Originally posted by StarrmanIt's not a redefinition at all, it's just the old definition.
The trouble is that these redefinitions aren't agreed by anyone outside of your circle and you then use these redefinitions to argue against the general terms as accepted by the rest of us. That's just a form of equivocation.
Originally posted by PalynkaAll right, I'll add 'unethical' to my list of meaningless words and promote Mengele to the top of the ethics podium, with the Marquis de Sade and St Francis of Assisi at his sides.
Mengele followed a particular set of ethics, so to judge him 'unethical' requires the assumption that a particular set of ethics is true.
Originally posted by PalynkaBut you contradicted yourself with the corollary. You said above that breathing may not be ethical in some cases. Also it is perfectly possible (and not uncommon) for a set of beliefs to claim that avoidance of unethical behavior is impossible. In fact I believe that Christian ethics normally make this claim.
In that sense, no human action is without ethics. Not even breathing. Take an extreme example. If you follow a set of ethics that requires you to sacrifice your life at a point in time then breathing after that point is unethical. The corollary is that you need to be allowed breathing under any set of beliefs.
Sitenote: These sets need not be static.
Also ethics are in degrees. I personally would even consider it slightly unethical for you to allow suffering of any kind to a fellow human being that it is within your power to prevent. However, I realize that it would be unreasonable (unethical?) for me to genuinely expect you to sacrifice all you can to help others.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe word 'unethical' is meaningless if not combined with a given set of ethics. The implication in your post (via sarcasm) is that your current 'ethics podium' is based on your own set of ethics. If so, then you can rightly declare Mengele unethical by your standards and rightly deny him a place on your podium.
All right, I'll add 'unethical' to my list of meaningless words and promote Mengele to the top of the ethics podium, with the Marquis de Sade and St Francis of Assisi at his sides.
As for my podium, St Francis of Assisi would not make it either.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageA return to an out-dated and arcane set of definitions from current ones is just as useless in avoiding fallacious arguments. My point is that such methods lead only to confusion and, as the pope puts it, mystery... oooaaahhh and a nanana nanana.
It's not a redefinition at all, it's just the old definition.
Originally posted by StarrmanIt's not an arcane definition at all...It simply predates the separation of 'science' in the modern sense and philosophy. White coats to the left, beardy faces to the right. And stop being such a know-it-all, you're about as entertaining as twhitehead.
A return to an out-dated and arcane set of definitions from current ones is just as useless in avoiding fallacious arguments. My point is that such methods lead only to confusion and, as the pope puts it, mystery... oooaaahhh and a nanana nanana.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy ethics podium is reserved for people who are 'ethical' to an extreme. The only criterion is extremity. Genghis Khan has a place, too, as does Calvin (but not Hobbes). A long list, true -- I'll limit my choice to the more picturesque cases.
The word 'unethical' is meaningless if not combined with a given set of ethics. The implication in your post (via sarcasm) is that your current 'ethics podium' is based on your own set of ethics. If so, then you can rightly declare Mengele unethical by your standards and rightly deny him a place on your podium.
As for my podium, St Francis of Assisi would not make it either.
What have you got against St Francis?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAhh! Now I understand what you mean. But do you mean that Genghis Khan was following what he thought was ethical? And how do you measure how 'ethical' someone is in the first place? Surely someone who quietly follows his own system of ethics might stay under your radar?
My ethics podium is reserved for people who are 'ethical' to an extreme. The only criterion is extremity. Genghis Khan has a place, too, as does Calvin (but not Hobbes). A long list, true -- I'll limit my choice to the more picturesque cases.
What have you got against St Francis?
I actually don't know much about him, so I guess he just wouldn't make it for that reason.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat separation is probably the most important stage in tying to sort the mess of existence out. I'm not being a know-it-all I'm just against equating ignorance with the 'mystery of the unknowable' (agnorance perhaps).
It's not an arcane definition at all...It simply predates the separation of 'science' in the modern sense and philosophy. White coats to the left, beardy faces to the right. And stop being such a know-it-all, you're about as entertaining as twhitehead.
Originally posted by StarrmanHow has modern science helped in sorting the mess of existence out? It's just added to it, as far as mess is concerned.
That separation is probably the most important stage in tying to sort the mess of existence out. I'm not being a know-it-all I'm just against equating ignorance with the 'mystery of the unknowable' (agnorance perhaps).
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy is it a contradiction? The choice to breath or not to is not ethically invariant. It may be unethical or ethical depending of the particular contrasting set of ethical beliefs.
But you contradicted yourself with the corollary. You said above that breathing may not be ethical in some cases. Also it is perfectly possible (and not uncommon) for a set of beliefs to claim that avoidance of unethical behavior is impossible. In fact I believe that Christian ethics normally make this claim.
Also ethics are in degrees. I personally wo ...[text shortened]... nreasonable (unethical?) for me to genuinely expect you to sacrifice all you can to help others.
Also it is perfectly possible (and not uncommon) for a set of beliefs to claim that avoidance of unethical behavior is impossible.
Sure. But again, note that I claim that to brand something unethical you need to contrast it to a particular set of ethics.
Also ethics are in degrees. I personally would even consider it slightly unethical for you to allow suffering of any kind to a fellow human being that it is within your power to prevent. However, I realize that it would be unreasonable (unethical?) for me to genuinely expect you to sacrifice all you can to help others.
I fully agree. But note (again) that you're contrasting these actions to your own yardstick that comes from you particular ethical beliefs.
PS: I'm not sure if I understood your post... I can't tell if you're complementing or attacking it.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage(to add to the confusion)
All right, I'll add 'unethical' to my list of meaningless words and promote Mengele to the top of the ethics podium, with the Marquis de Sade and St Francis of Assisi at his sides.
I think you can still claim Mengele's actions were unethical to you, just not a-ethical.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou believe we know less about existence now than say even 200 years ago? Really?
How has modern science helped in sorting the mess of existence out? It's just added to it, as far as mess is concerned.
Science may have created a lot of unanswered questions, but these were previously just hidden under the blanket of ignorance and that may be a single thing, but it's a whole lot further away from clarity or answers. I'd rather have 1000 questions and tools to begin answering them, than 1 question and no tools.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanWe know more about the state of existence, but we still know nothing more of how existence itself came to be.
You believe we know less about existence now than say even 200 years ago? Really?
Science may have created a lot of unanswered questions, but these were previously just hidden under the blanket of ignorance and that may be a single thing, but it's a whole lot further away from clarity or answers. I'd rather have 1000 questions and tools to begin answering them, than 1 question and no tools.
Still, one could argue that "we" know more, because more people know that they don't know, as opposed to just making up a reason/creator.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIsn't knowing more about the state of existence the essence of knowing more about how existence itself came to be? The former a necessary and sufficient condition of the latter?
We know more about the state of existence, but we still know nothing more of how existence itself came to be.
Still, one could argue that "we" know more, because more people know that they don't know, as opposed to just making up a reason/creator.