Ethics are only intuitivemotional thoughts (split from Should we lie to people for the greater good?)

[Tema]

Hi!

 

I didn't read the topic, it was really long. I wish to hit the problem, that ethic is not logically understood. Ethics are only intuitivemotional thoughts. Can this be true?

 

Like science can study that cell in brain correlates to certain thing. 

 

But being loving as the goal of life, is intuitivemotionalthought and can't be studied methological way.

 

I think arts are also like that. You can say that we have hermeneutical epochs, but cant logially study why tragedy is overally humane in painting.

 

Please, argue against.

 

I wish to know modern philosphy.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Tema said:

Please, argue against.

I wish I could; but you're equating ethic's with philosophy...

[Peterkin]

On 7/12/2021 at 7:47 AM, Tema said:

wish to hit the problem, that ethic is not logically understood. Ethics are only intuitivemotional thoughts. Can this be true?

It can be both. in fact, if it is not both, it's useless.

On 7/12/2021 at 7:47 AM, Tema said:

But being loving as the goal of life, is intuitivemotionalthought and can't be studied methological way.

Loving has nothing to do with ethics. What you need ethics for is to prescribe how you ought to treat the people you don't love, or particularly care about, and even more significantly, the people who get in your way, whom you can use, whom you fear. It's about what allows a society to survive, prosper and thrive - all quite reasonable aims. So the "study" of ethics is really concerned with how disparate human beings can coexist. The "ought" is added later, when the "how" is fitted to the philosophical principles on which a particular society is organized.

On 7/12/2021 at 7:47 AM, Tema said:

I think arts are also like that.

I think it isn't.

[Kittenpuncher]

On 7/30/2021 at 11:04 PM, Peterkin said:

It can be both. in fact, if it is not both, it's useless.

Loving has nothing to do with ethics. What you need ethics for is to prescribe how you ought to treat the people you don't love, or particularly care about, and even more significantly, the people who get in your way, whom you can use, whom you fear. It's about what allows a society to survive, prosper and thrive - all quite reasonable aims. So the "study" of ethics is really concerned with how disparate human beings can coexist. The "ought" is added later, when the "how" is fitted to the philosophical principles on which a particular society is organized.

I think it isn't.

Well ethics is more of a matter of what is right or wrong to do in certain lines of work at all

At least in the context it's supposed to have here

Like "is it morally right to subject a living thing to x in the name of science?" Which I guess they skipped when developing psychotropic medications 🐀🤕

I think what you're talking about is ethics in a different context than what we're supposed to talk about here, probably

 

On 7/12/2021 at 5:47 AM, Tema said:

Hi!

 

I didn't read the topic, it was really long. I wish to hit the problem, that ethic is not logically understood. Ethics are only intuitivemotional thoughts. Can this be true?

 

Like science can study that cell in brain correlates to certain thing. 

 

But being loving as the goal of life, is intuitivemotionalthought and can't be studied methological way.

 

I think arts are also like that. You can say that we have hermeneutical epochs, but cant logially study why tragedy is overally humane in painting.

 

Please, argue against.

 

I wish to know modern philosphy.

https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.bc0fdc6ed5144f4b3e7cdac9676fc661?rik=30OVtz03Uvt%2b0Q&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&PC=EMMX01

Chemicals and numbers don't really explain most of our behavior in the first place, does it? It's like love and compassion ARE actually truly valid instead of just superficial illusions created by chemicals. If love was truly unconditional, maybe it would be more like just some chemicals. But it's really not, so... Lmao

[Peterkin]

11 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Well ethics is more of a matter of what is right or wrong to do in certain lines of work at all

Ethics is about what is right or wrong in a social context: it's a guide for interactions among people. Whether it's in work, politics, sport, commercial transactions or demeanour in public places. 

11 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Like "is it morally right to subject a living thing to x in the name of science?"

Morals are another aspect of 'right' and 'wrong'. Morality is a set of convictions that people have regarding their personal relationship to the world and other living things. Morals may be imposed by an established authority, such as a religion or ideology, or they may be personal to an individual. The world-view of a group of people provides the moral tenets of a shared belief, which in turn becomes the foundation of their ethical precepts, which is the central pillar of their legal code.  

The question posed there is too vague to answer, but if the specifics were filled in, every society would have an answer according to their moral, ethical and legal rules. So could every individual. But you would get a wide range of answers.

11 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I think what you're talking about is ethics in a different context than what we're supposed to talk about here, probably

If we're 'supposed' to discuss whether ethics is an intuitive and/or emotional (No way do I accept that mashed-up word!) impulse, as distinguished from a rational answer to a rational problem, then I think I'm in the right place, on the right page, and have the right answer, even if it's not the most simplistic one.

 

11 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Chemicals and numbers don't really explain most of our behavior in the first place, does it?

    I don't know. Chemical and mathematical formulae can penetrate pretty deep into physical processes, and I have no proof that humans behaviour is something other than physical processes. I believe it's more, but I don't know that.

But what have love, compassion, art or tragedy  to do with ethics?

Edited April 12, 2022 by Peterkin

[Kittenpuncher]

I think he meant to imply that all of that stemmed from chemicals and stuff in our brains, and that they are superficial things in reality