Philosophy itself

Post Reply New Topic

The anthropocentric viewpoint is essentially utilitarian and science is not necessarily utilitarian. Cocteau's view that what is good for one is good for all is obvious nonsense as good and evil are characterizations of events in view of an end to be obtained and an end that is beneficial to an individual may or may not be beneficial to others. Science is essentially a study of patterns that can be detected in the universe and these detected patterns, naturally, are dependent upon our apparatus whether it be our sense or extensions of our senses. To that degree, they are anthropocentric but no further. Mathematics and philosophy differ only in the language they use and do not depend upon detected patterns but math is much freer from the artificial human linguistic patterns imposed on information and therefore more useful in characterization of patterns detected in the universe. Theology is mostly BS derived from cultural utility.

Utilitarian? Based upon Utilitarian ethical philosophy? I don't see what you are stating there. I mean, if you state we take it for our utility then I might agree, but we accept science for its utility as well, in fact, if we express choice as economic calculation then all actions are merely expressions of utility maximization, so stating that one side is anthropological and that the other isn't is merely an expression of preference rather than a denigration of anything as you seem to take it as.

You mean Sartre's view. Obvious nonsense though? No, an affirmation that choosing is by its nature a moral choice and that morality is by its nature is absolute. All morality is in view of an "end" as one can make anything in view of an "end" if one does not define "end" to be against the deontological position. Really though, to call all moral choices to be consequentialist seems an oversimplification. Really, if you consider this to be obvious nonsense then I doubt you have really thought much on these matters.

You have really not made a case for anything but merely iterated what I already knew about science and had sidestepped by saying that life was anthropocentric and that value was subjective and connected to life. In fact, I think you merely restated your last post, which I had already read.

Morality is a social value and what an individual chooses is a personal choice. How that choice affects social events determines its morality. Morality outside of social structure is non-existent. The detected patterns supplied by science are not at all anthropomorphic except in their capability of being sensed by human means.
By utilitarian I mean useful to acquire an end. Morality is always utilitarian. Science may be found useful eventually or not. Science is not ideally driven by utilitarian motives although economic factors may, in specific enterprises, provide an economic base for scientific exploration.

Morality is not a social value though, you can argue that it is a social construct, but that is something that is different. How would morality outside of a social structure be non-existent. If a man is on an island and he chooses to avoid eating meat for the sake of his religion, then how would we describe his moral behavior? It is still the same action.

Everything that human beings do is utilitarian then, except for morality as morals define the ends. My construction of morality is different than yours and closer to Sartre's. Individuals have morality. This is why a lone individual will not (necessarily) be afraid to call things good or evil, at least in their own mind. Amorality is in itself a contradiction in terms because I agree completely with Sartre, we never choose evil. This means that morality is inescapable, it is the foundation of human action, and yet it is not something we can directly assess. Our actions and thoughts create what we know as the universal moral framework even though this universal moral framework may have no truth to it. Even though many people try to remove morality, they cannot. Now, I have argued your construction as well, to argue a "scientific" understanding of what can be called moral and immoral to show that scientifically the term is meaningless, but to me, morality isn't scientific but rather existential and yet also absolute but not relative(one is our knowledge the other the truth) and a choice everyone is forced to make.

The morality of a lone individual unconnected to society is a most peculiar proposition and, frankly, not particularly relevant to the reality of normal existence. What he or she does is of no consequence to mankind that devises morality as a social constriction. The individual so isolated may act in relationship to the consequence of actions to his or her ultimate survival or the relationship of the actions to the ecology and its maintenance but it cannot be other than utilitarian, even if the utility is merely aesthetic. If other life is considered then, even if the other life is non-human, that life then constitutes a form of society.
To elaborate on Sartre a bit more, to say we never choose an evil is to define evil and good in terms of the individual doing the choosing. If a terrorist rapes a housewife and dashes out the brains of her child I assume Sartre would accept that as a good in terms of the satisfaction of the terrorist but the viewpoint of the terrorist is not that of society in general so good and evil changes with the viewpoint and cannot be generalized.

Actually it is very relevant to normal existence. Even though we aren't alone, we are individual actors and we often do take actions that are "moral" for our purposes. Individuals are in charge of their own actions. What this person does is not of consequence for morality, but it is of consequence for understanding the human relation to morality, just as economists have used the "Robinson Cruesoe man" for understanding economic action. The notion of morality as egoism still does not get rid of the problem or conflict of dealing with differing desires in a world where morality is cast down into nothing.

I cannot understand your definition of morality as it seems to have absolutely no relevance to social standards which, to me, is the basis of morality. Morality has to, according to my understanding, have relevance to some system of standards. If the standards are not social, what are they? Even such abstractions such as religions have a system of standards that are inherently social.

Social standards? But there is more to moral behavior then just social standards, there are individual actions in situations where there will not be reward or punishment for the good or bad within the system. These can include proper respect paid towards certain extra-societal entities(often can be deities), proper relations between an individual and money or other possessions, and at a more fundamental level, the proper ends for which one strives. The standards and laws are for individuals. There is a strong social component and this could be due to morality not being derived from anything above human society, or because social activity is central to individual behavior, but still, the only individuals can act and if I hold with the Sartre, this means that individuals are the ones who hold morality. I am very willing to say that society is an unparsimonious concept that should be eliminated from analysis for us to look at various forms of individuals and their relationship to various forms of individuals and recognize that some behavior exist within group relations but that the actors still are individuals.

You refer to money, to other individuals, to property as if they exist outside of a social context. They simply do not. Of course people act as individuals but they do so in a social context. Respect, whether it is of one's self or from others is social as people view themselves as others see them. If you devise mythical beings that oversee standards, that too is a social relationship even if the beings are totally imaginary. You cannot divest morality from a social context.

I speak of them from the position that they are issues of individual calculation rather than purely social behavior and the studies of money and property are done from a position of individual calculation by the economics, a field specializing in money and property. Your framework claims that everything is in a social context, which is true, but I really don't care about the social framework so much as the individual within the social framework. As I stated before, only individuals make decisions and morality is based upon decisions and thus a study of morality must center on the study of individuals, especially if this study on morality is going to relate to an individual's relationship with morality. Sand, your social context is tautologically true, but analytically useless to me and I think as a methodology it is simply less useful period. If we were dealing with homogeneous beings then yes, social context is brilliant and perfect, but we deal with heterogeneous beings with various capabilities for change and adaptation and who adapt and change in interaction to each other. Social context then seems like a meaningless analysis based upon clumsy averaging without regard for the total concept. Moral behavior is practiced by individual beings and analyzing the atom known as this individual seems a wise approach then to find the distinctions.

You know, I really don't think this is going to get anywhere. I already understand your view as I have argued that view in the past, but you seem too stubborn in your ideas to really attempt to get my view so I think I am going to drop this debate simply out of its uselessness.

I find it incredible that you keep denying the social pressures on individual decisions. Individuals make their individual decisions directly under the influence of social pressures. There are, of course, other pressures such as hunger, sexual desire, pain, etc. which are not social but nobody ever makes a decision without calculating the social consequences of the acts unless their emotional condition is so extreme as to verge on temporary insanity or, perhaps, if they are psychotic. But normally all individual decisions are made with social consequences heavily incorporated in the calculations.

HA HA HA HA!! You really have no clue about my position but rather have some ridiculous strawman hanging in your head, don't you? Social pressures are not direct, but rather they are accepted by individuals. The entire notion of social does not exist without individuals who accept this sociality; have you never thought about being a hermit? I already know that social situations affect individuals, legal institutions do too, but individuals are the decision makers. Individuals choose the social consequences, whether they care or not, what precautions they take against harm, etc. It is still an individual's calculation and it is still an individual's life and ideology. Philosophy is also an individual pressure though and it relates a lot to morality as well. Existential despair exists and is a powerful force that can affect individuals. Now, this is likely my last comment just because I need to correct your failure to understand.

You seem to persist in the concept that decisions are totally free of the elements that are weighed in each choice. Social relationships are crucial element in the act of choosing. Individuals never make choices without weighing the elements and consequences of those choices. Total individual freedom in choices is a myth. Even psychotic individuals weigh elements in their choices although some of the elements may be totally imaginary.

Knowledge of reality gives us more abillity to control the enviroment we exist in, making us more able to fulfill objective human needs like food, shelter, and physical safety. Once these objective human needs are met people are far more free to concentrate on the subjective side of life such as happiness, meaning, and self-actualization.

Need isn't objective. Need only exists with the notion of a goal. If I have no goals then I have no needs. To state otherwise is to impose goals and thus subjectively posit an objective, which makes no logical sense in the terms you put it.

Everyone has basic biological needs for things like food, shelter, and physical safety, conscious goals are not necessary for these needs to exist, they are instinctive.