Life as a manifestation of the universe

[fela fan]

I recognised this in my post. I was aware that you could derive a social ethics from your ethic - my point was that it wasn't central. When it comes down to it, your ethic is about you not about others.

I fail to see that. I'm talking about an ethic i try to adhere to, and one that many others do too. It is only about me in so far as i practise it.

My reason for talking about it is that i feel there are too many ethics, some of which end up being imposed on others by society's dictats. I feel they have become a tool with which to manipulate people.

Additionally, one culture will have an ethic that in another culture such behaviour would not cause a problem. It seems to me that love is a universal concept and ethic that can guide all human behaviour towards a peaceful co-existence, surely what ethics is all about?

 

[Knotted]

I fail to see that. I'm talking about an ethic i try to adhere to, and one that many others do too. It is only about me in so far as i practise it.

My reason for talking about it is that i feel there are too many ethics, some of which end up being imposed on others by society's dictats. I feel they have become a tool with which to manipulate people.

But that's a good thing in my opinion. In a nut shell if you think the above you have an asocial idea of what ethics should be (of course that in itself is an attempt to impose your dictats on others).

Additionally, one culture will have an ethic that in another culture such behaviour would not cause a problem. It seems to me that love is a universal concept and ethic that can guide all human behaviour towards a peaceful co-existence, surely what ethics is all about?

I agree with your first sentence. Your second is misology in the sense that Socrates was talking about - "if you run into a contradiction retreat from reason."

 

[fela fan]

But that's a good thing in my opinion. In a nut shell if you think the above you have an asocial idea of what ethics should be (of course that in itself is an attempt to impose your dictats on others).



I agree with your first sentence. Your second is misology in the sense that Socrates was talking about - "if you run into a contradiction retreat from reason."

Well, personally i prefer education and responsibility for self-learning, rather than manipulation, as a tool that leads to a decent society. I think ethics are often used by some as a method to control others for their own purposes.

So, my position is that i don't like such an array of ethics as exists, and i like to follow my own single ethic that can shape my behaviour in such a way that i cause minimal problems for others in their lives. If this personal approach, allied with my distaste for existing ethics is trying to impose my dictats on others, then so be it; however I can't see how it is any kind of imposition at all. I'm acting out my own choice, and i'm disagreeing with existing choices. How is that an imposition on my part?

 

[Knotted]

Well, personally i prefer education and responsibility for self-learning, rather than manipulation, as a tool that leads to a decent society. I think ethics are often used by some as a method to control others for their own purposes.

I agree with you on the last bit. Morality can be a way of bamboozling people in order to control them. But reasoned judgements shouldn't do that - yet even that might still restrict someone's liberties.

So, my position is that i don't like such an array of ethics as exists, and i like to follow my own single ethic that can shape my behaviour in such a way that i cause minimal problems for others in their lives. If this personal approach, allied with my distaste for existing ethics is trying to impose my dictats on others, then so be it; however I can't see how it is any kind of imposition at all. I'm acting out my own choice, and i'm disagreeing with existing choices. How is that an imposition on my part?

It's your distaste for existing ethics that is the imposition. Not that such an imposition is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[fela fan]

It's your distaste for existing ethics that is the imposition. Not that such an imposition is necessarily a bad thing.

My distaste for existing ethics is an imposition, or my speaking this out is an imposition?! And if it's the latter, surely then, using reasoned thinking, it is fair to say my distaste is not an imposition...

 

[fela fan]

I agree with you on the last bit. Morality can be a way of bamboozling people in order to control them. But reasoned judgements shouldn't do that - yet even that might still restrict someone's liberties.

Assuming people can agree on what a reasoned judgment is, and on how to recognise one.

And yes, i think reason can restrict freedom. There are other approaches in life.

And if ethics and morals are arbitrated by the guardians of society, and do have the effect of restricting people's freedom, then i think peoples need to look for alternatives.

 

[Knotted]

My distaste for existing ethics is an imposition, or my speaking this out is an imposition?! And if it's the latter, surely then, using reasoned thinking, it is fair to say my distaste is not an imposition...

Well it's the distaste itself that's the imposition - or to be more precise your distaste for existing ethics will lead to impositions. Really we impose on other people anyway - if you disregard social norms and follow your own rules you are going to impose on people more. What makes you think you are the best judge of your own actions?

Assuming people can agree on what a reasoned judgment is, and on how to recognise one.

And yes, i think reason can restrict freedom. There are other approaches in life.

And if ethics and morals are arbitrated by the guardians of society, and do have the effect of restricting people's freedom, then i think peoples need to look for alternatives.

I haven't said anything about guardians of society. Everybody can apply their reasoning - you don't have to be part of some elite. It's not reason that restricts freedom - it's other people. The point is that reason allows us to question authority instead of blindly following authorities. But I don't see what is wrong with stopping someone from taking liberties or obliging them to contribute to a collective effort. A liberty can be a privilege and so to defend freedom in the abstract is in part to defend the privileges of the social elite it is; also in part to defend the criminal behaviour. Who gets to decide when theft is theft, when fraud is fraud or when neglect is neglect? The thief, the fraud or the neligent? No morality and ethics are social, not personal.