From this thread.
You with me bec?
Care to kick this off by providing some starting axioms? Or am I allowed to select my own axioms?
Well since it appears you’re not comng back immediately I’m off. I shall return at some point.
well, that’s really what ethics is, isn’t it?
it’s drawing that border line of things that will happen (punishments/praise) from a list of possibilities.
sliding that line all the way to either side for punishment as a whole does make ethical questions less problematic, but then you’ve got to account for the notion of fairness (if we separate “ethics” and “fairness”, that is)
there’s always going to be some instance, either real or contrived, to make us questions ethics and wonder if what we’re doing considering it is proper. for example, before that student drove over 9 people at the university of north carolina, we had a “decent” fix on what a terrorist was. now, if we go by the strict (legal) textbook of “terrorist”, we’re left trying to explain some gaps and wiggle room.
this is a good thing. one would say that it separates us from the animals.
Since it seems clear that clairobscur is neither coming back to this thread nor the original one feel free to hijack this one with my blessings.
i like boobs!
(that sound you hear is the sound of this thread being closed…humanely)
I’m not familiar with the linked thread, and I haven’t read it. But here’s what I’m getting: You’re asking whether we can reach conclusions about what is right and wrong via logic. For example, are there syllogisms that make sense, such as X is right and Y is right, therefore Z should also be morally right?
Okay, well. Just to pick somewhere to start, let’s say our axioms are that it is morally wrong to deny someone of life, liberty, or property. However, if you have two choices and both of them necessarily include such a denial, then you choose whichever denies life/liberty/property the least.
Is this perhaps sort of what you meant?
I don’t have “no” emotion, but for practical purposes we can state such. And from that standpoint, yes there is logic behind morality, even popular morality though this is heavily influenced by random religious doctrines that were probably begun by a single influential person with a particular axe to grind, and have since become the norm.
But anyways.
Logically there is no reason not to, I suppose. But only in the same sense as in any solution to a problem where you would rather solve a problem by getting rid of the symptoms rather than dealing with the cause. For instance, a person I once conversed with in a debate on the internet was from Sweden or Norway or such and was having issues with Arab people being allowed to seek refuge in the country, and the law of the land making it impossible to kick the people out even though they caused almost all of the crime in the country. His solution, kill all Arabs in the world.
Well, without testing it, of course, you will never know what the result of that would be. Theoretically it is possible that removing all Arabs from the planet would make it a better place–but really there is no knowing that (nor would I trust any good coming of such a thing.) But really, if say for instance you have your apartment in New York and you leave out pizza boxes, dirty plates, etc. in the middle of your room without cleaning, then yes you’re going to get lots of cockroaches and other bugs. And yes killing every single cockroach and bug on the planet may be a solution to your infestation problem, there really is no knowing that since then you’re still going to have mold, or some other insect is going to move in now that there is no other balancing force. And of course, between just keeping your room clean and going out and laboriously killing off every single pest in the world, one is a whole lot easier.
So now, it is possible that we could simply kill every person, regardless of age, for any crime they commit–and perhaps this would bring forth an age of peace and happiness and zero crime. But really there is no reason to believe that.
Society has, over time, developed a standard of saying “From this age to this age, we can’t trust a person to know what they are doing. For crimes committed, we will simply warn them and teach them to know better” and then “From this age to this one, we will assume they do know what they are doing, and mete out a punishment as is fitting.”
Now firstly in dealing with Consequences as a result of age, this is simply a result of simple biological fact. Humans are not born with any idea of what they are doing, expecting such or treating them as such seems immediately fallible as–simply each of us went through that stage, and refuting that truth would be self defeating.
Then, there is the question of Punishment and whether it should be meted out. Well, given that humans are by nature at once social animals, and also selfish, any process of rewards and admonishments or shunnings is bound to work–and indeed a balanced blend of stick and carrot does seem to lead to well adjusted and productive members of society. But of course, at least as of current, there do seem to be people who have become unresponsive to such a regimen and to similarly be commited to acts that various societies deem entirely unacceptable, and as such there being no particular use in keeping that individual up and kicking.
Which then all leads to the question of whether there is any point in having such a thing as a “productive society.” And to that, while I can’t speak to other times or places in human history where this may simply have been a matter of biological fear of death, all I can say is that I am enjoying my time here and think that would be dampered by a less productive and thriving society so, why not?
Gah…that came out a good bit denser than hoped…