Ethics - Revision history

Marcin: /* Historical Figures */

2021-01-01T18:24:43Z

Historical Figures

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 1 January 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:

	=Historical Figures=		=Historical Figures=
	Wikipedia has a whole slew of articles on philosophy and a section on ~~ethicists~~.		Wikipedia has a whole slew of articles on philosophy and a section on [[Ethicists]].
	*Abelard - 12th century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Abelard#Philosophy_and_theology] - ''He stressed the subjective intention as determining, if not the moral character, at least the moral value, of human action.'' This is consistent with later work in [[General Semantics]], where [[The Map is not the Territory]]		*Abelard - 12th century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Abelard#Philosophy_and_theology] - ''He stressed the subjective intention as determining, if not the moral character, at least the moral value, of human action.'' This is consistent with later work in [[General Semantics]], where [[The Map is not the Territory]]

Marcin: /* Historical Figures */

2021-01-01T18:19:24Z

Historical Figures

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:19, 1 January 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:

	=Historical Figures=		=Historical Figures=
			Wikipedia has a whole slew of articles on philosophy and a section on ethicists.
	*Abelard - 12th century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Abelard#Philosophy_and_theology] - ''He stressed the subjective intention as determining, if not the moral character, at least the moral value, of human action.'' This is consistent with later work in [[General Semantics]], where [[The Map is not the Territory]]		*Abelard - 12th century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Abelard#Philosophy_and_theology] - ''He stressed the subjective intention as determining, if not the moral character, at least the moral value, of human action.'' This is consistent with later work in [[General Semantics]], where [[The Map is not the Territory]]

Marcin: /* Is Morality Objective */

2021-01-01T18:06:59Z

Is Morality Objective

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 1 January 2021
Line 23:		Line 23:
	*''there are no objective moral values'' - Let's break this one down. Define 'custom'. ''traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.'' Thus, the original statement is true. If customs (morals) depend on a place, time, and conditions - there is no objective moral. Take-home message: '''go to the source (etymology) of morals, and note that 'objective morality' is an inherent contradiction (by definition).''' THus, it appears that controversy on any morals (being right or wrong) is misplaced or moot from the get-go - and the discussion should be placed on a more solid footing by discussing ethics, not morals. Ethics deal with choices of what is good or bad - which requires mental energy. There is no point in discussing 'customs' outside of what we can learn from those customs to improve the ethical nature of our current behavior.		*''there are no objective moral values'' - Let's break this one down. Define 'custom'. ''traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.'' Thus, the original statement is true. If customs (morals) depend on a place, time, and conditions - there is no objective moral. Take-home message: '''go to the source (etymology) of morals, and note that 'objective morality' is an inherent contradiction (by definition).''' THus, it appears that controversy on any morals (being right or wrong) is misplaced or moot from the get-go - and the discussion should be placed on a more solid footing by discussing ethics, not morals. Ethics deal with choices of what is good or bad - which requires mental energy. There is no point in discussing 'customs' outside of what we can learn from those customs to improve the ethical nature of our current behavior.
	*Thus, anyone who uses the word 'moral' without awareness that it refers to custom is a reptart (an objective term) and anyone who discusses ethics is a libtart (an objective term). A dumb reptart is one who talks about morals without awareness that they are talking about customs. A smart reptart is one who defends certain customs - knowing that they are customs. A dumb libtart is one who thinks that the reptart is dumb. A smart libtart laughs at all of this. And there is no difference between a smart libtart and a smart reptart. LoL.		*Thus, anyone who uses the word 'moral' without awareness that it refers to custom is a reptart (an objective term) and anyone who discusses ethics is a libtart (an objective term). A dumb reptart is one who talks about morals without awareness that they are talking about customs. A smart reptart is one who defends certain customs - knowing that they are customs. A dumb libtart is one who thinks that the reptart is dumb. A smart libtart laughs at all of this. And there is no difference between a smart libtart and a smart reptart. LoL.

			=Historical Figures=
			*Abelard - 12th century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Abelard#Philosophy_and_theology] - ''He stressed the subjective intention as determining, if not the moral character, at least the moral value, of human action.'' This is consistent with later work in [[General Semantics]], where [[The Map is not the Territory]]

Marcin: /* Is Morality Objective */

2020-11-06T17:35:36Z

Is Morality Objective

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 6 November 2020
Line 22:		Line 22:
	*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]		*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]
	*''there are no objective moral values'' - Let's break this one down. Define 'custom'. ''traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.'' Thus, the original statement is true. If customs (morals) depend on a place, time, and conditions - there is no objective moral. Take-home message: '''go to the source (etymology) of morals, and note that 'objective morality' is an inherent contradiction (by definition).''' THus, it appears that controversy on any morals (being right or wrong) is misplaced or moot from the get-go - and the discussion should be placed on a more solid footing by discussing ethics, not morals. Ethics deal with choices of what is good or bad - which requires mental energy. There is no point in discussing 'customs' outside of what we can learn from those customs to improve the ethical nature of our current behavior.		*''there are no objective moral values'' - Let's break this one down. Define 'custom'. ''traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.'' Thus, the original statement is true. If customs (morals) depend on a place, time, and conditions - there is no objective moral. Take-home message: '''go to the source (etymology) of morals, and note that 'objective morality' is an inherent contradiction (by definition).''' THus, it appears that controversy on any morals (being right or wrong) is misplaced or moot from the get-go - and the discussion should be placed on a more solid footing by discussing ethics, not morals. Ethics deal with choices of what is good or bad - which requires mental energy. There is no point in discussing 'customs' outside of what we can learn from those customs to improve the ethical nature of our current behavior.
	*Thus, anyone who uses the word 'moral' without awareness that it refers to custom is a reptart (an objective term) and anyone who discusses ethics is a libtart (an objective term). A dumb reptart is one who talks about morals without awareness that they are talking about customs. A smart reptart is one who defends certain customs - knowing that they are customs. A dumb libtart is one who thinks that the reptart is dumb. A smart libtart laughs at all of this. And there is no difference between a smart libtart and a smart reptart.		*Thus, anyone who uses the word 'moral' without awareness that it refers to custom is a reptart (an objective term) and anyone who discusses ethics is a libtart (an objective term). A dumb reptart is one who talks about morals without awareness that they are talking about customs. A smart reptart is one who defends certain customs - knowing that they are customs. A dumb libtart is one who thinks that the reptart is dumb. A smart libtart laughs at all of this. And there is no difference between a smart libtart and a smart reptart. LoL.

Marcin: /* Is Morality Objective */

2020-11-06T17:35:20Z

Is Morality Objective

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 6 November 2020
Line 21:		Line 21:
	=Is Morality Objective=		=Is Morality Objective=
	*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]		*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]
			*''there are no objective moral values'' - Let's break this one down. Define 'custom'. ''traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.'' Thus, the original statement is true. If customs (morals) depend on a place, time, and conditions - there is no objective moral. Take-home message: '''go to the source (etymology) of morals, and note that 'objective morality' is an inherent contradiction (by definition).''' THus, it appears that controversy on any morals (being right or wrong) is misplaced or moot from the get-go - and the discussion should be placed on a more solid footing by discussing ethics, not morals. Ethics deal with choices of what is good or bad - which requires mental energy. There is no point in discussing 'customs' outside of what we can learn from those customs to improve the ethical nature of our current behavior.
			*Thus, anyone who uses the word 'moral' without awareness that it refers to custom is a reptart (an objective term) and anyone who discusses ethics is a libtart (an objective term). A dumb reptart is one who talks about morals without awareness that they are talking about customs. A smart reptart is one who defends certain customs - knowing that they are customs. A dumb libtart is one who thinks that the reptart is dumb. A smart libtart laughs at all of this. And there is no difference between a smart libtart and a smart reptart.

Marcin: /* What is Right and Wrong */

2020-11-06T17:22:41Z

What is Right and Wrong

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 6 November 2020
Line 7:		Line 7:

	=What is Right and Wrong=		=What is Right and Wrong=
	~~There are various theories on the topic, which one would guess would be more relevant depending on the situation:~~

	==Moral Objectivism==		==Moral Objectivism==

	*Teleological. One example is Utilitarianism - that which produces most happiness overall [http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html#:~:text=Moral%20Objectivism%3A%20The%20view%20that,what%20anyone%20thinks%20they%20are.]		*Teleological. One example is Utilitarianism - that which produces most happiness overall [http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html#:~:text=Moral%20Objectivism%3A%20The%20view%20that,what%20anyone%20thinks%20they%20are.]
	*Deontological - Categorical Imperative - it matters ''what kind of act'' something is. If it can be claimed as a universal truth, then it is good. This assessment appears to have a fundamental flaw - as many things could depend on the situation - or could not be interpreted correctly - based on principles of [[General Semantics]].		*Deontological - Categorical Imperative - it matters ''what kind of act'' something is. If it can be claimed as a universal truth, then it is good. This assessment appears to have a fundamental flaw - as many things could depend on the situation - or could not be interpreted correctly - based on principles of [[General Semantics]].

Marcin: /* Is Morality the Same as Ethics */

2020-11-06T17:22:09Z

Is Morality the Same as Ethics

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 6 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Is Morality the Same as Ethics=		=Is Morality the Same as Ethics=
	*Morality comes from 'mos' ~~in Greek~~, ~~meaning customs~~.		*Morality comes from 'mos' from Latin moralis, from mos, mor- ‘custom’. Custom implies no choice - 'that's just the way it is.' - implying denial of new information or change.
	*~~Ethicos comes~~ from Greek ~~for 'character'~~		*Ethics - from Greek ēthos ‘nature, disposition’u. Disposition implies choice.
	*Morals don't have to be ethical, and ethics don't have to be moral. [https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/]. This article seems to have it in reverse.		*Morals don't have to be ethical, and ethics don't have to be moral. [https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/]. This article seems to have it in reverse.
	*The etymology of the 2 words seem to be a better guide for the subtlety.		*The etymology of the 2 words seem to be a better guide for the subtlety.

Marcin: /* Moral Relavism */

2020-11-06T17:09:12Z

Moral Relavism

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 6 November 2020
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Comes in 2 forms - subjectivism and conventionalism. Caused by decline of religion. As Dostoevsky famously wrote "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible".		Comes in 2 forms - subjectivism and conventionalism. Caused by decline of religion. As Dostoevsky famously wrote "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible".
			*Cultural diversity is not a good argument for moral relativism - [http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html#:~:text=Moral%20Objectivism%3A%20The%20view%20that,what%20anyone%20thinks%20they%20are.]
			*Decline of religion does not necessarily mean a decline in morality - have there been any studies that can give us a [[Gamma]] on that? [http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html#:~:text=Moral%20Objectivism%3A%20The%20view%20that,what%20anyone%20thinks%20they%20are.]

	=Is Morality Objective=		=Is Morality Objective=
	*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]		*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]

Marcin: /* Moral Relavism */

2020-11-06T17:04:17Z

Moral Relavism

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 6 November 2020
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==Moral Relavism==		==Moral Relavism==

	Comes in 2 forms - subjectivism and conventionalism.		Comes in 2 forms - subjectivism and conventionalism. Caused by decline of religion. As Dostoevsky famously wrote "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible".

	=Is Morality Objective=		=Is Morality Objective=
	*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]		*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]

Marcin: /* What is Right and Wrong */

2020-11-06T17:02:53Z

What is Right and Wrong

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 6 November 2020
Line 8:		Line 8:
	=What is Right and Wrong=		=What is Right and Wrong=
	There are various theories on the topic, which one would guess would be more relevant depending on the situation:		There are various theories on the topic, which one would guess would be more relevant depending on the situation:

			==Moral Objectivism==
	*Teleological. One example is Utilitarianism - that which produces most happiness overall [http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html#:~:text=Moral%20Objectivism%3A%20The%20view%20that,what%20anyone%20thinks%20they%20are.]		*Teleological. One example is Utilitarianism - that which produces most happiness overall [http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html#:~:text=Moral%20Objectivism%3A%20The%20view%20that,what%20anyone%20thinks%20they%20are.]
	*Deontological - Categorical Imperative - it matters ''what kind of act'' something is. If it can be claimed as a universal truth, then it is good. This assessment appears to have a fundamental flaw - as many things could depend on the situation - or could not be interpreted correctly - based on principles of [[General Semantics]].		*Deontological - Categorical Imperative - it matters ''what kind of act'' something is. If it can be claimed as a universal truth, then it is good. This assessment appears to have a fundamental flaw - as many things could depend on the situation - or could not be interpreted correctly - based on principles of [[General Semantics]].

			==Moral Relavism==

			Comes in 2 forms - subjectivism and conventionalism.

	=Is Morality Objective=		=Is Morality Objective=
	*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]		*Psychology Today on the topic - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective#:~:text=Morality%20requires%20us%20to%20avoid,objectively%20because%20harm%20exists%20objectively.]