Ethics is a broken subject...

[Harlequin]

I'm just saying how I see it, since we're debating my statement that "the original post is valid = ethics is broken".

If we're debating whether or not ethics is broken perhaps you have to delve deeper into the subject and ask yourself why you feel it's broken.

Where do you get your ethics from?

It's easy to say a man is particularly ethical because he doesn't smoke, drink, etc, but why are these characteristics seen as ethical? Why do you see them as such?

 

[Demon]

If we're debating whether or not ethics is broken perhaps you have to delve deeper into the subject and ask yourself why you feel it's broken.

Where do you get your ethics from?

It's easy to say a man is particularly ethical because he doesn't smoke, drink, etc, but why are these characteristics seen as ethical? Why do you see them as such?

Well, your questions are "complex questions". ie, in order to answer them, I'd have to assume many things true.

 

[Harlequin]

Well yeah, I mean humans work on the basis of assumption from the off. Its a long and tiresome debate which would most likely end in a stalemate.

 

[Demon]

Since my stance is that of a moral middle-ground, in a way... I can't really speak on the morality or lack thereof of leading questions.

I'll try to actually answer Harlequin's questions though:

If we're debating whether or not ethics is broken perhaps you have to delve deeper into the subject and ask yourself why you feel it's broken.

Because perception, to me, doesn't equal reality. The existence of the universe doesn't necessarily rely on the existence of humans.

Where do you get your ethics from?

Um... to me ethics are generally defined by social norms. What is offensive or inoffensive tends to get defined by society.

It's easy to say a man is particularly ethical because he doesn't smoke, drink, etc, but why are these characteristics seen as ethical?

To have standards or take care of one's self tends to be characterized as a positive trait.

Why do you see them as such?

N/A. My stance = moral middle-ground.

 

[Harlequin]

Because perception, to me, doesn't equal reality. The existence of the universe doesn't necessarily rely on the existence of humans.

Whilst I understand what you mean, perception is all we have. When I said we work on an assumption from square one what I meant was we don't actually have any other viewpoint than our own.

For example: I am living as me, not as you, therefore I have no evidence whatsoever to state that you exist as I do. I could reasonably suggest that reality and existentialism revolves solely around me seeing as to me no one else truly exists as I believe I do.

Seeing as we can only have that point of reference, we have to assume that because we do not exist as what we see around us (organisms, planets or even possible dieties) we are forced to make the assumption that these things may exist, not that they do or don't.

That is where we begin the search for truth, which can only exist as infinity.

Um... to me ethics are generally defined by social norms. What is offensive or inoffensive tends to get defined by society.

There are too many variables to suggest ethics is a social-wide decision. We as a society have always been divided, whether it's a question of politics, faith or any other concept. Isn't basing your ethical decisions on the majority of society make you little more than a pawn to those who would shape our societies?

To have standards or take care of one's self tends to be characterized as a positive trait.

So you believe its virtuous because the majority of society believes that its virtuous?

N/A. My stance = moral middle-ground.

The thing is if you were on a moral middle ground - which by it's very definition renounces morality - surely you wouldn't feel the need to discuss the viability of ethics?

 

[Demon]

Whilst I understand what you mean, perception is all we have. When I said we work on an assumption from square one what I meant was we don't actually have any other viewpoint than our own.

For example: I am living as me, not as you, therefore I have no evidence whatsoever to state that you exist as I do. I could reasonably suggest that reality and existentialism revolves solely around me seeing as to me no one else truly exists as I believe I do.

Seeing as we can only have that point of reference, we have to assume that because we do not exist as what we see around us (organisms, planets or even possible dieties) we are forced to make the assumption that these things may exist, not that they do or don't.

That is where we begin the search for truth, which can only exist as infinity.

So basically your post is saying: "Your reality (is not/might not be) my reality." The problem is that evidence generally leans toward suggesting that people live in the same reality. Information generally leads toward suggesting that this reality does have certain characteristics and definitions that can be made, that one can generally rely on them. For example, I generally rely on the fact that Earth's gravity causes me to fall back down when I jump, not to float away.

There are too many variables to suggest ethics is a social-wide decision. We as a society have always been divided, whether it's a question of politics, faith or any other concept. Isn't basing your ethical decisions on the majority of society make you little more than a pawn to those who would shape our societies?

The problem is that true "you can do anything you want and not face any consequences" freedom doesn't exist.

So you believe its virtuous because the majority of society believes that its virtuous?

Yes. I don't make the rules.

The thing is if you were on a moral middle ground - which by it's very definition renounces morality - surely you wouldn't feel the need to discuss the viability of ethics?

Perhaps.

 

[Harlequin]

So basically your post is saying: "Your reality (is not/might not be) my reality." The problem is that evidence generally leans toward suggesting that people live in the same reality. Information generally leads toward suggesting that this reality does have certain characteristics and definitions that can be made, that one can generally rely on them. For example, I generally rely on the fact that Earth's gravity causes me to fall back down when I jump, not to float away.

Yes and no. I would agree that we live in the same reality and that the laws of physics are very much relevant in our reality, but there is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that we would be correct in our assumptions. We don't know what came before our existence, nor what will become of our existence, therefore we lack the all encompassing reference needed to accurately discern truth.

...If you see what I mean.

The problem is that true "you can do anything you want and not face any consequences" freedom doesn't exist.

Well yes, due in part to consequences being more than just legal and social repercussions. I could work my way into a position where I would have far more freedoms than another man for example. Certain people can't go to jail, such as the Pope, it would incite too much trouble.

Yes. I don't make the rules.

Why not? They're your beliefs.

 

[Demon]

Yes and no. I would agree that we live in the same reality and that the laws of physics are very much relevant in our reality, but there is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that we would be correct in our assumptions. We don't know what came before our existence, nor what will become of our existence, therefore we lack the all encompassing reference needed to accurately discern truth.

How do you know a reference that discerns truth is true if you don't know what truth actually is?

Truth is absolute, but human knowledge isn't.

Truth is absolute because you can't say "a truth is a false".

 

[Harlequin]

How do you know a reference that discerns truth is true if you don't know what truth actually is?

You can't know. You would need infinite reference.

Which is why you have to work from an assumption, as I stated earlier. Perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say nothing at all to avoid being inaccurate, but for the sake of communication I have to take on the responsibility that I may be wrong and communicate that alongside the message I'm trying to get across to you which I feel I have done.

I'm not pretending to have all the answers, I'm only communicating a concept of philosophy that I subscribe to.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

i picked b. if he's going to admit to all that im sure he'd tell you if he was also corrupt. anyone with a rep as clean as c must have a few (million jewish) skeletons in his closet.

this isnt even a real argument. someone who thinks its ok to smoke, drink, sleep around and be "professionally incompetent" isnt going to be led the way youd like them to be. the important information you left out is that c had sexual relations with his niece, he literally crushed his opponents with the help of a militia (the same militia that would prevent anyone leaving his speeches). he also had the leader of this militia killed just for being a homosexual - you could argue he knew about this for a long time before having him killed. factor the holocaust into the equation. oh, and he abused various prescription drugs.

so we're looking at that vs shagging about and having a few nips every day. fairly ridiculous discussion youve tried to spark there.

 

[Demon]

You can't know. You would need infinite reference.

Unless the truth is there to begin with. This isn't a problem with my philosophical view that truth already exists and more or less exists outside a singular perception of it.

But if you wanted me to understand your philosophical view, I guess I do because philosophical viewpoints are already kind of predefined.