Quote:
Originally Posted by Orogun01
cypher, you should define your notion of what makes a reality before basing a code of ethics on it. You offer a set of questions in order to define what makes a reality "useful" and at the same time you question the veracity of reality.
It requires a metaphysical explanation to your notion of what constitutes a reality.
|
A "reality", in this case, refers to a possible reality as experienced via our senses. It's difficult to define, I may have to think about it a bit more to come up with a definition rigorous enough for you.
Basically, we cannot absolutely prove that some reality is the "true" reality. It could, at any point, be something falsified through false sensory inputs or hallucinations.
Imagine if some human beings were hooked up to a computer simulated virtual environment, which completely enveloped all their senses. We could be in such a situation now. The point of this approach is that it *doesn't matter* if that virtual environment is the top-level reality; once you meet certain preconditions, you may construct a consequentialist moral theory, regardless of whether the reality you perceive is the "true" reality, and regardless of whether the reality you perceive is the one which your continued existence depends on.
---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The trick is to not grasp for the coin—nay, there is no "trick"; there is simply watching the coin.
|
Would it be fair to say that, perhaps, this is what my approach is attempting?
There is this idea that proof via induction is impossible, but with regards to reality, induction based on our observations is really all we have.
So, how do we reach something which is objectively true in order to have a proper moral theory to act upon, given that we can only reason about a rather limited number of topics in order to obtain objective truth, and that pretty much everything we know about "reality" is based on potentially-falsifiable sense inputs? This is what my approach intends to work on.
I had not considered any relation to Buddhism, in part because, to my knowledge, Buddhism rejects material things, while material things can be quite useful; especially when it appears that our time alive is subject to possibly overcome-able material constraints.
---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i don't think you need statements on the order of a universal or transcendent validity to ground an ethics. i think you merely need a socially binding prohibition. what makes for a socially binding prohibition can involve many different registers of statement---but what's objectively/transcendently valid about any of those statements, really, is their function in shoring up the socially binding character of a given prohibition. that's it. and nothing more than that is required.
unless you're doing something like trying to figure out how to write a universal declaration of human rights or other such document which operates rhetorically in a space that requires (de facto) claims to universality---but that's a rhetorical register. the question of whether claim x or y written in that register **is** universal apart from the its operating in a sentence that stages it as universal in a particular context is an aesthetic matter. how could it be otherwise? to whom would one appeal to determine?
|
Firstly, without universal principals, how am I to decry something as morally wrong? I would have no philosophical backing with which to do so, no justification for my claim. "X is wrong." "Why is X wrong?"
It's largely a matter of logical consistency. It requires no appeal.
You cannot have two of some item and also have none of that same item, at exactly the same point in time. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same point in time.
Now, for example, if something exists some of the time, but not all of the time, or has an x% likelihood of existing at some time, that isn't the same thing as both existing and not existing; it's more complicated.
Often, when I've seen a statement that both "X exists" and "X does not exist" at the same time, "X" isn't exactly the same thing, or it is otherwise more complicated.
Edit: Note, if we reject logic, that self-invalidates the claims necessary in order to reject logic.
---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
For example, I would say that one universal truth is that violence is harmful.
|
That's actually a claim based on observation.
We have to determine what "harmful" is, and, to some degree, what "violence" is. Unless, you are going to define violence as something which causes harm?
Anyhow, let us take an example. A man's leg is chopped off by a criminal. He makes a quick recovery, and while in the hospital, meets a nurse that becomes the love of his life. Due to his frustration, he invents a new treatment which allows the vat growth of replacement human limbs. He finds the work very rewarding, and is hailed as a genius throughout society, etc. Basically, he lives every day in joy.
On balance, the criminal's action was not harmful, as it lead to a chain of events which were greatly beneficial both to his victim and to society; more beneficial than any damage he had caused.
Let us consider another scenario. The criminal cuts off the man's leg. It turned out the man did not want this leg anyway, and thinks losing it was a wonderful thing. (A rather eccentric man, apparently.) Was the criminal's action harmful?
Also consider a man committing violence against a building, and by doing so preventing a fire from spreading. Was the violence harmful? Can a building be harmed?
If a building being harmed does not count, then why does the human body count, as it is also material? Wouldn't it only count if it lead to damage to the mind in some way?
Would it still be considered violence and harmful if it affected not the man himself, but his MMORPG avatar?
Violence leading to harm is a causal relationship.
"I think, therefore I am." is different in kind, non?