|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 10:28:31 [Permalink]
|
I have to agree with Dude (I think), in that feelings can be ethically judged, even if they aren't controllable, but only in a subjective sense.
Ethics are subjective in the sense that they aren't universal, but they are objectively applied within specific groups. For example, there is no universal ethical rule which says it is wrong for a 40 year-old man to bed a 13 year-old girl. In fact, throughout history, such relationships were considered perfectly legitimate. However, that thought is considered repulsive to our modern sensibilities, but only because ethical rules forbidding statutory rape are applied across the spectrum in the modern Western world.
Any human behavior is potentially subject to ethical consideration within a specific group. Eating shellfish or cutting one's facial hair may seem ethically neutral to most people, as they are presumed to be amoral acts. However, within certain religions that explicitly prohibit these same acts, eating shellfish, drinking alcohol, or triming one's beard would all be considered unethical.
So I would say yes, it is all about context. And within certain contexts, even thoughts may be deemed unethical. Jimmy Carter once famously admitted in an interview to Playboy magazine that "I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times." Why would he consider the mere thought of adultery unethical? Because he believed his religion expressly prohibits it: "And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.'"
In this case, it is also obvious that intention is not a factor. Even though Carter's adulterous thoughts may have been beyond his conscious power to control, he deemed them unethical nonetheless.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/15/2007 11:55:04 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 13:02:30 [Permalink]
|
BPSmurf wrote: ...ethics do not have a foundation of things which are good or bad, all ethics are determined by the individuals or groups.
Nothing is inherently right or wrong. |
Who are you disagreeing with? Nobody here is arguing that ethics have a foundation on things which are inherently good or bad. Some people, such as myself, are arguing that it is not very meaningful or useful to apply ethics to just anything - particularly things which just happen rather than things which happen because some conscious being chose to make them happen. Even Dude agreed with this when he said that ethics were not applied to peoples' preferences.
| Feelings (no matter how trivial they seem)can be unethical if the individual considers them to be or even if the groups which influence the individual consider them to be, however no feelings are inherently unethical, as nothing is inherently unethical. |
Ethically judging feelings which are out of peoples' control is as meaningful as ethically judging my cat's breath. I can declare it wrong that the sun exists, but does that have any real meaning outside of poetry?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/15/2007 13:11:57 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2007 : 13:22:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ethically judging feelings which are out of peoples' control is as meaningful as ethically judging my cat's breath. I can declare it wrong that the sun exists, but does that have any real meaning outside of poetry? |
The sun's existence? No, that wouldn't be very meaningful, since I think ethics are only really applicable to humans.
However, is it useful to ethically judge feelings which are out of people's conscious control? Sure, since it provides a mental brake on turning that feeling into an action. "Don't do it. Don't even think about doing it" sends a less ambiguous message than "Fantasize about it all you want, imagine yourself planning to do it, just don't actually ever do it."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 13:45:47 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | If you say that you can't apply ethics to a thing, what you are actually doing is applying your own set of ethical values to that thing and determining that as far as you are concerned it is irrelevant or to trivial to be distinctly right or wrong. |
Earlier Dude had written: | Ethics concerns making judgements of right vs wrong, not your personal preference (unless your talking about some preference that can be phrased in terms of right vs wrong). |
I did phrase my preference in terms of right and wrong. Are you saying it is meaningful to say that My preference for chocolate icecream over strawberry is right or wrong? Because to me, that sounds like nonsense. How can a preference be right or wrong? It doesn't make sense, which is why ethics doesn't concern personal preference.
Earlier, Dude had also written: | Objects are not typically subject to ethical judgements. The subject is typically confined to humans. |
Here again you say ethics are not applied to something – so aren't you applying your own set of ethical values? Of course not. You are simply insisting that we not use the word “ethics” in a way that is not meaningful. How can an object be right or wrong? It doesn't make sense, which is why ethics doesn't concern objects.
If we can exclude personal preferences and objects from ethical judgment for the sake of “ethics” remaining a meaningful concept, how are boron and I applying our own set of ethical values by including feelings in the same list as personal preferences and objects?
| When you decide, by fiat, that a thing is to trivial or ethics cannot be applied, you are actually asserting that there is an objective measure by which you can evaluate such things. |
No, I am asserting a different definition of “ethics” which includes choice of a conscious being, because any definition that doesn't include that allow ethics to be applied in a meaningless way to things like the existence of the sun and personal preferences for chocolate icecream over strawberry.
I'm imposing my values if I say ethics shouldn't be applied to what color clothing people wear. I am not imposing my values if I say ethics can't be applied to the state of inanimate objects.
You see Dude, neither boron or I are pushing our own values on this discussion. We were disagreeing about the definition of “ethics” that you claimed was objective.
| I hate this particular conversation. |
And yet you persist.
| The underlying principle is simple, basic even. |
And yet several intelligent people in this conversation have expressed some confusion.
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 13:48:01 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: Since we need a working definition of ethics. How's this?
Ethics is the socially and culturally derived set of principles that have to do with determining the appropriateness of motives and conduct most often with the aim of promoting fairness.
Is that fair enough? |
Yes!
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 13:48:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Are you now claiming that other people's subjective definitions of ethics are correct? |
Clearly not. He's saying that regardless of whether you think someone's ethics make sense or not, they are, indeed, ethics if they deal with right/wrong, good/bad or other value concepts.
Boron, your complaint that people who make ethical judgements about things over which there is no control are applying ethics inappropriately is itself a judgement based upon your own personal ethics. How else could you have decided that something was appriopriate or not? It's a value judgement.
And to answer the question posed in the title of this thread, yes. The common saying that you shouldn't laugh at other people's misfortunes is a simple, straighforward ethical statement about one's emotions. Whether you find such a rule to be an appropriate application of ethics or not is irrelevant to its actually being a judgement of the value of a certain emotion - which is the heart of what 'ethics' is.
And I'm sure that lots of parents have had that "it made me so mad I almost smacked the kid" feeling. That we didn't smack the kid is obviously applied ethics, but I know plenty of people who take it farther, and feel guilt over the fact that they felt mad at the child at all. Regardless of your ethics, their feeling remorse over being angry is them assigning a large negative value to an emotion over which they had no control. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 13:49:11 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | I have to agree with Dude (I think), in that feelings can be ethically judged, even if they aren't controllable, but only in a subjective sense. |
Eesh… I dunno if I like the way you are phrasing all this even though what you are saying does make sense. I consider all ethical judgments subjective – whether attributable to an individual or cultural consensus (what you called applied by specific groups). Objective implies universal, and that could be confusing.
I'd argue that things which are controllable can be judged ethically, and things that cannot be controlled (such as most feelings) cannot be ethically judged in a way which is meaningful.
Humbert wrote: | However, is it useful to ethically judge feelings which are out of people's conscious control? Sure, since it provides a mental brake on turning that feeling into an action. "Don't do it. Don't even think about doing it" sends a less ambiguous message than "Fantasize about it all you want, imagine yourself planning to do it, just don't actually ever do it." |
You just flipped from feelings to thoughts as if they were the same thing. Feelings are only marginally controllable, if controllable at all. But fantasies and most thoughts are controllable. I would argue that ethics can only be applied to things which we can control. If we can't control it, it makes no sense to judge the thing right or wrong ‘cause nobody could have done a thing to change or prevent it.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 13:54:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Are you saying it is meaningful to say that My preference for chocolate icecream over strawberry is right or wrong? Because to me, that sounds like nonsense. How can a preference be right or wrong? It doesn't make sense, which is why ethics doesn't concern personal preference. |
I know I keep chiming in here, but ethics most certain can concern personal preferences, unless you want to argue that a Klan member's preference for whites over blacks isn't an ethical matter. Or that my preference for cheap beer isn't considered unethical by a Muslim. Etc. Is your preference for chocolate ice cream over strawberry right or wrong? Potentially--it would first require a group of people who felt ice cream preference was a moral issue.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/15/2007 13:56:00 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:00:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Boron, your complaint that people who make ethical judgements about things over which there is no control are applying ethics inappropriately is itself a judgement based upon your own personal ethics. How else could you have decided that something was appriopriate or not? It's a value judgement. |
Boron did not make a value judgment based on his own personal ethics. He's using a different, more narrow, definition of "ethics". He decided based on that different definition, not based on different values.
Matt suggested a working definition of ethics. I like this definition because I can't see how feelings would be an appropriate subject for ethical judgment. Matt's definition includes motives, but motives are thoughts and a sense of will for action, not the same as feelings. I can feel afraid, but still be motivated to climb a mountain. I can feel like hurting someone, but not be motivated to actually do so. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:01:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
You just flipped from feelings to thoughts as if they were the same thing. Feelings are only marginally controllable, if controllable at all. But fantasies and most thoughts are controllable. I would argue that ethics can only be applied to things which we can control. If we can't control it, it makes no sense to judge the thing right or wrong ‘cause nobody could have done a thing to change or prevent it. |
"It's wrong to have sexual feelings toward a sibling" is an ethical judgement applicable to either passing urges or prolonged fantasies. Even if one merely has an uncontrollable momentary sensation, the (presumed) guilt one would subsequently experience is a result of that pre-existing ethical judgement being in place. It's there to inform people's consciousnesses and allows them to analyze, evaluate, and modify their own behavior.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/15/2007 14:03:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:04:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
No, I am asserting a different definition of “ethics” which includes choice of a conscious being, because any definition that doesn't include that allow ethics to be applied in a meaningless way to things like the existence of the sun and personal preferences for chocolate icecream over strawberry. |
But the fact that you use the term "meaningless" indicates a value choice. In your ethical philosophy, other ethical philosophies may have less value than your own (by being "meaningless," for example).| I'm imposing my values if I say ethics shouldn't be applied to what color clothing people wear. I am not imposing my values if I say ethics can't be applied to the state of inanimate objects. |
Unfortunately, aesthetics is a branch of ethics. Art appreciation, at its heart, is an ethical exercise. Whether a painting is good or bad is ultimately a question of ethics. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | I know I keep chiming in here, but ethics most certain can concern personal preferences, unless you want to argue that a Klan member's preference for whites over blacks isn't an ethical matter. Or that my preference for cheap beer isn't considered unethical by a Muslim. Etc. Is your preference for chocolate ice cream over strawberry right or wrong? Potentially--it would first require a group of people who felt ice cream preference was a moral issue. |
A Klan member's preference for whites over blacks isn't an ethical matter. It turns into an ethical matter when that person chooses to nuture those discriminatory preferences through thoughts and action, and also when that person takes action based on those feelings. Also, your preference for cheap beer isn't what is considered unethical. It is your encouragement of and action taken because of that preference that is being judged. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:11:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Boron did not make a value judgment based on his own personal ethics. He's using a different, more narrow, definition of "ethics". He decided based on that different definition, not based on different values. |
Why does he choose to use one definition over another? He values one more highly than another.| Matt suggested a working definition of ethics. I like this definition because I can't see how feelings would be an appropriate subject for ethical judgment. Matt's definition includes motives, but motives are thoughts and a sense of will for action, not the same as feelings. I can feel afraid, but still be motivated to climb a mountain. I can feel like hurting someone, but not be motivated to actually do so. |
Have you ever done something "in the heat of the moment," marf, or do you carefully consider all your actions? Have you ever felt rage and acted on it without thinking about the consequences? Even as a child?
Personally, I see little substantial difference between Matt's definition and Dude's, because as well as motives, Matt's also includes conduct. People may not be in control of their emotions, but they clearly consider them to be a part of their own conduct, and people clearly make value judgements about their own emotions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:14:19 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | "It's wrong to have sexual feelings toward a sibling" is an ethical judgement applicable to either passing urges or prolonged fantasies. Even if one merely has an uncontrollable momentary sensation, the (presumed) guilt one would subsequently experience is a result of that pre-existing ethical judgement being in place. It's there to inform people's consciousnesses and allows them to analyze, evaluate, and modify their own behavior. |
Yes, and I'm arguing that it makes about as much sense to ethically judge uncontrollable feelings as it is to judge the existence of the sun. People feel guilty about certain feelings as a mechanism for changing future feelings, yes, but feeling guilty isn't the equivalent of judging a feeling. Some people feel guilt over being born into racial privilege. Can we ethically judge what race people are born? If we say yes, doesn't that heavily dilute the meaning of "ethics"? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:18:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
A Klan member's preference for whites over blacks isn't an ethical matter. |
But it's clearly a socially and culturally derived principle, per Matt's definition.| It turns into an ethical matter when that person chooses to nuture those discriminatory preferences through thoughts and action, and also when that person takes action based on those feelings. |
But now you're saying that the "motives" part of Matt's definition is irrelevant, and all that counts is the conduct.
| Also, your preference for cheap beer isn't what is considered unethical. It is your encouragement of and action taken because of that preference that is being judged. |
In this, you're correct. On the other hand, to a beer connoisseur, H.'s simple assertion that he likes cheap beer might be enough to turn his stomach - a value judgement on nothing more than a statement of a preference. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
