Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@aspvenom,

The only way I see such a system work is under a tyrant who would kill anyone who "broke the ethic's law."

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

The only way I see such a system work is under a tyrant who would kill anyone who "broke the ethic's law."

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

Do you think ethics should be studied?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Ethics should definitively be studied, but what one shouldn't do is make the study of ethics more than what it actually is, as Katz is trying to do.

2 Replies

@aspvenom,

True, nobody can legislate morals.

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

I agree, though I haven't read enough of Katz to know exactly what he is trying to do.
Ethics should be studied, and if a science is made of axiology, so much the better for it.
I don't think that ethics and law are synonymous. I think that there exist ethical reasons for the exact ethical dictates to not be legislated. Ethics of course informs law, but law also takes into account many other considerations including freedom for dissent and practicalities apart from what is 'most right'. Police states aren't just unethical, they are also impractical.

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

Quote:

So are you playing this disciple act in relation to Dr. Katz without actually going over and rationally analyzing what he has written on the subject matter?

What makes you come to this conclusion? I embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of others such as yourself if I find what you share to be creditable.

Quote:

"What he or
she would do is tell us the moral facts, as a result of accurate
measurements: we would learn how much various life-styles are worth.
Then we would “pay our money,” and take our choice -- just as if we were
shopping for apparel or groceries…. only in the case of ethics money would
not be involved; rather it would be our choices-based upon new knowledge
- that really mattered. The new science would clearly show the paths to
happiness and success."

This does seem like something I read in Katz's work but if you would be kind and add a link and the page that it came from I would like to comment on it's context.

Quote:

In other words, Dr. Katz is saying from his observation, here is the "accurate" measured rules or potential dogma.

I think that both you and me would not think with intellectual honesty that Kats is saying this about his observation.

I think Katz is sharing the best working model of ethics that he knows and nothing more.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I think Katz is sharing the best working model of ethics that he knows and nothing more.

That would be my assumption baring any evidence to the contrary.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

That would be my assumption baring any evidence to the contrary.

I would like to share a few view points with you that I hold, I am not saying that I am correct but rather saying that this is my understanding of reality as I see it.

You seem to be empathic which I find to have value but even so I think sociopaths should be valued as well because they do not mean to be who they are no more than you mean to be empathic if this is your true state.

I can only guess that you have heard of the Monte Hall problem. If you are able to expand on it in the sense of ten doors or a thousand and work your way backwards to see the logical consistency I think you may be able to do some what the opposite with morality.

The Monte Hall problem is difficult to understand in the form that it is presented but when you add more doors it is more easily able to be understood about it's logical consistency.

I would like you to take the same approach but the opposite when it comes to social morality.
What I am meaning is for you to forget all of what you know and think of a world with only you and one person "A loved one such as your own mother and expand from there"

I will further explain soon if you do not get it.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I think I know where you are coming from, and thank you for the empathy compliment.
I don't disagree at all.
I do empathize with sociopaths, like I said before, I have empathy even for snakes.
I simply find value in what little of Dr. Katz's work I have read, for a justification of my particular axiology, even from a pragmatic stance.
Sort of along the lines of the Monte Hall problem. Very Happy

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I think I know where you are coming from,

I hope so but even so I may be wrong in my understandings. Cool

I would like to share a few short videos with you that I value.

The first time I seen this I did not get it so please take time and watch all parts they are all short. I think I thought it was stupid at first but some how I came to the conclusion that it was brilliant.

The best for the last.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Re-reading this I think it could be easily mistaken that I am equivacating sociopaths with snakes. Not my intention.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I don't know if I am going to watch all of those (at least right now).
But from what I took from the first video, this is a topic under discussion at this thread. It is an exploration of this concept. Fallibilism.
http://able2know.org/topic/208683-1
There is a video there as well (in the comments).

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I don't know if I am going to watch all of those (at least right now).

I do understand, I hope that you may find time to watch them because that are not my work but others who are much more advanced than I "such as yourself who have taken the time to share what they think with me. Wink

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Thanks RL.
Lets not ever jump to the conclusion that anyone has all the answers.
I've watched the videos. Anything that you would like to discuss?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I've watched the videos. Anything that you would like to discuss?

Not really "that I can think of but if you see misinformation I would like to hear your view points. I am not saying that there are no mistakes in the videos shared because I think that there has to be some but I do enjoy hearing how others view reality.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re-reading this I think it could be easily mistaken that I am equivocating sociopaths with snakes. Not my intention.

OK so you would see it to be wrong with equivocating sociopaths with snakes? You do seem them as being harmful to humans even though that is not what they mean to do but rather it is part of their psychological make up?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

A system of ethics is dependent on distinguishing what subjects deserve moral consideration. Most systems extend consideration beyond the self to at least include the family.
How far should consideration extend?
To all humans, to all animals capable of empathy, to all animals capable of suffering, to all animals, to all living things etc.
What should this consideration, if given, include?

Mat you may disagree but I think that we are all sociopaths at times.

As I have said before "I think think that empathy is a process that our brains formulate using logical consistencies to construct a moral concept or should I say that it is our ability to empathize that gives us the ability to form moral concepts?

Take away our empathy and we will not have the ability to construct moral concepts take away our sight and we will not have the ability to construct shades of color take away our hearing and we will not be able to construct keys, tones, harmony, or other concepts of sound.

It is not the sociopaths fault that he is unable to construct morality.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

OK so you would see it to be wrong with equivocating sociopaths with snakes? You do seem them as being harmful to humans even though that is not what they mean to do but rather it is part of their psychological make up?

I am no psychologist.
From my ethical view there are many differences between a human sociopath and a standard snake. I think that in general humans have a higher capacity to suffer. I think that sociopaths share in this capacity to suffer (maybe not to the same degree, but I really don't know.) Snakes can and do suffer, probably not to the same degree as a human sociopath.
Like all obligate carnivores snakes must kill other animals to survive.
A sociopath does not need to harm others in order to survive. In fact the majority of sociopaths don't display behavior grossly aberrant to social mores.
The sociopaths who tend to commit the "worst" crimes are usually at the more extreme high end and extreme low end of intelligence.
Sociopaths commit those crimes when they don't realize the dangers of getting caught, or when they think that they are smart enough to get away with it.
There are sociopaths who recognize their illness and do make attempts to correct it. (Again not a psychologist, I don't know the exact prognosis.)

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Mat you may disagree but I think that we are all sociopaths at times.

I agree that we all behave very selfishly at times. I do agree that there is a range in ability to empathize. I don't really know if I can speak as to a range of sociopathy. There is a little truth to some other psychological diseases having a "range" some autism disorders seem to have some "spectrum"-like characteristics. Definitely not a field of study that I have any expertise in however.

0 Replies

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know