You are egoist!

[Ahuaeynjxs]

The ego sorts what consciousness grasps... it's that simple, no need for lenghty books and metaphors ; the ego is polarised because thats what it's supposed to do, it's not supposed to take the place of the spirit and speak on its own.

:lol:

 

[Pariah]

"In my opinion believing hasn't much to do with thinking"

Thats fair enough, there are definitely differences, the idea I was trying to comunicate though, was that of a conclusion:

"I think there is a god"

"I believe there is a god"

"I conclude there is a god"

Each of those sentences has a slightly different meaning, but the third feeds into the first two linking them - thinking and believing are in some way a conclusion: belief suggests a reliance on feelings, but is still a conclusion, thinking is a conclusion which isn't totally confident, but suggests a more formal approach.

***

"It can be wrong"

Your absolutely right, but the meaning of unfalsifiable is the inability to *disprove*, to any extent, its truth value. the sneaky nature of the ideology is that when examined briefly, it seems perfectly logical.

This was discussed in another thread with maxfreakout (what is truth), but I'll outline what I mean here.

Take the statement in question as an example:

***
"Everything you choose to do, you choose it because you conciously or unconciously believe it will maximise your pleasure"
***

Ok, on a first run through what the sentence says, it looks good - it seems to be making a claim about reality: we can prove humans will usually claim that they want to be happy, and the sentence is saying something similar.

When we try to test this idea, is where the ideology (disguised as a theory)often wins a person over:

Forgetting the implications for the moment, the key words that are raised in the sentence are: "everything" "conciously" "unconciously."

Lets take a girl called jill and a guy called bob:

Jill hears the sentence and compairs it to her own experience: in her experience she has done done everything she can think of through her life to maximise her pleasure - the sentence is proven right!

Bob hears the sentence and applies it to his own experience: in his experience he once dived into a busy road to save a child from being run over, so it appears to be wrong, but he then takes notice of the word "unconciously" and he asks himself "did I do it unconciously to gain respect and admiration, and that warm fuzzy feeling he was sure to get from helping someone in need?" he doesn't know, but it's still a possibility, so the sentence hasn't been proven wrong.

Bob and Jill may now pay close attention to there behaviour - confirming more and more occurances that show psychological hedonism holds true, some where it is ambigous because of the possibility of unconcious hedonism - eventually they will be likely be convinced of the truth of the sentence, because there is no evidence against it!

This would seem like a done deal if left there, and unfortunately most people do - either laziness, or lack of education, whatever; but a further analysis of the structure reveals the invalid nature of the claim:

The addition of "unconciously" is a self sealing element - it provides the ideology with an ambigous area which covers all eventualities: whenever the ideology comes up false, the self sealing element provides a reason (excuse) for the result, which will never discredit the claim - it is unfalsifiable.

Why is falsifiability important?

It comes down to the method we use to try to understand the world: by testing a theory, we can figure out whether something is true or not:

An example:

assuming all else is equal (same test conditions)
"If I let go of this ball, it will fall."
"I let go of the ball, it floated in mid air."

I conclude that letting go of this ball, the ball will float.

The test was retried multiple times, and every time, the ball floated: we can safely say that this ball floats in mid air when let go of.

More tests would then be used to determine why:

"The properties of the ball make it float"
"I investigated the properties of the ball, and it was filled with helium...

Etc. you get the idea.

The alternative route to take is to create an ideology:

The ball floated because of the invisible giant intergalactic space slug, which comes to earth specifically to ruin scientific experiments using his tractor beam to defy the laws of physics, his Hi-tech cloaking shield to avoid detection... and to mess with our heads in the process.


***

The cynicism of Kant is likly just the nature of what he's doing - he's putting in specific quality control - trying to prevent misunderstanding, and potential abuse.

"Saving someone who is drowning simply out of a great pity for them is not a morally good act."

This kind of stuff did make me scratch my head when I first read it, but there is a good reason for it, it may be apparent with the general claim of Kantian system:

"What is moral is to perform ones duties in the right way *for the right reason*"

I'll not go into it in depth like I did with ethical egoism unless you want me to, I think I've written enough for one night.

One other thing I forgot: following on from kantian formal ethics is virtue ethics, which clears up some of the small problems which can arise.

 

[Jahvisions]

I actually posted it because of the last paragraph. Maybe we don't always act like it. But our instincts say we want to survive and reproduce. Every species is build to maintain it's own species.

 

[misfit]

Indeed it's creftiness theory. Uncounsciously stands in a place that's nor right or wrong. It can be interpreted in both ways.

Though, I think our uncounsciousness does not work to that extent. Uncounsciousness, for me, is like the heart beat, breathing (most of the time), our chimical balances (body/matter), our nails growing, our hair growing, etc.....

Our mind is either awake, or sleeping. Not uncouscious. Either we make a decision, and be aware of it or we make it in a sleeping state, without asking the reasons of any decision. And just responding to the 'randomness' of life.

*
But I understand why it's a little unfalsifiable:

"The addition of "unconciously" is a self sealing element - it provides the ideology with an ambigous area which covers all eventualities: whenever the ideology comes up false, the self sealing element provides a reason (excuse) for the result, which will never discredit the claim - it is unfalsifiable."
*


"What is moral is to perform ones duties in the right way *for the right reason*"

I see. But what does the dutie itself and the consequent effect has to do with the moral in such situation. What is important is to perform ones duties in the right way. The reasons or the moral don't matter that much for who receives help, or support or whatever... aslong as, in long term the helper is not a hipocrite.

I sincerely dislike Kant idea. But I may be narrowminded. So please, if you care to give me some light on this, I would be grateful.

 

[Pariah]

As far as I'm aware, there is plenty of scientifically rigorous evidence for some level of unconcious: limits to awareness, while still collecting the information (non-concious might be a betterr word to use).

How many times have you driven / walked / cycled a route you always take, and been completely on another planet - that would seem like your unconcious is taking over certain responsibilities. you're no longer "conciously" aware of your actions - just running on "autopilot."

Balance, heart rate, breathing are other, more physiological unconcious processes, which are somewhat seperate from what I was talking about - I think they are controlled further down, closer to the "primitive" base of the brain.

***

Alright, Kantian formal ethics is more complex than other ethical theories, but differs in that it doesn't allow "little slip ups" like allowing genocide to be moral (!!) unlike other theories I've come across (utilitarianism and ethical egoism for example).

I'll try and write the entire theory out like I did ethical egoism, then discuss it... although, I'll need to take it from my notes, because I don't have it memorised...



Kantian Formal Ethics: what is moral is to perform ones duties in the the right way and for the right reason.

Good will: The one unqualified good, meaning it always makes a situation better, it is the desire to do the right thing.

To act morally one must do the right thing only because it is the right thing to do, without regard for practical outcomes.

Duty: A duty is a moral obligation to perform an act or refrain from an act.

Maxim: A maxim is a rule used to determine a moral duty.

Categorical Imperative: A rule of reason used to determine the validity of maxims.

*First Articulation of the Categorical Imperative:
"Act only on a maxim, such that you wish it was a universal law."

- The maxim must be universalisable - everybody could always obey the maxim.

-The maxim must be reversable - you wish everybody always did obey that maxim.

Second Articulation of the Categorical Imperative:
"Always treat others as ends in themselves, never as a mere means."


Perfect Duty: A duty one must always perform.

Inperfect Duty: A duty one must act upon if you have the greatest ability or capacity to perform that action.

It is moral to perform your duties with good will, because they are your duties.


To apply Kantian Formal Ethics:

1) Formulate a potential maxim without exceptions, and test them by the articulations of the categorical imperatives.

2) Determine what duties come from the maxim.

3) Determine which are perfect, and which are imperfect duties.

4) Determine what your duty is in the situation.

5) If it is a perfect duty, perform the action, if it is imperfect, determine who has the greatest ability and capacity to perform it, and convince them to act.



Example:

A person is in trouble in the sea off of the beach you are sunbathing on. There is a life guard, you and 2 of your friends on the beach, as well as a few other people in the water.

You decide it is always right to try to help people in distress - this maxim stands up to the articulations - everyone could obey it, and you wish everyone did; it is also treating the people involved as ends in themselves.

You decide that people have a duty to save drowning people.

the duty is imperfect, because some people are better suited to it than others.

You decide you have a duty to find the person with the most ability and capacity to save the person drowning, and convince them to act - you are a strong swimmer, and one of your friends is a moderate swimmer, the other friend cannot swim.

You get the life guard on duty to try to save the person, and he swims off to save them. when he gets back, he is now utterly exhaused, and needs to perform CPR on the person.

You spot another person in distress in the water, and use the same maxim and duty - this time the life guard is not the most capable of saving the person because he's exhausted and busy. out of you, and your friends, you are the most capable, so you dive in and drag out the person.

***

From the above you should see the way that it relates to what you said about pity:

"saving someone who is drowning simply out of a great pity for them is not a morally good act" (under kants system)

So, the above quote says that someone should not be saved *just* because you pity them, it isn't saying that saving someone isn't a good thing *if* you pity them - another way of putting it is that it shouldn't matter how you feel about a person drowning - you have a duty to save them if you are able and the most capable. Pity isn't sufficient (or necessary) for moral action.


"But what does the dutie itself and the consequent effect has to do with the moral in such situation"

Good will (mentioned at the begining of the theory), it gives a basis for duties - desiring to do the right thing, you would work through a kantian system to minimise your ability to make a mistakes about what is right and wrong - much better than pity as a motivation in my opinion - what if you don't pity them?


***

Problems with kantian formal ethics:
There are seeming contradictions in the system in some situations:

Sometimes you may need to lie to protect someone - the good example is a jew hiding from the nazi - you are hiding a jew, and a nazi knocks on the door and asks you if your hiding a jew - you have a perfect duty to not lie, and an impefect duty to stop the jew from getting captured.

Investigating prima facie duties solves this to some extent.

There may also be a problem because it asks the wrong question - kant asks "what is a moral action - "what is the right thing to do" but another question would be - "what is a moral person?" or "what is the right thing to be."

This is where virtue ethics comes in. the idea of virtue on its own has no application, but when twinned with a duty based system (eg. kantian), can be used as a guide for the practical system.


***

"What's your opinion on Utilitarianism?"

Sorry, I didn't notice you asked this question before.

I've already mentioned it briefly - utilitarianism (what is moral is what creates the most happiness for the most people), allows the use of scapegoats, slaves and genocide assuming it creates happiness for the majority.
the example in history would be nazi germany - the encouragement of nationalism gave people purpose - a work ethic and an enemy to work against, a feeling of being part of something important.

*The first articulation of the categorical imperative can be misunderstood to allow genocide:

"Act only on a maxim, such that you wish it was a universal law."

If I remember correctly, nazi doctrine says that because culture is the measure of humanity, and culture is directly related to how fertile a peoples soil is, people without soil have no culture, and are not, in that sense, human: they are poisoning the human race with their lack of culture.

A nazi would create the maxim: "it is always right to eradicate the people without soil" - the nazi would wish it to be a universal law, and it would be argued that those without soil aren't cultured / human enough by there nature to understand why they should be destroyed, so it is reversible, because if the nazi was a jew, he wouldn't be capable knowing the "truth."

...Which is why the second imperative is used to clarify the situation.


***


Hope what I've written clears things up.

What are your thoughts on it now?

What about utilitarianism - do you see where it falls down?

 

[misfit]

Indeed, non-conscious is a far better word to use in this context. Because that’s our state(for most of us). We aren’t conscious of ourselves. If we were we wouldn’t do many of the things we do, and say many of things we say. And those are perfect examples of the level at our consciousness is standing. We’re authentic zombies.

I think our physical balance is more related to our instincts. (that’s why I called it unconscious behavior )

--

First of all thank you for your time clarifying Kantian ethics.

Very interesting. That idea has some things in common with reciprocity. At least on the way of thinking:
"Act only on a maxim, such that you wish it was a universal law.
- The maxim must be universalisable - everybody could always obey the maxim.
-The maxim must be reversible - you wish everybody always did obey that maxim.
Always treat others as ends in themselves, never as a mere means.