|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2007 : 22:16:04
|
Can Feelings be Unethical? The subject line put in by B10. To really discuss this requires that Feelings are defined. If feelings are defined as the bio-chemical reaction to a given set of stimuli, then this is a question that deserves to be answered with a yes or no. If by feelings you mean the overt expression of feelings, then that is a subject that is more open to discussion.
But I noticed a lot of sideswiping in the discussions. I wondered if the disagreements are based on operating from different disciplines within the field of ethics.
From Wikipedia:
Ethics (via Latin ethica from the Ancient Greek "moral philosophy", from the adjective of ???? e-thos "custom, habit"), a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility. It is divided into three primary areas: meta-ethics (the study of the concept of ethics), normative ethics (the study of how to determine ethical values), and applied ethics (the study of the use of ethical values).
Removed Greek characters - My word processor wouldn't read them |
And
From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. Two issues, though, are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct. |
There are apparently several different fields in the formal study of ethics. The question leading into the other topic appears, to me, to apply to the field of metaethics, more than the other two. In which case, my position would apply. I was happy to note that many found my comments useful.
B10, did you intend a discussion of feelings under Metaethics, Normative Ethics, or Applied Ethics. I don't see where one can argue with another when each starts from a different discipline under ethics. One can build upon the other, however, you can not argue the validity of a point when starting from differing fields without at least agreeing that the other person is as valid in taking their position from another field of ethics as you are in starting from your position. It would seem the overview of ethics would not allow much in the way of discussion of applied ethics, nor would applied ethics work when attempting to discuss a position under the metaethics heading, or at least they would only apply in a very limited scope. Anyway, I hoped that this part of the issue could be resolved. Which discipline in ethics was intended for the discussion.
If I am in error on any of this any of you may most certainly take me to task for that. I was sorry to see the discussion fall apart, I only missed a day.
Oh, and if anyone wants to PM me on how to make the hyperlink to these websites without cutting and pasting the web address - I'd appreciate it. However, please keep it something simple so I can get it right instead of horribly fouling it up. Thanks.
ETA hyperlinks
|
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
Edited by - Trish on 06/19/2007 22:29:25
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 05:17:40 [Permalink]
|
Well there goes that can o worms...
hyperlink= [ url="wwf.blahblahblah.con" ]Check out this link[ /url ] ,<--with no spaces around the url |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 06/20/2007 05:18:35 |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 13:03:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Trish
Can Feelings be Unethical? The subject line put in by B10. To really discuss this requires that Feelings are defined. If feelings are defined as the bio-chemical reaction to a given set of stimuli, then this is a question that deserves to be answered with a yes or no. If by feelings you mean the overt expression of feelings, then that is a subject that is more open to discussion. |
That is an excellent point. In the other thread, I have been using your first definition of feelings. If, however, somebody would like to discuss the expressions of feelings (deliberate action), then the discussion would (in my opinion) have to shift from "can" to "should," since you can apply ethics to actions. | But I noticed a lot of sideswiping in the discussions. I wondered if the disagreements are based on operating from different disciplines within the field of ethics. |
You are probably right. .
.
.
There are apparently several different fields in the formal study of ethics. The question leading into the other topic appears, to me, to apply to the field of metaethics, more than the other two. In which case, my position would apply. I was happy to note that many found my comments useful.
B10, did you intend a discussion of feelings under Metaethics, Normative Ethics, or Applied Ethics. I don't see where one can argue with another when each starts from a different discipline under ethics. One can build upon the other, however, you can not argue the validity of a point when starting from differing fields without at least agreeing that the other person is as valid in taking their position from another field of ethics as you are in starting from your position. It would seem the overview of ethics would not allow much in the way of discussion of applied ethics, nor would applied ethics work when attempting to discuss a position under the metaethics heading, or at least they would only apply in a very limited scope. Anyway, I hoped that this part of the issue could be resolved. Which discipline in ethics was intended for the discussion.
.
.
. |
My first inclination would be to say "meta-ethics," but I am not sure that's entirely correct. The reason I don't think meta-ethics is the correct topic of my question is that I was not attempting to spark a discussion on "whether morality exists independently of humans" or on the "underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct." I was attempting to discuss what can and cannot be subject to ethical judgment. Each of the three branches seems to presuppose an answer to my question.
Perhaps, in light of this, I am wrong. It could be that the world's best philosophers have determined that everything, regardless of what it is, can be subject to ethical judgment. It could be (though it's unlikely) that nobody thought of it, or that it's considered inherently obvious or beneath consideration. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 13:51:03 [Permalink]
|
B10 said:
| It could be that the world's best philosophers have determined that everything, regardless of what it is, can be subject to ethical judgment. It could be (though it's unlikely) that nobody thought of it, or that it's considered inherently obvious or beneath consideration. Any thoughts? |
Inherently obvious.
You can't tell a person that they can't judge something on an ethical basis. (edited to add- unless there is an objective measure to go by)
You can disagree with their judgement all day long however.
I'd agree with you, almost entirely, if what you were saying is that it is a trivial waste of time to judge most emotions in terms of right and wrong. Millions of people would disagree with us, but hey, people have been arguing and killing one another over the application of ethics since the dawn of human intellect.
There is a huge difference between applying your own ethic to a thing and deciding it is trivial, and saying that no one can apply their own ethic to that thing.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/20/2007 13:54:25 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 21:28:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Well there goes that can o worms...
hyperlink= [ url="wwf.blahblahblah.con" ]Check out this link[ /url ] ,<--with no spaces around the url
|
Thanks BPS. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 19:29:02 [Permalink]
|
My first inclination would be to say "meta-ethics," but I am not sure that's entirely correct. The reason I don't think meta-ethics is the correct topic of my question is that I was not attempting to spark a discussion on "whether morality exists independently of humans" or on the "underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct." I was attempting to discuss what can and cannot be subject to ethical judgment. Each of the three branches seems to presuppose an answer to my question.
Perhaps, in light of this, I am wrong. It could be that the world's best philosophers have determined that everything, regardless of what it is, can be subject to ethical judgment. It could be (though it's unlikely) that nobody thought of it, or that it's considered inherently obvious or beneath consideration. Any thoughts? |
I think, to apply ethics to the question asked, one must determine first if there is an objective morality/ethic. Once that is determined, then a discussion of whether feelings are ethical can take place. I think it would be considered obvious that everything viewed through the filter of our value set would be subject to ethical evaluation. How else should we determine what has value and what does not. Again, that is a personal evaluation. I appreciate your candor.
| There is a huge difference between applying your own ethic to a thing and deciding it is trivial, and saying that no one can apply their own ethic to that thing. |
I have to agree with you Dude.
|
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ethics, Metaethics, Normative, and Applied Ethics
