What? No you’re not. You guys will have cut to the chase when you mention Jesus somewhere other than in the title of the OP.
As it is, the thread is entirely taken up with people telling each other what they think words mean. I don’t see the use. You told us what you mean by your terms. Okay. What’s the claim you want to formulate using those terms, and what is your argument for that claim?
I’d suspect that a lot of that revolves around excluding the victims from personhood, thus making killing them not murder. You can do all sorts of nasty things in an ethical system with the right premises.
I think that if you are going to discuss the way people interact within a group, you need to throw “etiquette” into the mix. Specifically, I think that the codes that guide behavior in prison are better categorized as etiquette–things that are or are not “done”–rather than ethics.
These are going to blur into one another, of course. Still, I think you should add it to the mix.
Yes, that’s why I included “influential” in my exposition instead of, say, “powerful”. I felt “influential” was a better choice of words because people can be intimidated and have the crap beaten out of them mentally as well as physically.
At this stage of the discussion, I accept both “deity” and “conscience” as subjective per your explanations. And I’m willing to defer an examination of their nature, and our knowledge of them, to an upcoming stage.
Great. Okay, let’s check it out.
I don’t think that’s a metaphysical question because it’s focused on the nature of ethics itself. We can deal with that now. And yes, I don’t see why an individual cannot be a renegade and formulate a set of ethics by which he deals with other people. As a matter of fact, I think the practice is common. Some people, for example, have established that taking pens or paper clips from the office is okay. That is an ethical consideration. The person might still feel guilty, and use his code of ethics to rationalize his behavior. (Or he might not feel guilty at all. His moral code might actually coincide with his code of ethics.)
That’s right. And astute. It is to be assumed that every person in this thread accepts aesthetics as the evaluation of worth for purposes of this discussion (or, if you prefer) for the purpose of understanding me better. I do absolutely intend to deal with good and evil in this thread, but it is just a mite premature at the moment. What I will intend to establish (I’m telling you under the presumption that you will hold off just a bit until all this business gets straightened out) is that good and evil are a matter of aesthetics, but not of morality or ethics.
I think they fit in with all the other sanctioned ethics violations and abuses that occur routinely, especially among governments and powerful, influential people. I think religious extremism also is responsible for many abuses of ethics, particularly when the code of ethics is drawn directly from the moral code.
Regarding “ethics” versus “code of ethics”, I think I would say that ethics is that which concerns interactions among people, and that a code of ethics is, well, the codification of the rules of ethics. “You shouldn’t throw your garbage onto my property” is the codification of a principle that deals with neighbors and their property.
It could, yes. But if it is, then ethics = morals. There is no substantive difference in saying that “I feel guilty for murdering Mr. Smith” and saying that “I violated the ethical prohibition against murdering Mr. Smith”. You feel guilty because you are guilty. If you felt any other way, you would have a personality disorder or mental illness.
Right. I can go along with that. I feel like I botched the definition, frankly, by even using the terms “objective” versus “subjective”. It’s really more like “external” versus “internal”. Ethics concerns itself with how you deal with people externally, whereas morality concerns itself with how you deal with your own self internally.
It is not possible to hold a meaningful discussion without agreeing on what things mean. There are too many discussions in Great Debates, in my opinion, that involve people talking past each other, based in large part on the fact that they both mean different things when they use the same words.
Like “ethics” for instance. Or “morality”. Just as there are many schools of thought on aesthetics, there are many schools of thought on ethics and morality. I am presenting my own, and other people are being very helpful with pointing out its flaws and how to make improvements.
It is not a waste of time at all. In fact, it is an excellent use of time. Quite honestly, unless you have accepted the definition of aesthetics given in the OP, and are willing to help hash out a definition for ethics and morality that is respectful and inclusive of the thoughts of others, you don’t belong in this thread — as spelled out clearly in the OP. Obviously, I cannot prevent you from constantly crying out “Just get on with it already! What things mean doesn’t matter!”
But, respectfully I do believe that intentional and belligerent distractions from the ongoing dicussions constitutes thread shitting. If you were to continue to engage in this behavior — attempting to disrail rather than contribute — it is my opinion that you would become rude at best and jerkish at worst.
Please feel free to participate, but please do so in the same good natured spirit as the others.
Possibly. It might be the case that etiquette is often implied by ethics (or even morality). But there are many instances in which etiquette is entirely random. Which spoon goes where. Which fork is used for eating the salad. Where does the napkin go. Can the elbows be on the table. These are all questions of etiquette, but really have no bearing on either ethics or morality.
Great! It might be better, though, after hearing from everyone, to switch subjective and objective to internal and external respectively. We’ll see how it goes. But thank you for your willingness to hold off on metaphysics and epistemology for now.
So…
How does everyone feel about swapping “objective” for “external” and “subjective” for “internal”? That way, there’s no equivocation about there being some standard above all standards, like a universally fair code of ethics, or a universally imposed moral imperative.
Yeah, I think “external” and “internal” (or even “external” and “subjective”) would be better suited for this context.
I don’t think that’s the case in most religious ritual sacrifice. The personhood of the victim is kind of the point, AFAICT. Meso-American sacrifice especially - depending on the god being sacrificed to, the prisoners were treated quite well, and with the whole Flower War thing, it was accepted that it could just as easily be your guys being sacrificed next time.
It’s true that sacrifice was not considered murder, but there’s the rub, isn’t it?
But they’re *not *ethics abuses. They’re ethically *mandated *by society as a whole, how can they be violations or abuses? You seem to be saying they’re accepted deviations from a normal standard, but they’re not - they are the normal standard. Society organized its activities *around *these rituals, over a *vast *span of time (1000s of years) and a wide area, and in various forms, like the Flower Wars, temple dedications and the Ball Game.
I think an ethical system like the Mesoamerican ritual sacrifice one presents serious problems for the idea that all human ethic systems abhor non-defensive/wartime killing. I think that’s why I find it so fascinating.
Sounds a lot better, IMO.
Well, I’d say it’s not necessary for someone to feel guilty if they’re morally in the wrong. If morality is a universal standard, then you could break it without knowing it. If it isn’t, or it is but not in the form you believe it to be, then you can feel guilty without having broken any moral rules.
But if there are no universal standards of morality, then yes, effectively, there’s no difference between morals and ethics, even if we think there are.
I would say that ethics can and should also apply to yourself, not just as a part of society but on a personal level. You can act unethically towards yourself personally.
Okay, I’ll just wait.
But hurry! :p;)
Agreed.
Agreed
Agreed
It wasn’t that bad was it? 
Okay, here we go: (1) I will be discussing aesthetics in the sense of evaluating worth. (2) I will be discussing ethics in the sense of interaction with others. (3) And I will be disussing morality in the sense of interaction with an internal conscience of some kind.
If you want to include yourself with “others”, fine. It just adds one to the pool. If you want the conscience to be God, fine. The IPU, fine. Just plain what your parents taught you, fine. Whatever. You can know things or not. Doesn’t matter.
From these discussions, the first definition emerged from the previous thread. The second emerged from excellent input from Mr Dibble and Revenant Threshold. I think other-wise did an amazing job with simple cooperation and a demonstration of the greatest patience I’ve witnessed on this board! I think all of us, but especially Voyager and Revenant Threshold contributed to the third definition. But those are only my perceptions.
I also perceived excellent debate. It’s like we’ve changed things. There are too many debates in which participants dig in their heels and refuse to give and inch on anything. Pretty soon, they find themselves painted into a corner, in the bizarre position of defending, say, spousal abuse or Creationism.
Okay, that’s an exagteration, but still.
Now, I’d like to discuss good and evil. I will say first that they are a matter of aesthetics, and not of ethics or morality. I’m wondering whether anyone, given my definitions, was drawn to that conclusion as instantly and with as much gravity as I was. Or do I need to explain why?
By the way, I would appreciate it if the only people who particpated beyond this point would please be those who are willing to accept my defintions of aesthetics, ethics, and morality if only for the sake of argument. (Now we’ll all know what the other person is talking about.) Thank you.
Yes to the instantly, no to the gravity, if I understand what you mean by “gravity”.
By these definitions, ethics requires interaction. But evil does not require interaction, so evil is not a matter of ethics. Also by these definitions, morality involves one’s interaction with one’s own conscience, but evil does not require that anyone interact with their own conscience, so evil is not a matter of morality. Meanwhile, the term “evil” is an evaluative term, so by these definitions, evil is a matter of aesthetics.
-FrL-
Not instantly, but the gravity, yes. I mean, to me, it seems the logical conclusion is (if you’ll excuse my stealing the phrase formula from … elsewhere ;)) that “aesthetics precedes ethics” and morality.
If I’m tracking the discussion correctly, ethics are derived from morality, which is in turn derived from aesthetics (IOW, aesthetics are foundational to both morality and ethics). If I’ve got that wrong please correct me, but in any case, I would like to hear your explanation.
Okay, well I guess it’s just we few who remain. And that’s okay. It only takes two to have a discussion, and so our quorum is safe.
I could have had a separate thread about this, but I think it belongs here because we have defined aesthetics, ethics, and morality. Metaphysical and epistemological concerns cannot be property assessed until goodness and evil are defined. Those other threads will be where such questions as, “Does it matter whether someone knows he’s doing wrong?” or “Why do good and evil exist?”
I hate to break Frylock’s heart, but I’m going to have to define what I mean by “goodness”. That’s so, again, that you’ll know what I mean when I use the word, and you can examine my theories in the context that is appropriate.
Briefly put, goodness is that which edifies, or that which increases value.
Goodness builds up, not just in physical terms, but in emotional and personal terms as well. Let us take the example of our next door neighbors, Amanda and Michelle. (Whether those are their real names, I will leave a mystery.) They are life partners. I only met them for the first time today. They have lived beside us for what, five or six years now, and only now have I crossed the property line and said hello. They were tending their garden.
We talked gardening and other things, until I noticed the Jesus fish Amanda was wearing on a leather string, like a necklace. I asked if she was Christian, and she said, “Yes. Devout.” And then she volunteered, “So is my partner, Michelle.”
“So, you are life partners?” I asked.
“For life and beyond,” she said. “I love her.”
She went for a bit, talking about how she goes to church and teaches Sunday school. I didn’t really pry about that. I didn’t ask her where she goes or anything. But she said suddenly, “I know we’re living in sin, but…”
And I stopped her. “No!” I said. “No, you’re not. Not if you’re in love. Don’t ever let anybody tell you that love is not a good thing.”
Amanda smiled. A flash of relief swept across her face. And she said simply, “Thank you!”
These two women edify one another. They make one another feel more valuable. Now, if it is necessary for me to define what I mean by edification, I will. But it seems like it might be obvious from the context.
Once it is understood what I mean by goodness, it becomes easy to understand why I think good and evil are concerned with aesthetics, rather than ethics or morals.
If aesthetics is the evaluation of worth, then goodness increases worth. Being kind to someone makes them feel better about themselves (more valuable). Charity helps people through tough times (making their lives or their quality of life more valuable). And so on.
Evil, then, is that which decreases value, or opposes goodness.
There’s nothing wrong with that. What I objected to was an argument over what words mean. I don’t object to stipulations as to what one means by a word.
[/quote]
By these definitions and by your definition of aesthetics, it follows trivially that good and evil are aesthetic categories.
-FrL-
Great! Indeed it does. I believe the gravity of the notion will emerge when the Aesthetical Jesus is discussed in metaphysical and epistemological terms. But for now, at least, we can say that if our premises are correct, then Nicene Christianity has been wrong for going on thousands of years. And certainly, modern Christian fundamentalism is so in error as to be evil — that is, it obstructs goodness.