I can appreciate you peddling your paper…
Darwin?
Never heard of him.
If you haven’t noticed most ILP members reject Darwin and natural selection and some claim that morality/ethics is a cosntruct…created by either god or men…
I suggest you engage them.
And when you’ve wasted enough time, maybe you can hand out homework.
I have the One True Theory of Ethics and I invented it today. This is the Grand Unified Ethics…
Anything annoying is unethical. That is the main ethics and the only ethics anybody will ever need… Annoyance=unethical
Pain is the body’s alarm system. Alarms are annoying. So causing pain (unless they consented to it) is unethical. This is the same reason why if rats are crawling around in your house, its ethical to kill them, because rats are annoying.
Then there are some other considerations. Like if you go to a park, and some guy is playing a song you don’t like, its not ethical to harm them, because its not your territory. On the other hand if someone walks into your house and refuses to shut off their music, then harming them is ethical.
I feel this is the one true ethics, and superior to Ecmandu’s grand unified ethics of “consent violations are bad”. Cause I found some flaws in that, so that is only 2nd best theory.
For example, some human spaceship is stranded on a planet, there are only 100 men and 2 women, the women hate men and don’t want to give them sex to continue the human race. With ecmandu morality, the human race would go extinct for sure. But with my morality, there would actually be a moral debate, because someone might argue that “the human race is annoying and suffering, it is better for us to go extinct, lets all suicide”. Then someone could argue “no, our souls might be on the planet, as disembodied spirits”. Then true moral reasoning could occur from both sides.
But the core thing is that “annoyance is unethical” which is the core of all morality, then an addendum that “consented annoyance is ethical”. From there you can form more complex debates and arguments. Proof… you are listening to a good song but after 100 times in a row it is annoying.
It feels like if you make ethics about avoiding consent violation or annoyance… you are speaking in synonyms. People get annoyed when you violate their consent. Consent violation is annoying. If no one’s consent was ever violated, no one would ever be annoyed.
But worse than speaking in synonyms, you’re not really saying what ethics is about. It’s like a negative ethics, which is like having a negative theology. You’re not really saying what God is about.
In order to actually say something, you first have to acknowledge that you’re dealing with persons who have preferences (some preferences are the same and some are different). This is something that @Ecmandu acknowledges.
What is the same between persons is that they are persons. What makes a conversation possible between them is that they are persons.
That is why treating the other as self (person as person) is more fundamental, and why every major theory in ethics spins off of it, and why some version of it (including the negative form) is found in every major culture in history. It is the condition for the possibility of culture. It is what describes good, beautiful, true culture.
So, yeah, don’t be annoying. Unless someone is violating someone else’s consent. My consent ends where your consent begins. A Supreme Court Justice once said that about fists and noses.
We’re all saying the same thing.
OK. So we’re persons, right? So we can have a conversation about this. Let’s say we’re not in a park; we’re in a vehicle. I can’t get out, because you’re driving. You insist on playing music I find rather annoying, and loudly. Am I justified in punching your radio until it breaks? How do you think a rational discussion would go that would avoid me punching your radio until it breaks?
Yes I believe the person driving has violated ethics, if they are forcing you to listen to the music. If you request to leave the car, but they refuse to let you leave the car, that’s a form of kidnapping/assault so you would be justified to cause harm to their radio
i think the question you are asking here, is not whether or not this is ethical, but the question of how much punishment is ethical to give to someone who violates those ethics
What is the same between persons is that they are persons. What makes a conversation possible between them is that they are persons.
ethics applies to non-persons as well
Let’s just consider the breaking of their radio as time served.