It is then for the person to review to close and improve on the gap on a continual basis.

If one do not accept an absolute moral gap, then in this case, one will continue to kill humans without an absolute ceiling limit to guide the person and his/her conscience will not be triggered as there is no moral gap.

Therefore absolute moral laws [abstracted from experiences and feeling of the collective] are effective within a moral framework and system.

The question is how to abstract all necessary absolute moral laws as guides that are objective. I know this can be done.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Savnisharma » Thu May 16, 2019 10:28 am

Excellent thread! Keep up!
Savnisharma
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 16, 2019 10:04 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Sat May 18, 2019 12:22 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Gloominary wrote:And I believe that without feelings, morals and values are impossible.
There's no such thing as a strictly rational ethics.

Reason, as well as intuition, can help us find some consistency in our feelings over times and places, and it can inform us about the likely results of acting on our feelings in this or that manner, but without any feelings at all, we'd have no motivation to act.
This is backed up by neuroscience, Damasio I believe is the neuroscientist who started spreading the word on this. People with damaged limbic systems were perfectly capable of interacting well with many practical problem but their social logic was impaired. IOW they lost the ability to know how to actsocial situations. But more than this many skills that seem unrelated to emotions and are supposedlypurely rational, they not longer had. So one not only loses the ability to be moral, or as you say, the motivation, you even lose the ability to reason without emotions. YOu don't even know when to stop analyzing or how to prioritize.

Nice, this helps prove my point.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Sat May 18, 2019 1:14 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:
In a complete and holistic Framework and System, one of the strategy is to reduce and prevent the possibilities of moral dilemma occurrences in the first place. If the minimal of dilemmas ever occur, then one would do the best based on one's developed competence and do not brood over whatever the consequences, while taking steps to prevent future occurrences.

Hm, I'm not sure if I've considered this point much, please elaborate if you're interested.

I know that if you reduce poverty, you reduce the need for some people to have to lie, cheat and steal.

Yes, reduced poverty will reduce immoralities associated with poverty.

This is what I meant when I proposed humanity as a team must strive from now and as soon a possible to come together to increase the various quotients I mentioned above, i.e. morality, ethical, intelligence, emotional, psychological, wisdom, spiritual, philosophical and other relevant quotient.

For example on the issue of abortion [in general I don't agree with], it is not effective to introduce more laws on abortion.
But with the increase in the various quotient above, we will tackle the root cause, i.e. the modulation of the sexual impulse and people should be VERY mindful of the various negative consequences when indulging in sex. They will not be led blindly by the primal sexual impulses. The modulation of sexual impulses will definitely reduce unplanned conception to the minimal if not ZERO.

With the increase in the various quotients to hundreds fold or more in the future, most the problems we face today will be tackled at the root cause, i.e. within the human mind. If mistakes are made, people will strive for correction, prevention and improvement.

Both reason and feelings are essential but they have to be in complementarity within a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

One point is within a complete system, we have to differentiate Morality as confined to pure reason dealing with absolute moral laws, while ethics deals with feelings and the practical world.

For me, reason can tell you more about what things and their implications are, and knowing more about things will help us determine whether and when they're good, bad, somewhere in between, but it's feelings that tell you whether they're good or bad.
Morals and values are just more carefully assessed preferences we have for things.

What I am talking about is meta-reason that analyzes all sort of human experiences and feeling to abstract reasoned moral laws to act upon.
Then humans are trained to align with the reasoned absolute moral laws.
Point is when a person is trained competently, the action is spontaneous, i.e. not based on feelings at the point of execution.

Note the top professional sport people - they don't act based on their feelings but execute what is effective to gain the point in a spontaneous mode, note 'flow'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
    Flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.

Note the common absolute moral law of 'Thou Shall not Kill' period! [an ought] is abstracted from the feelings and experiences of the collective [the "is"].
But humans being fallible we do not expect such an "ought" to be an "is" but they work in complementarity within an effective moral framework.

Both reason and feelings are essential but they have to be in complementarity within a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

One point is within a complete system, we have to differentiate Morality as confined to pure reason dealing with absolute moral laws, while ethics deals with feelings and the practical world.

I'm not an absolutist, especially when it comes to morals and values.

My ethical framework is intended as more of a guideline that seems to works for me and perhaps some other people, rather than some kind of (natural) law.

As fallible human being by nature, you cannot be an absolutists.
However you can accept absolute moral values as a guide.

Would you prefer

    1 'No Killing of Human Being' as a personal moral guide

    or

    2. I can kill some or a few human beings unconditionally because the stats indicate human beings do have feelings and have killed other human beings based on their evil feelings to kill.

If you adopt the personal absolute moral value of
"No Killing of Human Being"
That will be your first standard and moral criteria in such an issue in whatever the circumstances.
But being human and fallible, you may have to kill under certain conditions not within your control, etc. or even if you have a choice on the issue, like being an executor.

In this case, you have an absolute moral standard to judge against future actions or actions that had been taken. This gap will trigger the conscience to respond.
As such upon the above there is a moral gap between the "ought" and "is".
It is then for the person to review to close and improve on the gap on a continual basis.

If one do not accept an absolute moral gap, then in this case, one will continue to kill humans without an absolute ceiling limit to guide the person and his/her conscience will not be triggered as there is no moral gap.

Therefore absolute moral laws [abstracted from experiences and feeling of the collective] are effective within a moral framework and system.

The question is how to abstract all necessary absolute moral laws as guides that are objective. I know this can be done.

I prefer generalizations to absolutes.
I'm against murder, except under extraordinary circumstances.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat May 18, 2019 8:09 am

Gloominary wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I prefer generalizations to absolutes.
I'm against murder, except under extraordinary circumstances.

When you prefer generalizations, you will be chasing a moving goal post all the time.

In this case, one can murder within one's subjective opinion.
To a psychopath, s/he may his/her own justification to murder.
SOME Muslims will kill innocent non-believers because their God commanded them to kill.
These subjective views will be adopted without any absolute [a fixed goal post] to improve upon.

When one adopt a moral absolute that is reasoned and justified, then one has a fixed goal post to improve upon with every missed score.
With an absolute 'Killing of a human is not permissible' period no ifs and no buts, then the person will have to think many times before s/he commit to the final act whether to kill or not and if there are justified reasons to do so.
Note the above is decided upon a climate of the trend of increasing average quotients I listed above.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Gloominary » Mon May 20, 2019 1:35 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I prefer generalizations to absolutes.
I'm against murder, except under extraordinary circumstances.

When you prefer generalizations, you will be chasing a moving goal post all the time.

In this case, one can murder within one's subjective opinion.
To a psychopath, s/he may his/her own justification to murder.
SOME Muslims will kill innocent non-believers because their God commanded them to kill.
These subjective views will be adopted without any absolute [a fixed goal post] to improve upon.

When one adopt a moral absolute that is reasoned and justified, then one has a fixed goal post to improve upon with every missed score.
With an absolute 'Killing of a human is not permissible' period no ifs and no buts, then the person will have to think many times before s/he commit to the final act whether to kill or not and if there are justified reasons to do so.
Note the above is decided upon a climate of the trend of increasing average quotients I listed above.

When I said I'm not necessarily against committing murder (unlawful homicide) under extraordinary circumstances, I didn't mean for sport or to spread Islam, Christianity or some other religion or irreligion, I meant if you/your fellows were sufficiently impoverished/disenfranchised, and there was little-no chance of peacefully emancipating yourselves, it may be necessary to warfully emancipate yourselves, to commit crimes such as theft, and murder.
Now what constitutes sufficiently impoverished/disenfranchised is a matter of debate/discussion, but I'd rather than have that debate/discussion and leave theft and even the most egregious acts on the table than unflinchingly, unwaveringly submit to a manmade/natural tyranny should one ever happen to impress itself upon me/my people.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Normative Ethics

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon May 20, 2019 9:22 am

Gloominary wrote:When I said I'm not necessarily against committing murder (unlawful homicide) under extraordinary circumstances, I didn't mean for sport or to spread Islam, Christianity or some other religion or irreligion, I meant if you/your fellows were sufficiently impoverished/disenfranchised, and there was little-no chance of peacefully emancipating yourselves, it may be necessary to warfully emancipate yourselves, to commit crimes such as theft, and murder.
Now what constitutes sufficiently impoverished/disenfranchised is a matter of debate/discussion, but I'd rather than have that debate/discussion and leave theft and even the most egregious acts on the table than unflinchingly, unwaveringly submit to a manmade/natural tyranny should one ever happen to impress itself upon me/my people.

Tyranny??

You missed my point.

What I proposed is the moral absolutes are merely to be guides only not to be enforceable at all.

For example,
the moral absolute; "no stealing of whatever is permitted."
therefore the ideal expectation is ZERO crime of theft.
Note this is only a moral guide.

On the ethical side, the expectation is ZERO crime with provisions for various circumstances;

In practice, let say at the end of one year, 10,000 crimes of theft with a range of degrees of seriousness are recorded and the thieves are charged in accordance to the law and legislation of the land.

Thus, we have a moral gap of 10,000 crimes of theft, i.e.

    1. Moral absolute ideal = Zero theft
    2. Ethical reality = 10,000 thefts
    3. Therefore moral gap = 10,000


Note the critical utility of the moral absolute in enabling the computation of the moral gap.
In this instance, the root causes of the moral gap of 10,000 and all the variables contributing to the gap must be investigated. The causes may be impoverished/disenfranchised and there will be loads of other factors that contribute to the 10,000 thefts.

Once the majority of the causes are identified, attempts, research, analyzes, solutions and strategies will be implemented to strive to reduce the moral gap from 10,000 to 8000, 7000, and gradually to as close as possible to ideal, i.e. ZERO.

What is advantages in this approach is initial studies will enable research to go deeper and deeper in to the root causes, e.g. using advances of neuroscience, genomic, technology, IT, AI etc.. This will also involve increasing all the relevant average quotients I mentioned above.

In most cases, the ideal will not be achieved but at least the reasons for the variances are known and concerted efforts need to be made to reduce to it to as close as possible to the ideal.

If we do not adopt moral absolutes as guides, then we will be strategizing upon a moving subjective goal post without an efficient standard to improve upon.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users