Ethics is garble gabble.

This is a great illustration of the kind of nonsense garble “ethics” people come up with when they have no first principles.

First I assume that individuals must be able to put their goals into a total ordering (such that every goal is more or less important than every other goal). After observing the behavior/credentials/ect of another person an individual may decide that that person is worth obeying in order to achieve one or more of their goals. Hereafter I will refer to this process as swearing loyalty to someone. The individual should then obey the person they are loyal to absolutely, as long as their commands do not interfere with the commands of someone else they are loyal to. In the case of a conflict the command to obey should be determined by the individual’s total ordering of goals. The individual is expected to only be loyal to a single individual for the purpose of accomplishing a goal (for example the individual shouldn’t swear loyalty to both A and B for the purpose of world peace). Finally, the individual should only break their bond of loyalty after being presented with evidence that the person they are loyal to is motivated to act against the goal that was the purpose of the bond…

What kind of society would emerge from following such a code? Well for the most part it would be hierarchal, where person A would be loyal to B, who is loyal to C, ect, so that one person may end up indirectly having authority over a large number of people. It is not true that all relations must be strictly hierarchal though. For example A may be loyal to B for world peace, but B may be loyal to A when it comes to interior design.

Gabble garble watermelon.

12 thoughts on “Ethics is garble gabble.

  1. Mordanicus September 13, 2013 at 23:10 Reply

    All ethical systems are ultimately based on circular reasonings, that’s why there has not been any progress in moral theory for the last 2,000 years. And the only real reason why moral philosophers refuse to accept this fact (they often call this “nihilism”, which is in my view a meaningless term), is that they are afraid to lose their jobs if it’s revealed that they wasting tax money.

  2. DefyEntropy September 18, 2013 at 16:42 Reply

    You do realize that embracing subjective morality would undermine anti-natalist claims…right? The natalists could easily justify procreation by stating that their decision to procreate is moral according to their personal moral/ethical system.

    • Francois Tremblay September 18, 2013 at 16:49 Reply

      Who are you addressing? Me or Mordanicus? As I’ve made it clear on my blog many times, I don’t believe morality is subjective any more than any other form of knowledge is subjective.

  3. DefyEntropy September 18, 2013 at 19:04 Reply

    You stated that, “The word “objective” is somewhat of a mush”. Furthermore, you also “technically” agree with the statements, “All ethical systems are ultimately based on circular reasonings, that’s why there has not been any progress in moral theory for the last 2,000 years. And the only real reason why moral philosophers refuse to accept this fact (they often call this “nihilism”, which is in my view a meaningless term), is that they are afraid to lose their jobs if it’s revealed that they wasting tax money”. These statements espouse moral nihilism or moral relativism.

    • Francois Tremblay September 18, 2013 at 19:08 Reply

      No… I technically agree that all ethical systems are based on circular “reasoning.” That doesn’t mean I believe ethics should be based on “reasoning.” I am an ethical intuitionist.

      And I linked to an article that explains how to carefully make the distinction between objective and subjective. Not my fault you quoted me out of context.

  4. DefyEntropy September 18, 2013 at 20:20 Reply

    I never implied that you believed that “ethics should be based on reasoning”. In fact, I argued the opposite that you reject the usage of rational parameters and logicality to establish certain truths. Furthermore, ethical intuitionism is a nonsensical philosophical framework to concoct a moral philosophy. Heed your insticts? Really? You seem to be under the impression that our intuitions are impeccable to the extent where we should rely upon our intuitions or instincts to present rational conclusions. Moreover, you present the assumption that human beings possess desirable instincts (instincts that benefit individuals, as opposed to those that cause harm). This is absolute garbage. Our instincts are merely impulses that, if not controlled by logicality and reason, can result in destructive behaviors, such as homicide, that are furthered by personal incentives of greed, envy, etc. Therefore, your whole argument for “ethical intuitionism” collapses since you present the flawed premise or assumption that human beings are inherently altruistic beings with reliable, philanthropic instincts. Good luck advocating for this naive perception of human nature since you repeatedly condemn natalists as “evil” for indulging their selfish psychology via reproduction.

    • Francois Tremblay September 18, 2013 at 20:35 Reply

      “I never implied that you believed that “ethics should be based on reasoning”. In fact, I argued the opposite that you reject the usage of rational parameters and logicality to establish certain truths.”
      Of course I do; reason and logic cannot justify themselves.

      “Furthermore, ethical intuitionism is a nonsensical philosophical framework to concoct a moral philosophy. Heed your insticts? Really? You seem to be under the impression that our intuitions are impeccable to the extent where we should rely upon our intuitions or instincts to present rational conclusions.”
      There is no other viable alternative. Without logical intuitions, humans would have no way to rely on logic in the first place. How do you think one could derive logic without having some logical intuitions in the first place?

      “Moreover, you present the assumption that human beings possess desirable instincts (instincts that benefit individuals, as opposed to those that cause harm). This is absolute garbage. Our instincts are merely impulses that, if not controlled by logicality and reason, can result in destructive behaviors, such as homicide, that are furthered by personal incentives of greed, envy, etc.”
      Again you’re being circular, because intuitions are the basis for logic and reason. You are cutting off your own head, on the same level as Christians who argue against reason and offer the Bible as an alternative (how do we even know what the Bible says and how to interpret it?).

      “Therefore, your whole argument for “ethical intuitionism” collapses since you present the flawed premise or assumption that human beings are inherently altruistic beings with reliable, philanthropic instincts. Good luck advocating for this naive perception of human nature since you repeatedly condemn natalists as “evil” for indulging their selfish psychology via reproduction.”
      There is a lot of nonsense to unpack here. I never said humans are “inherently altruistic.” I don’t really believe in the selfish/altruistic dichotomy: people do whatever they can to further their values, it just happens that some of those values hurt other people. Procreation is one of those (when it is held as a value at all: most people reproduce without any moral evaluation at all). Procreation itself is not an intuition or an instinct, sex is. So yea, you’re wrong on pretty much every aspect of what you said here.

      Take a deep breath and try a different tack here, destroying your only basis for logic is not the way to go to win this argument you’ve started.

  5. DefyEntropy September 19, 2013 at 14:44 Reply

    What an inane response. Tell me, have you even bothered to research a cursory definition of “intuition”? I’ll provide a few definitions for you. Freedictionary.com defines it as, “The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition”. Merriam-Webster defines it as, “A natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence : a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why: something that is known or understood without proof or evidence”. What do these definitions have in common, Francois? According to all of them, intuition does not rely upon the parameters of logicality. Hence, “logical intuitions” is an oxymoronic phrase since no logicality or reason factors into the formation of the fundamental characteristics of intuition. But then again, what else would I expect from a philosophically-inept imbecile who claims that ethical vegetarianism is “bullshit” while simultaneously stating that he is an anti-natalist? I suppose your compassion for sentient creatures does not extend to animals that are abused consistently in factory-farm settings. On a final note, I never implied that reproduction is an “instinct or intuition”. You present a hilarious misconception here that I feel compelled to address. I merely stated that natalists have the psychological desire, which I believe originates from societal pressures to procreate (NOT biological ones). In the earlier posts, however, I never specified as to whether I believe that this psychology is formed primarily from societal factors or from biological factors; however, you still felt comfortable in misrepresenting my position by stating fallaciously that I believe that reproduction is a biological impulse/instinct. Way to fail, Francois. Way to fail.

    • Francois Tremblay September 19, 2013 at 14:54 Reply

      No… when I say “logical intuitions,” I mean intuitions about logic, such as the ability to use induction, which even a one year old baby has. They are not learned.

      And yes, I am an antinatalist, which means I consider ALL procreation to be undesirable, if it leads to suffering. That’s what antinatalism means. The antinatalist principle is not “human procreation is wrong,” but “procreation is wrong.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: