Ethics without Ontology

[hammegk]

As for foo and snork, I don't know what that is about. That could just be me; if so, enlighten me.

I suspect the word game is the interjection of foo and snork.

Me too; it's the favorite game materialists use to avoid real questions.

Materialist -- someone who 1) thinks and 2) thinks the reality he "senses" is more real than the FACT he is thinking.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Back to the topic.

I agree that ethics must be seperated from ontology. The reason for this is that I believe a fundamental ethical principle involves protecting peoples right to believe whatever they want to believe - this is the primary reason why church and state must be seperated too. Since any ontology inevitably clashes with the beliefs of some section of society, and since ethics are a set of rules which have to apply to everybody, regardless of what they may believe, then it is neccesary to make sure that ontology is not allowed to influence ethics.

Geoff.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elliot said:
See, nobody talks about foo and snork. I don't know what you are on about with foo and snork.

Mind and material though...lots of people know what that is about.

In other words, some people can't follow ideas or discussions; they make no sense. That doesn't mean the topics are necessarily faulty (though they might be). If a person can't understand mind or material I am not going to fault the topics by default.

Because you think you know what mind and material mean, you are assigning some kind of significance to asking whether they are the fundamental existents. But does that question really make any more sense than wondering whether the two fundamental existents are things whose attributes you can't define? If so, why?

Hammegk said:
Materialist -- someone who 1) thinks and 2) thinks the reality he "senses" is more real than the FACT he is thinking.

Fact?

"My introspection just tells me that thinking is a FACT."

For some reason, your sensation of thinking seems more real to you than your sensation of the apparent external world. You then assume that a materialist thinks the reverse. I don't think the reverse; I think they are equally real.

Regardless, you have no way of demonstrating that your thought is the fundamental existent.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

....You then assume that a materialist thinks the reverse. I don't think the reverse; I think they are equally real.[

A dualist, ok. How did you rationalize your way out of "Stimpy's Dilemma"? (If it effects or affects the physical, it IS physical.)

Regardless, you have no way of demonstrating that your thought is the fundamental existent.

Only by the logical consequences of the choice you make on mind vs matter. If you are content with the logic required to cross from non-life to life at the simple end, and how you explain qualia & HPC at the (human) end, so be it. Your choice.

Also back to the topic, shouldn't we decide if "ethics" are universal, or strictly a human invention, before we examine any potential ontological basis.

 

[elliotfc]

Because you think you know what mind and material mean, you are assigning some kind of significance to asking whether they are the fundamental existents.

Right, sort of. I have some ideas about those two words, as have billions of other people. To me it seems obvious that they are fundmental existents, but that's just me.

But does that question really make any more sense than wondering whether the two fundamental existents are things whose attributes you can't define? If so, why?

I'll just say that as for mind/material, it's a sort of dichotomy, that is a part of my understanding of the concepts. So it's easy to stick attributes into those two boxes.

For some reason, your sensation of thinking seems more real to you than your sensation of the apparent external world.

Sure, there's something to that. It's a personal appreciation I think. The key part of your sentence was "to you". The reason my sensation of thinking seems real to me is because it is my sensation of thinking.

You then assume that a materialist thinks the reverse. I don't think the reverse; I think they are equally real.

I make no assumptions about what you think, just respond to what you say? If you think material/mind are equally real, that's cool.

Regardless, you have no way of demonstrating that your thought is the fundamental existent.

Right. It's just my thought, and everybody has thoughts. It's something we have in common, and things in common are rarely appreciated on this forum.

-Elliot

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
A dualist, ok. How did you rationalize your way out of "Stimpy's Dilemma"? (If it effects or affects the physical, it IS physical.)

I'm not a dualist! I'm not a monist. I think ontology is incoherent. I have no idea how many fundamental existents there are, or even whether that question makes sense. I go with scientific epistemology: What can we investigate? We can investigate the "physical" (a word we've simply agreed means that which we can investigate).

Also back to the topic, shouldn't we decide if "ethics" are universal, or strictly a human invention, before we examine any potential ontological basis.

Hold on, it's my topic. I don't give a damn about ethics. I just thought it was interesting that the author rejects ontology.

Elliot said:
Right, sort of. I have some ideas about those two words, as have billions of other people. To me it seems obvious that they are fundmental existents, but that's just me.

Is math a fundamental existent? How about ideas? Is an animals mind a different sort of existent from our minds? Where does it end?

Right. It's just my thought, and everybody has thoughts. It's something we have in common, and things in common are rarely appreciated on this forum.

Hey man, I truly appreciate your thoughts. They make this topic interesting!

~~ Paul

 

[Keneke]

Hmmmm a materialist who isn't an atheist.... that is a tough one.
Pantheist? I don't know, so you worship the universe, does that really count as a 'theism'? I don't think so.

Can't think of anyway to reconcile those two.
[/B]

An infinitely technologically advanced universe-creating being. He'd be a "god" in a metaphorical sense mostly, but close enough for government work.

That way, you wouldn't break your materialism POV, but still be a theist, kinda sorta.

 

[hammegk]

An infinitely technologically advanced universe-creating being.

Or per AC Clark, "magic". Sounds better than goddidit, huh?

I'm not a dualist! I'm not a monist.

Ambidextrous? Ambivalent? Or just can't make up your mind?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am a furious green podiatrist. The foot is the fundamental existent.

~~ Paul