Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 110

Thread: My paper on ethics

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,509
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 442 Times in 356 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 73 Times in 64 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kess View Post
    This is part 1 draft 1 of a paper I recently wrote and I would be interested in hearing what you guys think. Thanks!

    Ethics are not opinions. They are not subjective feelings. They do not change from person to person, or from legal structure to legal structure. They are facts which necessarily follow from the basic nature of humanity. Whether one knows or believes them, they are real, and their consequences are real.

    "Endurance produces Character, and Character produces Hope." - Romans 5:4

    Character can be defined as the resistance to internal or external pressures against acting on one's principles.

    Hope is the belief that a better future is possible. Before a person can make a choice, they must first conceive of a preferable future, and believe that actions that they take can move them towards
    this.

    Without character, a person is constantly being formed by his environment. He lacks continuity of identity. In a way, he does not
    exist. He is the output of circumstance, a localized collection of disassociated events. He is shallow, two dimensional. "A man without purpose is capable of any evil, because he is at the mercy of random feelings." - Ayn Rand. If man is part rational and part animal, then the person who does not reason for himself is mere animal. He is an effect and not a cause. He does not think for himself, therefore he cannot speak, listen, or act for himself--a conduit for another's will. There is little reason to form partnerships with such an unpredictable person. Cynicism is to lose faith in systems or people. It stems from random, unpredictable, disingenuous, corrupt, and cruel environments. It is a wasteland without wind, alienating and unconvincing. It provokes existential boredom.

    To have character there must be a why that transcends the moment. There must be the belief in absolute, objective, discoverable truths. There must be a reason to value these truths. With this, it is possible to maintain a coherent perspective and l direction throughout changing power dynamics and incentive structures. "A fixed point in a world of turning." To see the truth and to hold to it. To be convinced, and to have conviction. Now there is a person. He exists in both space and time, holding his identity from one moment to the next.
    Existing in distinction from the currents around him, pushing back, creating in that wake the form and strength of his mind and will. Existing. "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he."

    Reason has the ability to discover these truths. Proper reasoning opens the mind to close on the truth. To reason, in its most basic essence, is to tell oneself the truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. It is independent of minds. Whether it is unknown or disbelieved, it is still reality. It is not possible for there to be no objective truth, for everything to be the subjective creations of the mind, for the simple reason that the prerequisite facts of the mind and its ability to make subjective judgments must itself be an objective truth. As reason is used, thoughts, feelings, and actions will be judged and processed and come into alignment. They will become coherent, and internally consistent. This will create a strength. The person will be less and less torn, aimless, and insecure. Instead there will be calm, clarity, and a sense of center. This is the state of Integrity.

    Once character is formed, it is possible to reasonably expect a person to hold to his principles, that is to be himself, in the future. When one can know what to expect, one can plan in one's own best interest. One can invest. One can enter into joint ventures that
    take time and effort, that are complex, precious, and fragile. It is possible to entrust oneself, to expose vulnerabilities, to explore,
    share wisdom, and mend. It is possible to shore up weaknesses as they arise. To create synergistic bonds. It is possible to befriend. These are the prerequisites for a relationship--because the person thinks, and asserts, and can be depended upon to act as expected, and to not betray those expectations.

    With these possibilities comes hope. The knowledge that the character of those around you will hold is wind in the sails, so that you can direct yourself in these waters. It is to enlarge the world.

    But not all character is created equal. We see that reason is the means to grasp truths that transcend the here and now. Good reason will encompass all relevant truths. As I am aware of my own being, my needs and desires, I can also project what my future self's needs will be. If I am an agent--a being with the natural right to live as myself, to define myself, and to direct myself, that is, to live--then for what reason would other people not naturally have the same rights as I do, given that they are of the same basic nature as me? And for what reason would their future selves not have the same importance
    that mine does? No rational person (non-animal) can give themselves rights and not others with no relevant differentiating factor. And so the nature of ethics is such that it is universal, applying equally to each being who possesses the qualifying factors. "Love your neighbor as yourself."

    Empathy is a valuable tool for practicing the universal ethic. Empathy is simply to attempt to tell oneself the truth about the internal lives of others.

    Perhaps the nihilist will object, if they care to do so, and suggest that we cannot know if there is meaning in ourselves, in others, or in anything at all. Granting this for the sake of argument, we are left with two options: there is no meaning in life, or there is meaning. If there is no meaning, then we lose nothing to assume that there is. But if there is meaning, then we may do wrong if we assume that there isn't. Therefore, without clear evidence to the contrary, it is ethically necessary to act under the assumption that there is meaning to life and there are such things as ethics. Now we may resume our efforts in differentiating what these may be.

    Character is characterized by these things: telling oneself the truth, directing oneself, and acting taking into account both the future and others.

    As one takes into account others, naturally the good that you hope to see in them is fundamentally the same for them as for you--that is that they tell themselves the truth and direct themselves. And this is the process of maturation: we are born dependents, we strive to be independents, then we strive to be depended upon, the purpose of which
    is to help our dependents become independent themselves, and so continue the cycle. It is as if we are climbing out of a great pit, being helped along the way, and as we reach the top, or at least a place higher than another, we may reach down and pull them up as well. A computer was once programmed to play a game with a simple object in mind, to play the game as many times as possible. It was given a ball that tended to succumb to gravity, and it taught itself how to keep it up. This was the defining key to it's intelligence: always play in such a way that you leave yourself with the maximum amount of options. This is what humanity is doing for each other. We break our chains and throw off our limitations, with the only exception being that we do not do so at the expense of one of our own. To act without character is to cut off options, to create dead ends, to close off life. "Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." - Ayn Rand.

    "Is this not the fast that I have chosen:
    To loose the bonds of wickedness,
    To undo the heavy burdens,
    To let the oppressed go free,
    And that you break every yoke?" - Isaiah 58:6

    And so we hold a high and noble view of each person beside us, with deep appreciation for their personal tastes and passions, opinions and motives, their individuality. We cherish *them*. When
    they succeed, we celebrate, whether we are ever to benefit from it or not.
    Which can be summed up by a single sentence. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Grugore For This Post:

    Kess (02-23-2019)

  3. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    If people disagree about what truth is, what is absolute about it? It means truth, like ethics, is subjective.

    Re: truth. Who decides who is right and who is wrong?
    Truth is subjective?

    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  4. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    you taught an ethics class?
    Maybe to your fellow KKK members
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  5. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kess View Post
    I'm curious how those examples demonstrate that there is no absolute truth. That just shows that there are people who disagree about what the truth is. It could be that when people disagree, some are right and some are wrong, which is consistent with mind-independent, objective, "absolute" truth.
    When people disagree, where the the absolute nature of that "truth"?

    Who decides who is right and who is wrong?

  6. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    is it absolutely true that you posted this?......
    Thanks for always proving my point.

  7. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

  8. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard the Duck View Post
    You can't have both relativism and absolutism, but, only absolutism can be declared without invoking the other.
    Debatable

  9. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

  10. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard the Duck View Post
    Absolutely debatable?
    Merely debatable

  11. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Thanks for always proving my point.
    the funny part is, you really think I did......

  12. #56 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    the funny part is, you really think I did......
    No doubt. Your inability to identify one of your so-called absolute truths is but one example.

  13. #57 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    No doubt. Your inability to identify one of your so-called absolute truths is but one example.
    so you think its possible you didn't post #34?.....

  14. #58 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    When people disagree, where the the absolute nature of that "truth"?

    Who decides who is right and who is wrong?
    domer76, please assume the following is true for the sake of argument:

    Two people walk into a bar. The first dislikes the bar. The second does not believe that bars exist, and continues to hold to that belief despite a large mark running across his forehead.

    There are several things going on here.

    One person exists, and generates a subjective belief about the bar that is unique to him, and not true of the other person.

    Another person exists, and generates a belief about the objective facts of the world around him.

    And a bar exists.

    Prior to either party walking into the bar, before either of them had the opportunity to know of its existence, it did in fact exist. This is an example of mind independent truth.

    When people interact with said truth, they may or may not acknowledge it. Their opinions about it may be right or wrong. And they may also come up with self expressions that depend on their own personalities that are subjective.


    As I said in my paper, objective truth *must* exist, because before a person can form their subjective opinions, that person and their mind and capacity to form their subjective opinions must first exist.

    As for "who decides," it is not a matter of deciding, but a matter of discovering. Anyone with the capacity for reason and the willingness to use it might "discover" the objective truth. Who decides 1+1=2? Who decides whether or not there is a bar to walk into? Whether you decide there is a bar or not, there still may be one.

    My question for you is this: if claims to truth are subjective and equally valid, is the claim that there are no absolute truths equally as valid as the claim that there are absolute truths?

  15. #59 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kess View Post
    domer76, please assume the following is true for the sake of argument:

    Two people walk into a bar. The first dislikes the bar. The second does not believe that bars exist, and continues to hold to that belief despite a large mark running across his forehead.

    There are several things going on here.

    One person exists, and generates a subjective belief about the bar that is unique to him, and not true of the other person.

    Another person exists, and generates a belief about the objective facts of the world around him.

    And a bar exists.

    Prior to either party walking into the bar, before either of them had the opportunity to know of its existence, it did in fact exist. This is an example of mind independent truth.

    When people interact with said truth, they may or may not acknowledge it. Their opinions about it may be right or wrong. And they may also come up with self expressions that depend on their own personalities that are subjective.


    As I said in my paper, objective truth *must* exist, because before a person can form their subjective opinions, that person and their mind and capacity to form their subjective opinions must first exist.

    As for "who decides," it is not a matter of deciding, but a matter of discovering. Anyone with the capacity for reason and the willingness to use it might "discover" the objective truth. Who decides 1+1=2? Who decides whether or not there is a bar to walk into? Whether you decide there is a bar or not, there still may be one.

    My question for you is this: if claims to truth are subjective and equally valid, is the claim that there are no absolute truths equally as valid as the claim that there are absolute truths?
    There is no accepting something for the sake of argument when part of that premise is absurd. A man is in a bar and denies its existance? Sorry, you lose a rational mind right away.

    Challenge for you. I can provide a near endless list of subjective “truths”. Can you identify a single absolute truth?

  16. #60 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Challenge for you. I can provide a near endless list of subjective “truths”. Can you identify a single absolute truth?
    Providing lists of subjective truths does not really answer the question I had for you.

    Here is an absolute truth:

    The statement "there are no absolute truths" is false.

    The proof: If there are no absolute truths, that in itself would be an absolute truth. If it is true, then it is false. If it is false, then it is false.

    This is called a self refuting statement.

    There are two kinds of statements: synthetic and analytic.

    Synthetic statements require outside evidence to demonstrate whether they are true or false. You can determine the truth value of analytic statements merely by their internal logical composition. The types of anaclitic statements are tautologies and self-refuting statements. I have just provided you with a self-refuting statement. It is impossible for it to be true, and therefore it must be false.

    If you could answer the question I had for you I would greatly appreciate it.

Similar Threads

  1. Is Our Constitution Worth The Paper It's Written On?
    By Robo in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-03-2014, 09:40 AM
  2. Paper Drops Story
    By Lowaicue in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-26-2012, 08:52 AM
  3. I'm doing a paper for school what do you all think bout' it?
    By a11n in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 11:49 AM
  4. Sounds Good on Paper!
    By jollie in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 11:54 AM
  5. Paper cares not what you write on it...
    By uscitizen in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-30-2007, 11:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •