Go to THRAWN RICKLE
- Add a comment
- Go to Ethics vs. Morality
The follow-up I Promised!
What evidence do you have that "the heuristic brain seeks to achieve progressively better approximations to a stable state," and that this state "would be a stable set of rules for interacting with the group that maximized individual gain and by extension, group survivability"? I can create any number of plausible scenarios wherein maximized individual gain specifically lowers group survivability. One example is the bully on a sinking ship who arranges for his own place in a lifeboat and his own survival at the expense of others who perish as a result of his action. If one or more of these persons has expertise in survivability at sea, the entire group loses from the bully's actions.
The specific definition I gave for "ethics" in my post allows for continuing evolution as the group grows, and as it changes. Furthermore, the definition makes a continuing discussion possible about the concept I presented. Within this context I am not interested in other definitions for ethics, since those definitions are not pertinent to my argument. I also am not trying to put forward my definition as the only correct one. What I have done is to introduce a concept which I defined as ethics, and another concept which I defined as morality, and I showed that these concepts are frequently confused by regular people (and experts, for that matter), with resulting problems that can be tied directly back to this confusion. I think it is interesting that it is the concepts that are confused. Precisely because we tend to confuse concepts with their "definitions," we end up, in reality, arguing about definitions instead of discussing the underlying concepts--while all the while believing that we are discussing the concepts!
posted by
arGee
on September 22, 2003 at 9:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Say What?
I will address your comments later (when I have complete my move), but basically, you are presenting a circular argument. Your terms have no absolute meaning (definition) and so are subnect to interpretation by your readers. My argeuemts are based strictly upon aninitial definition of terms, and then an applicatioin of those definitions to the world in which we live.
posted by
arGee
on September 18, 2003 at 11:08 AM
| link to this | reply
definitions
On my own journey, I have learned that morality is what is right, or wrong, and that ethics are the theoretical reasons why an act is either moral or immoral. You take issue with a theological approbitive ethic, and rightly so, but you do not recognize that your own ethics are rational constructivist. Building up a moral framework from first principles may not be a bad way to approach moral issues, but there are other ways. One of them is a naturalist point of view which takes into account the empirical facts of human psychology. On this view, the heuristic brain seeks to achieve progressively better approximations to a stable state, which in this case would be a stable set of rules for interacting with the group that maximized individual gain and by extension, group survivability. While this will approach a fixed set of moral, or in your parlance ethical, behaviors, it remains adaptive and evolutionary. Both rational constructivist, and theological approbitive ethical systems fail to provide this adaptive characteristic, and will thus always be subject to the crises they experience.
posted by
Able_Ergot
on September 18, 2003 at 10:41 AM
| link to this | reply
I appreciate your kind words
At the risk of getting pilloried again (not by you--someone else out there is not very happy with some things I have written), allow me to point you to my other blogs:
DefenseWatch (#69)
Health from Outside the Box (#189)
Islamic Violence (#86)
Nuke it! (#184)
Thrawn Rickle (#27)
posted by
arGee
on September 12, 2003 at 9:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Profound
and incredible writing, Doctor. Your thoughts reflect your soul, my friend.
posted by
firahz
on September 12, 2003 at 3:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Ethnics vs. Morality
I totally agree with you! I was just saying that parents being involved with children really helps also. A lot of households these days are on one parent incomes. Children are left to there own defenses. Not a good mix, time on their hands and a lack of morals.
posted by
Sherri_G
on September 8, 2003 at 8:50 PM
| link to this | reply
The key is the difference
What troubles our society now, among other things, is a confusion between
Ethics and
Morality. So long as parents can distinguish the difference, they should be involved, BUT if our teachers are not involved, we will never get past a religious justification for what should become second nature in our basic understanding.
posted by
arGee
on September 8, 2003 at 8:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Ethnics vs. Morality
I agree that teachers are an important factor for teaching ethnics and moral skills, but more so, it should come from home and church. A parents role in a childs life is a key factor as to how they will view others as well as themselves. When a parent takes an active role in the childs education, life & interests, the child becomes more stable. Stability causes self value and self love and a love for other people. I believe that children do not do as you say, but will follow what you do. If a parent shows disrespect for authority then chances are that the child will follow, unless another role model such as a teacher, minister, or Grandparent intervenes. Overall, what you have written should be set in stone as it is very true.
File this under "KEEPER"
posted by
Sherri_G
on September 8, 2003 at 8:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Talk about a fast response...
Actually, I'm a PhD Engineer, but in reality I am an explorer and adventurer. I did major in psychology as an undergraduate a very long time ago. I like to think of myself as a polymath, however. If you've gone to
my website, you'll get the idea.
posted by
arGee
on September 8, 2003 at 8:15 PM
| link to this | reply
You see it was writings like this... and the Jung references
that made Crabby think (dare hope!!!) You were a fellow psychologist.... not that Crabby is one....
That is her Creator.
posted by
Crabby
on September 8, 2003 at 8:09 PM
| link to this | reply