similarminds.com

[Guest_tnv]

Everyone seems to have an absolute opinion about their view on right vrs. wrong. I've read the various topics, and their replys. Is there a God...or isn't there a God? Is your position on each and every subject as good as my position? Can we agree on anything when there is more than one view expressed? Now it's "what is your view of Utopia?" These are honest questions, calling for honest answers. And with each and every opinion, there is an aire of "let me bring the tablets of truth down to the blind." I think there should be a little more exchange of ideas, rather than expressions of "why I'm right!" Everything is relative and thus there is no actual reality. Because of that, there is ultimately no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view is simply “situational ethics� in its highest form. There is no right or wrong and therefore whatever I feel is right at that time is right. Of course this type of “situational ethics� leads to a “whatever feels good� mentality and lifestyle which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. The other view believes that there are indeed absolute realities or standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. When you stop and think about it, the very thought of someone making a statement that there is no absolute truth is totally illogical. And yet today many people are embracing a cultural relativism that at its heart denies any type of absolute truth. When I hear people say that there is no absolute truth I just want to ask them. “Are you absolutely sure of that? Because it is totally illogical for them to make such a statement since they are making an absolute statement that in itself denies absolute truth. In doing so they are in essence saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one absolute truth you can count on.
If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. and who could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.
Then again, this is just this person's opinion.

[Vylence]

So your opinion is all opinions?

Really you say that everyone has brought the tablets of truth, and that everything is relative. Then go on to say why everything isn't relative.

I agree with your proof of there being proof. Which means there are some absolutes, somewhere. What better way to find out than to pick sides and duke it out?
_________________
9w1 sx, INTP

[tnv]

Vylence...very nice. Yes, the question is one of relative position. For example, if I have absolute knowledge, then I know everything. Everything that has/is/will occure. Every thought, every deed and every position. But does that mean I also know everything that never occured? Every thought that was never thought...even every lyfe that never happened? Every feeling that was never felt? Anything that is "absolute" is relative to one's position. If there were two people with absolute knowledge, would they be aware of each other? And would they be aware of the absolute knowledge that each other has? Logic says that couldn't occure, because there would be a relative positioning of two people and there can be only one position...all others are relative to that position.
So, to carry that to a transitional end, one has to ask: if there is an All Supreme 'God," can there be more than one "God?" If He (She) did exist and had absolute knowledge, would He (She) be aware that He (She) existed? By definition, one can only be aware of one's existence in relationship to others. If there were no heat, how could one be aware of cold? If there was no light, how could one be aware of dark? And if there were was only one "God," how could He (She) be aware of Himself (Herself?) So for "God" to exist and have absolute knowledge, there would have to be two "Gods" so He (She) would be aware of Himself (Herself)...but then that would would mean that "God" wouldn't be absolute, because absolute means there can be no other position.
Then again, this is just one person's opinion.

[invicta]

[Darvick]

Good philospophical debat going here but I wonder if trying to define ethics in terms of its function rather than its underlying meaning might be helpfull...

I agree in any given situation ethics vary depending on who is involved in the situation. Does this not suggest that ethics are based on a persons own experience?

Since a persons particular view of right and wrong is likely to fail to include some elements of human interaction it must be incomplete and prone to variations from person to person...

That said you could suggest that Ethics are constructs - rules that seem to make sence with respect to what is important to one particular person or group - this would vary in greater degrees with distance of situation if not geographic distance...

So, if Ethics are constructs and are built based on a necissarily incomplete view of reality (since no-one is really capable of encompassing every angle) they are really only 'fuzzy' roadmaps that might allow you to navigate one city (situation) and are not really even on the same scale as an all-encompassing god-vision...

However, we are talking about 'situational' ethics so perhaps it is possible to come pretty close to covering every element in a given situation...

What are Ethics but manufactured rules that allow someone to justify a given action - likely an action that they had in mind when they created the Ethic?

That said, if you had a mind to influence the collective Ethics of the population would you not consider what you had to gain by each idea you had for an Ethic?

If fact I think we make a choice like this every 5 years here in Canada when we vote for a new ruling party (Liberal, Conservative, NDP, etc...) - what actually might be occuring over the term of the ruling party is a slight shift in the collective Ethics of the country. And of course you vote for the party that will likely afford you the greatest benifits over the next five years...

What is acceptable (Ethical) is really based on who is involved (like hippies or businessmen), what is involved (like money or family), and when the situation takes place (like peace-time or war-time)...

Final idea for now - God - what a great construct of the mind that allows manipulation of ethics over a long period of time? God coupled with Religion allows a vast addictive lasting impact on Ethics - Ethics that in many ways benifit the creator of those Ethics and their children for decades, centuries, and millenium...

Okay, I think that was a little more than my quota for now - I suppose I should ask for other opionions but I already know I'm right ( I am INTJ afterall!) That said I am open to any new ideas and opinions that I have not covered
_________________
INTJ...
Ennegram: 5, 3, 1, 9
Functional Strengths: Ni, Te, Ne, Ti
Avg IQ: 141 (134 to 161)
"If knowledge is power, and its application your will, then wisdom is the sum of your power, and wisdom shared, is the alignment of others to your will..."

[nothingwittycametomind]

I skimmed.

But I had this thought.

Anyone read any John Stuart Mill?

He says that extreme views and opposing views battling each other for a place in the foreground and in the hearts of the majority are the only things that can foster truth. Extremes and opposition keep truth alive and make it strong.

I agree. Maybe I am wrong...maybe Mill is wrong.

But it rings true to me. You have to believe in what you are trying to sell, what you believe is right.
_________________
uh......................

[Mr X]

Maybe we would be more happy if we believed in nothing...
_________________
ISTJ, 5w4.... ISTP????

[Kyle]

I don't consider myself a bad person... But I'm sure, there is a chain of things that could happen, that could cause me to behave in a way some would find unethical... however, to me, it would seem like the 'correct' thing to do. The world actually makes decent sense from a bird's eye view.

People just don't see the world for what it is... They try covering it with lies/fantasies, hoping it makes them feel better about their life (sweeping it under a rug) But instead, the problem is manifesting and getting worse.. Because, they are attaching their existance/identity to their lie, pretty soon, if they don't do somethin, all the grit under the rug will fuck up their hardwood floor too. Then, their home will be scarred, with a scratched up floor, forever...

The underlying problem, is this reluctance to change/abandon the broken procedure... People become too attached/reliant to their fantasy, rather than understanding the global perspective of what is happening to them.

Cya, Kyle
_________________
New levels of truth come from new levels of understanding.
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kylewkeith
Save my band: http://sites.google.com/site/savetheascendents/

[Austy]

Regardless of what you believe, I think ultimately logic says the Right/Wrong thing is just to be constructive because otherwise we'd be destructive. If everyone was a serial killer we'd all be dead.

If you believe in the evolutionary theory, I'd think you couldn't believe there is a Right and Wrong, but rather, a strong and weak, smart and stupid, lucky and unlucky, and of course the alive and the dead.

If you believe in God, then I'd think you'd logically just assume that what's a 'sin' and what isn't is merely based on whether it is long-term effective for society or not. Lying causes problems, murder causes problems, cheating on your mate causes problems, but love is always harmonious.
_________________
They're always after me lucky charms!!!

[Darvick]

Love is always harmonious?

Love might begin with 'good' intention but many negative things can come from love: murder, rape, anger, etc. can all be caused by one-sided love for instance...

Mutual love or selfless love in the absence of a love-triangle or competition can be very 'good' oriented at times and in some ways. Love and mating drive our evolution and allow us to survive - this is good within our limited context but is something else not being harmed by the competition between mates and the drive to prosper?

I agree with you that logic essentially defines goodness, however; perhaps we should be carefull in the way we apply logic to what is good?

We could say that a society that grows and prospers and is generally more constructive than destructive must logically be more good than bad...

This suggests that a society that grows and prospers and is constructive to a greater degree might contain more goodness than one that does not, however; every constructive thing we do should be weighed against what we had to destroy to build it - whether it be a house or a social program - something was likely deconstructed to build it - and don't forget the limited context for which we our considering constructiveness...

This brings overpopulation to mind as an example of the logic back-firing - if what was constructive allowed us to be so prosperous that our numbers grew so great that we could no longer sustain ourselves within our environment then would not the impending disaster that followed be deemed destructive?

Thus the constructiveness that grew our numbers is in fact being destructive in the long run... We may have gained some knowledge and infrastructure but the swath of destruction we left behind in order to find that knowledge is huge! (like cracking a nut with sledge hammer - sure we find the good part inside but the nut is pretty much gone)

If our perception of what is constructive is too narrow we risk ultimately finding out we were not being constructive at all...

This begs the question: What context do we consider when applying what is constructive, good, or ethical with regard to a situation? Do we consider a universal all-incompasing view, do we consider the human factor - what is good for humanity is ethical, or do we base ethics on a personal level - what is good for me is ethical?

Obviously, we cannot all have different ethics that focus on individuals and we as humans simply cannot grasp the all-incompassing view all the time, though we may try, and this leaves us with ethics at a human level.

Funny - doesn't religion attempt ethics at the human level? Too bad there is more than one religion or the world might benefit more strongly - or at least a common view when dealling with people...

Logic applied to ethics at a personal level hints at constant arguing between individuals unless they have a common culture... Perhaps culture is analagous to context when considering logic and ethics?

Perhaps systems of ethics behave in a predictable way - beginnining with individual context views. Then as individuals relate to each other, form friendships, teach children, etc. pockets of common ethics appear and develop into religions... The religions then dictate and apply pressure to conform to the cultural ethics of the group - thus depressing individual ethics and controlling the homogeneousness of the cultural ethics...

Perhaps, the goal or meaning of the universe is for everything to increase in complexity and nothing more...

Could you then imagine an ethical structure based on the all-incompassing view? You might have a dozen ways of ethically dealing with a situation depending apon that situation's finer details. This would grant the benefit of constructiveness to the all-encompassing level - this may mean murder is ethical in some situations, while very much not in others... I imaging this system to be far more complicated than would be possible for any of us to deal with competently, however; this may be the direction the universe is going in and we are simply a less complicated stop along the evolutinary train ride to infinite complexity?

Sorry for length again - you guys keep getting me thinking... Hope my thoughts are helpfull...
_________________
INTJ...
Ennegram: 5, 3, 1, 9
Functional Strengths: Ni, Te, Ne, Ti
Avg IQ: 141 (134 to 161)
"If knowledge is power, and its application your will, then wisdom is the sum of your power, and wisdom shared, is the alignment of others to your will..."

[Kyle]

People are too soft these days.

Basically, any possibly action you could take, will either earn you points or lose you points...
Being able to notice if it will help or hurt you/the situation, is your pathway to excellent ethics.

This gives a custom and dynamic set of ethics to each individual. But, is there even such a thing as a perfect set of ethics for everyone to follow?

Fuck proper... I dont care, or what is supposed to be proper or not... I want my freedom as well. Different people, you can get away with using these different freedoms, that you choose to give to yourself.
_________________
New levels of truth come from new levels of understanding.
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kylewkeith
Save my band: http://sites.google.com/site/savetheascendents/

[Darvick]

Is there a perfect set of ethics?

To answer within the context of differing personality types and the idea that we each create our own ethical roadmap - you could say there should be a full spectrum of ethical definitions - you could even match them with the 16 personality types - at least to simplify and reflect tendencies...

Of course a 'perfect' set of ethics would have to allow for differences in each personal situation - unless we are saying that all should be fair and thus have the same rules apply to everyone - which would mean that the ethics would fit no one perfectly...

Either way imperfection is unavoidable and thus our "perfect for everyone" at the same time is impossible...

Of course defining something as impossible could mean that the next best thing would equate to perfection because it would be the optimal - the perfect...

So to answer based on the 'perfection' I defined above - yes there is a perfect set of ethics - we may not all agree it is perfect however - and no one would trust someone enough to make the decision and those posessing the ability to make the correct decision would never be trusted by enough people to have their decision heard...

Now how do we optimise that set of ethics? How do we make a desision as to what a good ethic is? This problem seems like a rubix cube more than a fill in the blank - difficult to grasp but not impossible and usually with a quick set of tricks we can use to solve it...
_________________
INTJ...
Ennegram: 5, 3, 1, 9
Functional Strengths: Ni, Te, Ne, Ti
Avg IQ: 141 (134 to 161)
"If knowledge is power, and its application your will, then wisdom is the sum of your power, and wisdom shared, is the alignment of others to your will..."

[Austy]

If you were to go by type for ethics it would probably be like this:

SP/ethic - never let a good opportunity pass by

NT/ethic - never let personal potential pass by

NF/ethic - stop the SPs from corrupting the world

SJ/ethic - never let the other types find out you're just as bad
_________________
They're always after me lucky charms!!!