There has been a slight delay for me to reply, because I have had some account trouble (hence the new one). The following was written some days ago:
Seem like my previous post was not clear, therefore let me clarify. To quote myself:
Animae wrote:Anyway, remember that we are masters, we created words, and we should never let them rule over us.
I think that ideally, we should rule with reason, not being ruled by reason; that is we should realize that these rules “logic” as we like to call them are nothing more than concepts devised by us. Therefore we ought to created rules that work towards our (our as in humanity) goals. Morals should be created in accordance to there practical use. An example of a moral concept that fails this in every way and fashion is utilitarism. Fist it fails to be dynamic in the sense that it assumes happiness to be the value to strive against thus it is dogmatic. Secondly it fails to be of practical use because just about anything can be justified by simple reasoning within the concept. It does not even requires the change of any rules that otherwise could be used to falsify the justification.
Truth is absolutely not irrelevant, only unattainable it may be out there but unless you have a good idea on how we can reach it it’s not really interesting.
But of course you are welcome to try, let’s see if you succeed any better than all previous philosophers who wanted to explore metaphysics. As far as I know not a single one of them found the slightest shard of this truth you believe to be so obvious.
douyang wrote:Don't you see that is nothing more than tyranny and megalomania, deciding you have the right to think and decide for people on any number of critical issues (or EVERY issue, law, or decision ever, really) and force your own values on them?
Did I ever say anything about oppression? I don’t think my practical morality should be forced upon anyone. Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean with “practical ethics” I am not pursuing ethics that I can change at my whim (what set of rules would that be?), if such where the case would it not be simpler to discard any notion of morality and simply act in accordance to our interest?
My idea of practical ethics is a consistent theory which has a radical difference from any ethics I have previously encountered. Its basis is not about doing what is right (as it is not possible to know) but instead focuses on being capable to solve morale problems in an acceptable way. But if I don’t have right and wrong and any values how can I develop idea? What basis do I have to work with? I have found what I believe to be an excellent workaround to that problem.
douyang wrote:You seem to have missed my point. How can ethics be "pragmatic" or "useful", unless they promote morality? How is this possible if ethics are false and there is no morality they would be needed to support? Unless of course, you never really cared about ethics in the first place so much as inventing a code of rules or values that are designed to serve you and your agenda regardless of their truthfulness or morality.
You are exactly right on that point, I don’t care the slightest what is right and wrong.
But you know you already have the solution to the problem right in front of you, solved and ready for application.
Self interest and the introduction of “values” solve all problems in a conceivable way. So what are these values then? If my original intention was to avoid dogmas and the frail “truth” what can I create without possibly being dogmatic? With a bit of creativity I found it quite easy and satisfying to find a solution to yet another problem. What better way is there to avoid something fake that to use something that already exist, moreover it is a dynamic element which takes into consideration the subjective nature of our experiences. These values are our own values!
As they are subjective they are different for every person, which makes my ideas of ethics dynamic instead of universal.
This is one of the major differences, which renders it less useful as it requires a certain degree of knowledge about who you are “putting in the equation”. Unfortunately it makes it useless to use on a massive scale and as I see it useful only for personal application. Fortunately as we all are humans we have similar values thus making it possible to use on just about anybody.
I think this idea is shaping up pretty well, as I created this idea along the course of this thread I consider it to still be in an early stage any constructive criticism is welcome.
See now with what I mean with using our creativity to make something useful?
Anyway no matter what happens with this idea this was a great opportunity to stimulate my creative thinking.
If we use this concept and apply it to the original “problem” in this thread, the conclusion would be that the right way to treat any other entity should be in accordance to its nature.
As I have never studied philosophy I guess some of my ideas can be hard to follow because I may not use common terminology, so feel free to point out any definition that does not concede with “common” interpretations.
Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.