You've shown that principles might have non-ethical applications, not that this invalidates their ethical ones. No more than a tire used on a car invalidates the use of a tire on a bicycle. — Artemis

Just a side-issue: You denied that the example we talked about was a principle of ethics; you said it was only a feature (again, I may have misquoted you) of ethics.

I wish you would settle with one qualifier, that is, you'd settle what you call the thing that we talk about. I'll gladly go along, but I wish to avoid a defence by you, in which you say "no, that's not a principle of ethics, it's a quality in ethics, please stop misquoting me, god must be atheist" and at the same time and in the same respect you could also say "no, that's not a quality in ethics, it's a principle, stop misquoting me, god must be atheist".

I wish to avoid that. But that's not a major issue right now. Right now I am curious to see that you can show a feature (principle or quality) of ethics, which is unique and pervasive to all ethics. Both UNIQUE and PERVASIVE.

Now show me that ethics is a different thing from everything else, by showing at least one quality (which may be a combination of qualities) that applies only to ethics. If you show that, then you prove that ethics exist — god must be atheist

Ethics is always about acceptable and/or unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour.

Creative soul, if at work which is computer programming, I start to play loud music, or else start to sing loudly, or play roulette with my co-workers, I display unacceptable behaviour, but they are not unethical.

If they ARE unethical, then please show me what is the underlying ethical consideration that makes them unacceptably unethical.

-------------------
@Creativesoul et al, please don't start bombarding me with untested, random or near-random, and in any way inconclusive stabs at what you think is a feature of ethics. Please think it through, before you post it. I don't wish to spend my time refuting something that a five-year-old child can do. I ask you to please only come up with features that stick to the requested parameters, and I ask you to rigorously test them before you post them. Thanks.

I am curious to see that you can show a feature (principle or quality) of ethics, which is unique and pervasive to all ethics. Both UNIQUE and PERVASIVE. — god must be atheist

Ethics is always about acceptable and/or unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour.

That's the answer. I stand beside it. Rather than be a blowhard, offer one example to the contrary. I adequately satisfied your request, which I took to be a standard which if met would convince you that ethics exists.

There it is. All ethics have that much in common, amongst other things.

Creative soul, if at work which is computer programming, I start to play loud music, or else start to sing loudly, or play roulette with my co-workers, I display unacceptable behaviour, but they are not unethical. — god must be atheist

Do those behaviours break the rules of acceptable conduct at your workplace? Are you allowed to act like that?

That's the answer. I stand beside it. — creativesoul

I can't fight against private opinions. I disproved that your description stands. You stand beside it, but IT does not stand.

Understand.

@Creativesoul:

Jerry calls Tyson's mother a whore. During math class, Tyson retaliates by starting a fight.

Tyson's behaviour is not acceptable.

-----------

I am not going to give you any more examples that refute that your statement of what's ethical is not PERVASIVE and UNIQUE to ethics.

You can carry on the vehement and adamant claim that your statement is pervasive and unique to all ethical acts. I won't respond.

I will respond to you on other threads, though. I have no ill will for you, and I am not pissed off, I am just simply not prepared to fight against frivolous claims, it tires me out and it leads to nowhere.

Do those behaviours break the rules of acceptable conduct at your workplace? Are you allowed to act like that? — creativesoul

I don't think any reasonable employer would allow his employees to spend time on the job gambling illegally, instead of doing work. I am surprised you had to ask.

I think there's misunderstanding here...

All ethics is about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour.

That's the claim.

Do you disagree?

@Creativesoul:Jerry and Tom call Tyson's mother a whore. Phil, the strongest boy in the class who is a good fighter, does nothing, though he knows that it's an unfair call. Phil knows that Tyson's mother is not a prostitute, and he does not step in to stop the daunting of Tyson by Jerry and Tom, which continues. Tyson is way too weak to fight Jerry, and he is way to weak to fight Tom, and he definitely can't fight the two at the same time.

Now show me that ethics is a different thing from everything else, by showing at least one quality (which may be a combination of qualities) that applies only to ethics. If you show that, then you prove that ethics exist. — god must be atheist

Does an apple only exist because it is different from everything else? And here I thought all fruit share various qualities and aspects.

I can put the same apple in a sauce, in a pie, in a fruitcake, in a crumble, in cider, or just eat straight. Is it now not an apple per your definition?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/principle

noun

• an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
• a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
• a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion:
• principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management:
• guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct:
• an adopted rule or method for application in action:

The word can mean several things. You are trying to tie it down to a single definition that fits your own position, but that's not how I have employed it throughout this discussion.

And a principle is a feature of ethics. Calling something either of those terms is not mutually exclusive.

Does an apple only exist because it is different from everything else? And here I thought all fruit share various qualities and aspects. — Artemis

Ay-vey. You are going at it from an angle you ought not to.

Apples exist. But to show it to a person who denies the existence of apples, you have to show him an apple.

If you can't show him an apple, from his point of view he won't accept that apples exist.

------------

You have allegedly seen ethical deeds. Show me one. If you can't, I can not only say I am not convinced, but I can also say that you yourself have not seen one. It is not an apple; it can be described in philosophical terms. A person does not need to taste, smell, touch ethics like he would an apple to believe it exists.

So if you can't show a man an apple, he won't believe apples exist.

If you can't show an ethical action, then you show not only to me, but to yourself too, that you don't know what ethics is, and I claim it is so because it is your personal opinion only that ethics exist.

Ay-vey. You are going at it from an angle you ought not to.

Apples exist. But to show it to a person who denies the existence of apples, you have to show him an apple.

If you can't show him an apple, from his point of view he won't accept that apples exist. — god must be atheist

I'm sorry, but you're just a moving target. You've gone from needing ethics to be totally and absolutely exclusive to ethics (which is dumb, because ethics is about life and how to live/act) to now needing some physical, tangible proof that probably you'd prefer is edible as well.

But the target you've moved to doesn't even make sense. I've never seen a dinosaur, and I believe they've existed. I've never seen -- actually seen, with my own little eye-- a bacteria, and I believe they exist. I've never even seen the molten iron core of planet earth and I believe that exists.

Furthermore, since ethics is conceptual, you can't show it physically other than pointing perhaps to a book about ethics. Just like statistics is conceptual, or love, or so many other things.

At this point I'm really not sure where the conversation is going, because from my vantage point (and I'm sorry if this isn't true from your vantage point) your answers/questions are becoming more and more silly.

noun
an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive rulingopinion:
principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management:
guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct:
an adopted rule or method for application in action:

The word can mean several things. You are trying to tie it down to a single definition that fits your own position, but that's not how I have employed it throughout this discussion.

And a principle is a feature of ethics. Calling something either of those terms is not mutually exclusive. — Artemis

The bolded ones are personal opinions.

The italicised ones are principles that are not defined, and have no definitons anywhere.

(You): "The word can mean several things. You are trying to tie it down to a single definition"

(I, in response): NO! Not at all. I ask you for an INSTANCE, for a single quality, which is not ALL ENCOMPASSING, but PERVASIVE and UNIQUE to ethics. That's what I asked, and I asked that precisely because you DEFENDED that you can't make an all-encompassing definition.

Fine. Don't make a definition, I can accept that. But do state a quality or aspect of ethics that is unique to and pervasive over, all ehtical acitons.

After all, you claim that there is one, and if you don't claim it, you don't claim that ethics is pervasive and it is of unique considerations.

If there is no single such quality (which can be a combination of some other qualities), then:

1. Your idea of ethics does not exist, if no quality can be unique to all ethical acts.

2. Your idea of ethics does not exist, if no quality can be pervaseive to all ethical considerations.

Please see the video I begged you to see. It answers your dilemma perfectly, I think.

At this point I'm really not sure where the conversation is going, because from my vantage point (and I'm sorry if this isn't true from your vantage point) your answers/questions are becoming more and more silly. — Artemis

If that's how you feel, fine. I accept that. It is your personal opinion and I can't fight personal opinions on a philosophical vein.

I rest satisfied, however, that you were unable to show one single unique and pervasive trait or quality, which may be a combinaition of qualities, that applies to what you call ethics.

And I rest satisfied, that you can't define ethics, or its fundamental principles.

This is fine with me.

I rest satisfied, however, that you were unable to show one single unique and pervasive trait or qualioty, which may be a combinaition of qualities, that applies to what you call ethics. — god must be atheist

I mean, that can be your personal opinion as well. But of course you were making impossible and simultaneously illogical demands for proof... but you can ride off into the sunset believing whatever you want to believe sans reason. :rofl:

I mean, that can be your personal opinion as well. — Artemis

Except it is not. It is not a personal opinion of mine that you failed to give one example even that would have disproved my claim. It is not my personal opinion: it is out there for the whole world to see.

But of course you were making impossible and simultaneously illogical demands for proof. — Artemis

I asked for a single occurrence that would have served as a disproof of my claim. You failed to provide it.

If you KNEW what you were talking about, you would have easily provided it. Your ignorance is a proof to me that you yourself are not on sure footing that ethics exist. You may fight for it, but you don't know what you are fighting for.

Have you watched the video?

That leads you to something as useless as "just do it" or worse, "do." — Artemis

Not if you want it to ensure ethical behaviour in every instance when followed.

Why should there be a limit? — Artemis

Because we’re talking about underlying ethical principles, not specific rules. I acknowledge that rule, law and principle are often employed as interchangeable terms for rhetorical effect, but the distinction is one of specificity.

While, sure, the kitten principle is a more specific version of "do no harm," that doesn't mean it's not a principle. Just like the law generally prohibits theft, but it also has more specific rules about specific kinds of theft. — Artemis

Yes, it does mean it’s not a principle. If it is a more specific version, then it is neither fundamental, nor can it serve as a foundation for a system of behaviour. ‘Do not steal’ is a statement of law referring to an ethical principle for cohabitation that values property ownership - the foundation from which specific rules regarding theft are derived.

A rule is referred to as a ‘principle’ only in reference to a specific area of activity. ‘Don’t drown kittens’ could be described as an ethical ‘principle’ only in specific relation to being in possession of kittens near water.

It may seem like I’m being pedantic here, but it’s important to make the distinction between rule, law and principle when we’re talking about the possible existence of ‘objective’ or ‘universal’ underlying ethical principles. This is as broad as one can get in terms of behaviour, so any suggestion of ethical principles in this sense must have an effect on behaviour in the broadest application.

If there is a more fundamental or general version of the so-called ‘principle’, or if adhering to it still allows unethical behaviour, then what you have is not a principle in this context, but a specific law or rule that derives from a principle.

I disproved that your description stands. — god must be atheist

Do it again, I must have missed it..

you failed to give one example even that would have disproved my claim. It is not my personal opinion: it is out there for the whole world to see. — god must be atheist

Again, I've shown that your demands of ethics are absurd and irrelevant. That is also there for the world to see. I'm happy to leave it the way it stands for others to see.

Now, goals are inherently subjective, varying from one subject to another, due to the fact that they exist relative to one's intention. Intention is the property of an individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not talking about any specific goal, I'm talking about the having of goal, something which is common to every intentional creature. The argument is simply that if system X is one which helps me achieve my goals it is justified that I maintain it. In order to be satisfied with that justification, one only need to also have goals and consider whether one would also maintain a system useful in helping to achieve them. It's about empathy.

Notwithstanding that, what alternative could you possibly implement? What system-less method of justification could we use instead?

The utility itself will be judged as unrighteous, incorrect, and therefore unjustified. And an unjustified utility will not justify use of the system. In fact there will be the reverse effect. The more useful the system is for obtaining an unrighteous goal, the more unjustified the system is. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're conflation unrighteous (in a moral sense) with incorrect (a technical sense). Say a criminal mastermind sets up an elaborate trap to kill millions. He has used (to achieve his evil goal) the system of 3d spatio-temporal relativity. Is that system now wrong? Wat if he calculated how many guns he'd need using arithmetic, is arithmetic now wrong?

Must it? Must everything be justified? How does that work non-circularly? If 'The Goal' is what I feel what am I supposed to do on finding that it is not justified (by your method which you've yet to reveal)? Am I supposed to now not feel that way? — Isaac


Where's the circularity? If the goal is not justified, then the means for obtaining that goal (the system) is not justified. Isn't this straight forward and obvious to you? It seems pretty basic. — Metaphysician Undercover

Because you have to use a 'system' to judge the righteousness of the goal. Must you then justify that system?

So religious commandments have all of the criteria you list above, or lack them just as much? — Isaac


I haven't said anything about religious commandments, I'm addressing your deceptive claim that a system is justified by its utility. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I know. I just thought I'd get it out there now. It's the subtext behind all of your philosophy. You don't seem capable of investigating any matter without forcing it down some path which ends with "...because God".

That’s just your opinion :)

The argument is simply that if system X is one which helps me achieve my goals it is justified that I maintain it. — Isaac

This is clearly false. If your goal is an unjustified one (a bad one), then system X as aiding in reaching this goal, is not justified. If your goal is to have so and so dead, using a gun to shoot that person in the head is not justified just because it helps you achieve your goal.

I'm talking about the having of goal, something which is common to every intentional creature. — Isaac

The problem is that a system is not used to achieve "goals" in any absolute, or general sense, any strategic system is geared toward a particular type of goal. To judge the system as to whether the use of that system is justified or not requires judgement of the good or badness of the particular goal which it is used toward achieving.

In order to be satisfied with that justification, one only need to also have goals and consider whether one would also maintain a system useful in helping to achieve them. It's about empathy. — Isaac

This again is false. We were not talking about judging whether the use of systems toward reaching goals is justifiable (in the most general sense), as you imply here, we were talking about justifying the use of a particular system. And to justify the use of a particular system requires judgement of the type of goal which it will be useful for bringing about.

You're conflation unrighteous (in a moral sense) with incorrect (a technical sense). Say a criminal mastermind sets up an elaborate trap to kill millions. He has used (to achieve his evil goal) the system of 3d spatio-temporal relativity. Is that system now wrong? Wat if he calculated how many guns he'd need using arithmetic, is arithmetic now wrong? — Isaac

You do realize this thread concerns ethical principles don't you? I do not know what you would mean by "incorrect" in a technical sense. But you now appear to have come across an important point. The same system may be used toward good goals, and toward bad goals.

In your example, it is the use of the system toward goal A instead of goal B, which is wrong. Perhaps we have been barking up the wrong tree, and you and I can move toward a compromise here. It is not the system which we justify, but the use of the system. Would you agree with this? A system is not the type of thing which we justify, but a particular way of using a system is what we justify. This allows that a "system" exists in a general sense, as an aid, or tool for assistance in achieving goals, but the system is not itself bad or good, because these are terms reserved for judging the goals. We might judge a system as more efficient than another, or something like that.

If we start referring to the efficiency as "good", while we also judge the goals as "good" we might equivocate.

Because you have to use a 'system' to judge the righteousness of the goal. Must you then justify that system? — Isaac

I think that if you start to understand the nature of particular goals, without referring to "goals" in general, you'll find that we do not apply a "system" for judging goals. This is why the nature of morality is so difficult to understand, and why there is so much variance in the ethical codes; systems produced by moral philosophy. Notice the system of ethics is derived from the moral judgement; a judgement which is based in some sort of intuition or something other than a system.

No, I know. I just thought I'd get it out there now. It's the subtext behind all of your philosophy. You don't seem capable of investigating any matter without forcing it down some path which ends with "...because God". — Isaac

I'm sorry, I'm just seeking the truth in these matters. If, where the inquiry leads offends you, then I apologize for the offence.

Have a little taste of Chinese ethics, guys.
https://aeon.co/ideas/how-mengzi-came-up-with-something-better-than-the-golden-rule?fbclid=IwAR3kI7V7ph5grR0i55lvj4AZPfxWd-Tsk5rzrmhadXufSWn9FE2ODWRI2Bw