Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2015, 07:49 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
(18-04-2015 08:49 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Without 20/20 hindsight, we have no way of knowing (from a universal rather than humanistic perspective) whether freedom or survival or any other agreed consensus (subject to continual refinement or otherwise) is a good thing or not.
Sure, we may never know that but the fact is we may take (and we have to!) a good guess. And if we are mistaken our later alien party to universal contract will certainly correct us. The important thing is we are part to the same contract and our opinion matters.

Why is the good guess freedom? Because violence does not require ethics at all. Ethics is basically a way to restrict violence.

Quote:It's quite possible that "war/violence/exploitation" might be the best means to achieve human annihilation which is the best outcome given that in 100,000 years from now one of our ancestors will be responsible for the destruction of a what should have been the superior life-form.
And who will decide that? Just other free beings I suppose. So why would their opinion weigh more than ours? If you think that we are just dust on the way to an unknown higher goal, then the only way to achieve any such "goal" is to forget about our freedom and to completely subject ourselves to determinism. But as long as we have the freedom to know and to act, we must select our own "higher goal".

Quote:Hence it's still subjective, even if it's collectively subjective.
Sure, you may call it that but you still have nothing better than consensus. I see consensus as the only possible way to objectivity. Do you know any better way?

Quote:Meanwhile, I forgot to reply to the bit before about 'truisms'. You said "Truisms cannot be used as an argument." I agree. But why would truisms be placed on a list of " types of violence"?
Because it is psychologically difficult to argue with what universally accepted as truth. The reference to truism (as a way of arguing) is a kind of pressure.

Quote:Equally, as unfogged mentioned some things on the list can be managed without declaring them as 'violent' e.g. brands.
Yes, of course, but anything that stands on our way to freedom may be called violence Smile Brands is a covert way of influencing people.

Quote:Also could you please clarify the parts regarding 'services'. I'm a qualified expert in Service Management and I regard services as essential to symbiosis i.e. consensus through binding agreements and contracts... a far cry from slavery / exploitation / corruption etc.
I have no problem with any services as long they are rendered in the strictly formal way, according to stringent rules. Any personal influence is informal and opens a door to corruption. "Mutual service" is usually informal because otherwise it may be separated into two independent agreements (contracts). In the context of Manifest "mutual service" is another way of saying "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
Quote:Because violence does not require ethics at all. Ethics is basically a way to restrict violence.

Wouldn't the use of violence to stop other, more horrendous acts of violence be more ethical?
This seems awfully subjective to me.
It certainly isn't absolutely objective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 08:06 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
(18-04-2015 04:51 PM)AFTT47 Wrote:  Your whole post sounds like a tautology. It's one I largely agree with and I'm sure most people would agree with it but you didn't make any argument that remotely justifies labeling it as objective.
Yes, but I think I substantiate my claim later in my replies.

Quote: To do that, you would have to show that the morality you laid out is beyond argument. That isn't possible.
It is not possible and it is not required. You said that "most people would agree with" Manifesto. Does it mean it is beyond argument? Smile

Quote:I think we can come up with a morality that is nearly universally agreeable and you have a good foundation for one but objective... I don't think that's possible. The goal is to craft a moral code that is as logical and universally applicable as we can make it. We must acknowledge its limitations though. Otherwise, it's religion.
Foundations of ethics cannot be logical (just like any basic knowledge by the way). Logic is a kind of determinism but we need ethics precisely because we have freedom. So the best ethics in my opinion is ethics the most intelligent people will find the most plausible and attractive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
(18-04-2015 08:04 PM)pablo Wrote:  
Quote:Because violence does not require ethics at all. Ethics is basically a way to restrict violence.

Wouldn't the use of violence to stop other, more horrendous acts of violence be more ethical?
This seems awfully subjective to me.
It certainly isn't absolutely objective.
–°ountering violence is related to "heroic morale" as I mentioned somewhere. Objective ethics does not cover all human activity (because objective ethics in practice is formal norms). Also, for instance, personal relations are covered by sacrificial morality (love, etc).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 08:24 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
(18-04-2015 08:15 PM)dimarch Wrote:  
(18-04-2015 08:04 PM)pablo Wrote:  Wouldn't the use of violence to stop other, more horrendous acts of violence be more ethical?
This seems awfully subjective to me.
It certainly isn't absolutely objective.
–°ountering violence is related to "heroic morale" as I mentioned somewhere. Objective ethics does not cover all human activity (because objective ethics in practice is formal norms). Also, for instance, personal relations are covered by sacrificial morality (love, etc).

Then your earlier statement is false?
Are you moving the goalposts on me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 08:58 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
(18-04-2015 07:49 PM)dimarch Wrote:  ...
Sure, you may call it that but you still have nothing better than consensus. I see consensus as the only possible way to objectivity. Do you know any better way?
...
Because it is psychologically difficult to argue with what universally accepted as truth. The reference to truism (as a way of arguing) is a kind of pressure.
...
"You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

That consensus is a means of reaching agreement is a truism.

I'll desist with my objection to 'objective' as I think we (you and I) won't reach consensus on that.... ironically.

Overall, the stumbling block is often how to reach this illusive global consensus.

Generations back, violence was a popular method in Europe. It still is in many countries. But more gentle forms of influence have become more acceptable including mutual back-scratching (reciprocity).

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be drawing a line between covert vs. overt influence.

I would agree that only using overt means is the desirable Utopian / Socratic end-state but how to influence other people (individuals and whole societies) to desire that end-state is something that, in my view, is subject to evolutionary forces.

Revolutionary attempts at cultural change during the last century had devastating effects. Resistance to these helped to avoid the 1984 scenario but we've ended up with a Brave New World.

Given 'where we are now', covert influence seems to be a tool that is a necessary evil.

[Image: huxley-vs-orwell.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
19-04-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
(18-04-2015 08:24 PM)pablo Wrote:  Then your earlier statement is false?
Could you please clarify what statement you have in mind?

(18-04-2015 08:58 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Overall, the stumbling block is often how to reach this illusive global consensus.
I think the prerequisite for the global consensus is to accept freedom as its foundation and to renounce violence in general. This could be a starting point.

Quote:Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be drawing a line between covert vs. overt influence.
I am not sure what you mean. I think I tried to put a label "violence" on both types of influence. I did not define "education" but if you consider education influence it is a stretch, in my opinion.

Quote:I would agree that only using overt means is the desirable Utopian / Socratic end-state but how to influence other people (individuals and whole societies) to desire that end-state is something that, in my view, is subject to evolutionary forces.
Education seems to be the only way. You cannot make people free by force and most people, I am sure, wish to be free.

Quote:Given 'where we are now', covert influence seems to be a tool that is a necessary evil.
It depends on your goal I guess. If you are talking about dealing with violent people then there is a lot of means. The specific choice is up to free people and their agreement (when they finally appear).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2015, 09:43 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
(17-04-2015 12:55 PM)dimarch Wrote:  Hi, is there anybody interested in the principles of objective (secular) ethics? I think this ethics is the only real alternative to theistic approach to the problem of good and evil. The principles are presented in the form of a manifesto for clarity.

Manifesto

This Manifesto proclaims the universal principles of objective ethics.

Purpose and meaning of the activities of man is to maximize common good.

Common good is freedom from any determinism, both natural and social. Common good is achieved by cooperation of all people. Everyone brings their own personal creative contribution to this common cause. Recognition of the contribution by others is the only objective source of its value.

Natural determinism is needs, threats and any limitations imposed by nature on man. This includes physical needs (favorable habitat conditions, including movement in space), biological (destruction of sources of fear, hunger, disease), psychological and cultural (satisfaction of curiosity, boredom, the need for variety, knowledge and beauty). Overcoming natural determinism requires changing the world.

Social determinism is any kind of violence, coercion, pressure and injustice, which may affect the creative result of a person. In the process of cooperation, people, by consensus, develop formal rules that allow them to overcome social determinism. Consensus is reached on the basis of openness, trust and honest account of the interests and opinions of all people, each of which is the same party in common contract. Those reasonable people who deliberately withdraws from the contract are considered by others as part of the natural environment (natural determinism).

Formal rules govern the activities of people in the public sphere of society, which includes the interaction between strangers. Morality of personal relationships is informal and out of place in the public sphere. Man draws a clear line between the spheres. He prohibits any conflicts of interest between personal and public. Personal sphere of everyone is completely closed to strangers.

Possible types of violence prohibited by objective ethics:

1. Physical, both individual and collective (including violence of power and majority), including indirect (threats, orders, creating dangers to life and health).

2. Economic and financial:
- Fraud, cheating, theft, misappropriation;
- Exploitation, vandalism;
- Use of market power, unfair competition;
- Inequitable distribution of shared resources;
- Manipulation of value of money, speculations, shifting risks to others.

3. Informational:
- Deception, distraction;
- Distortion, imposition, withholding information;
- Overflow by information, ignoring, silencing;
- Generation of confusing terms and meanings;
- Imprinting brands, slogans, symbols, names and faces.

4. Moral and ideological:
- Imposition of moral norms, traditions and customs;
- Instilling a sense of guilt, responsibility, worship;
- Calls for a universal brotherly love, for sacrifice in the name of "thy neighbor";
- Indoctrination, brainwashing, subjection.

5. Psychological:
- Blackmail, harassment, molestation, intimidation;
- Reference to authority, general opinion, truism.

6. Emotional: The deliberate evocation of feelings of pity, shame, desire, sympathy, hatred, resentment, disgust, etc.

7. Propagation of the morality of personal relationships to the public sphere:
- Corruption, collusion, bribery, kickbacks;
- Clanship, friendship, kinship and other personal relationships in public companies or institutions;
- Concealment, mutual service;
- Tips, handouts, rewards for "personal" service.

8. Group morality, the opposition of "friend or foe" and discrimination on this basis:
- Nationalism, racism, regionalism, patriotism;
- Ethnic and cultural bonds;
- Moral and religious superiority;
- Professional and class solidarity.

Man is not only guided by the described principles, but he also looks for ways of their widespread practical implementation through education and promotion of non-violence and universal equitable social contract.

(from "Cult of Freedom & Ethics of Public Sphere")

Your objective ethics has a fatal flaw. It ignores the individual in favor of the group. The common good is an aggregate of every persons individual good. An ethical system which holds the group as the standard of value will necessarily violate the individual's rights leading to destruction.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2015, 12:06 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
(20-04-2015 09:43 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Your objective ethics has a fatal flaw. It ignores the individual in favor of the group. The common good is an aggregate of every persons individual good. An ethical system which holds the group as the standard of value will necessarily violate the individual's rights leading to destruction.
Objective ethics is based on freedom and freedom is the universal good. Freedom is where the individual meets with the common because (common) freedom is possible only when everybody is free.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: Objective (secular) ethics: Manifesto
If you're interested, I'll tell you why I gave up on you.

If you're not interest, read no further.

You don't appear to be interested in dialogue; you seem to have settled upon a dogma.

That's kinda boring.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: