| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 00:42 |
 |
| |
Why be Ethical
I have an ongoing discusion in another blog and I thought I'd share it with you here.
The thrust of all my arguments are based on the teaching of my two Rebbes Veto and Yehosef from the Hebrew Atzor.
The mistakes are my own.
He calls himself Orthoprax and I call myself Shternzeyer.
Ortho asked Why be Ethical.
I responded as follows
All ethics boils down to "doing unto others what you would have done to yourself" no?
When asking Why you are surely asking whats the logic, rationale, for X.
Let me then throw the ball in your court and ask you, What's the logic in diffrentiating between yourself and someone else?
You'll agree that when being an impartial arbiter between two parties you will claim that there is no logic to favour one over the other. So pray tell me how this changes when you yourself are one the litigants.
Some people counter the above by asking; Why be logical? Well to me that is somewhat a contradictory question. Remember "why" means 'what is the logic', so the question is something like; what's the logic in being logical. Which is an absurd question, for if by doing X you are being logical it is tautologically true that it's logical to do X and there's no room for asking what's the logic in being logical.
Somtimes I think of a person who only helps people who live on his block as having the same mentality as those posing the question of 'why be ethical. He too can ask "why should I help people who don't live on my block"? My answer (your answer too, I suspect) would be that there is no logic in diffrentiating between your block and the neighboring one. So now this 'block lover' would tell me that 'this is what I want period, do you have anything against that'? I would say, look, all I want is for you to admit that you are not being logical and that you are not entitled to ask the question of what's logical in block ethics. [doing unto other blocks as to your own.]
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 17/09/2005 0:48:06
 |
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 00:45 |
|
| |
"To which he responded
"All ethics boils down to "doing unto others what you would have done to yourself" no?"
Maybe, but only if you first accept the value of other people. If you don't care about other people, then following that ethic would only be useful as far as it serves you
.
"Let me then throw the ball in your court and ask you, What's the logic in diffrentiating between yourself and someone else?"
You are you and actually experience what happens to you. Other people don't. It would make sense, all things being equal, to care about yourself before others.
"You'll agree that when being an impartial arbiter between two parties you will claim that there is no logic to favour one over the other. So pray tell me how this changes when you yourself are one the litigants."
Because you're selfish and don't care about fairness. Why should you be fair
?
"My answer (your answer too, I suspect) would be that there is no logic in diffrentiating between your block and the neighboring one."
Except that you live on your block and the better is the place where you live the better you will be. If you don't care about fairness and are just looking out for yourself then why be fair
?
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 17/09/2005 1:03:02
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 00:51 |
|
| |
Shternzeyer Responds;
My point about 'all ethics…'' was trying to define the concept of ethics in a nutshell. It wasn't about proving it, yet, so we're in agreement there?
''You are you and actually experience what happens to you. Other people don't. It would make sense, all things being equal, to care about yourself before others''
I Disagree with this. You can very well experience other peoples pain and joy, it's just a matter of focus (try a good work of fiction even and you'll cry at characters pain etc.). Would you agree that if for some strange reason I zero in my focus on someone else's pain and I simply don't focus on my pain then I will automatically try to alleviate that persons pain without thinking about myself. so my argument again is, how is it logical to focus on one part of the picture namely yourself, over and above the other parts of the picture that you are confronted with. Can you please try to answer this question
?
''but I don't think you've dealt with morality on the fundamental level I am here.''
A bit premature on your part taking into account my telling you that ''there is much more to it''. Still in all let me tell it to you on a more fundamental level (I'll try at least)
The essence of Man is Consciousness
Consciousness means awareness
Awareness is about identifying and defining Existence (regardless if existence is real or just in my head)
Action is a manifestation of my consciousness (imagine my mind having one and only one awareness, an awareness of my hand opening the door, in a case like this my hand will automatically do just that, after all I don't know of any other option, right.)
I have no choice but to act out whatever I am dominantly conscious about due to the above statement.
When thinking about a negation, say, a broken chair, you have already thought about the positive aspect i.e. the Chair in its fullness.
Which according to # above requires you to already act out on it.
So all potentialities you think about will require you to act out on them. (That is why we act out to do all positive/potential on ourselves)
We happen to think about ourselves a lot simply because we are just confronted with our being quite a lot. (whatever comes up in your radar screen just grabs your attention and focus) so we end up thinking a lot about our own potentialities.
When we are confronted with two different awareness where each of them would manifest themselves in different actions we have angst and even if we choose to focus on one over the other we still see the other as ''begging for the action associated with that specific awareness'' and that is basically what's happening when we focus on ourselves versus others.
Although there is no ''authority telling us'' where to shift our focus it still is the case that things which inherently ask for my focus will keep on begging the above (think of a big painting with a very dominant main picture and also having a small little detail which for some reason I bumped into that detail first, the main picture will constantly ask for and grab my attention and only when I will leave off this little detail will I have peace.
Oy vey is mir I probably am not explaining my self at all, this all could seem like a total mumbo jumbo but that's always the problem, if I explain it in simple terms I get the ''you're not deep enough for me'' thing and if I go in depth then I get the ''I don't think you know what your talking about''
.
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 17/09/2005 1:05:55
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 17/09/2005 1:08:25
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 00:54 |
|
| |
Shtern continues his response;
"You'll agree that when being an impartial arbiter between two parties you will claim that there is no logic to favour one over the other. So pray tell me how this changes when you yourself are one the litigants."
Because you're selfish and don't care about fairness. Why should you be fair?
Problem with your answer is that you're not answering the question. I asked you if it's logical to favor one over the other, simple logic that's all, you're replacing 'logic' with 'fair' and asking why be fair/logical. I have tried to take care of that by explaining that a ''why'' question ultimately means 'what's the logic' which in this case makes the question kind of absurd, what's the logic in logic. It's absurd because if this action is logical then that's what it is.
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 17/09/2005 1:09:49
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 01:00 |
|
| |
Ortho responds
"You can very well experience other peoples pain and joy, it's just a matter of focus (try a good work of fiction even and you'll cry at characters pain etc.)."
Yeah, ok, empathy. But there's still obvious differences
.
"so my argument again is, how is it logical to focus on one part of the picture namely yourself, over and above the other parts of the picture that you are confronted with. Can you please try to answer this question?"
How is it not? What is your logical basis for treating all equally? You have an inherent self-interest over the interests of others.
"...if I go in depth then I get the ''I don't think you know what your talking about''."
Yeah, that, I'm afraid, is what's going on here too What I'm getting is something about seeing all humanity as essentially the same and that it is illogical to set one's actions based on just one point of the whole. What I'm not getting is why one should give up their obviously self-centered identity for the sake of equivalency. Things are not all the same from the view of the honored position of the self
.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 01:14 |
|
| |
Shtern Responds;
Yeah, ok, empathy. But there's still obvious
differences.
It's obviously not so obvious, at least to the extent of making my point, namely that the only reason I don't experience other peoples pain or pleasure is because I'm not focusing on them.
Don't you know many cases where a mother would rather bear the pain herself than her child? It's all about focus she's much more aware of the childs pain than her own.
''How is it not? What is your logical basis for treating all equally? You have an inherent self-interest over the interests of others.''
Think for a minute about two people who are completely the same in every way, can you logically find a reason to treat one differently than the other? Impossible, for any reason you might come up with for the one is also there for the other, as we are talking of two people the same in every way imaginable. Now think of one these people being yourself will the above statement lose it's veracity? No!
But I want to treat one differently than the other period, you say, reason or not, ah, I'm ok with that for now but at least you admit that you are being unreasonable, for aren't you saying I'm doing it without reason.
Let's not use fancy words ''inherent self interest'' let's just say ''this is what I want'' so are you saying you want something that you can't explain logically? Yet you want me to explain the illogic in wanting something that's illogical, now that is a bit tricky or maybe I should say quite obvious.
I claim that there is no ''inherent self interest'' it's just a habit of focus, if you focus on x you'll do what's logically sensible to do for x, but if you focus on xyz you will do what's logically sensible for xyz. A person can only do what's logical hence the constant asking of why should I do this and why should I do that which means what's the logic in doing this etc
.
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 17/09/2005 1:14:05
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 01:21 |
|
| |
Ortho Says;
"...namely that the only reason I don't experience other peoples pain or pleasure is because I'm not focusing on them."
Maybe you might be able to sympathize with the other, but if someone breaks their leg, no matter how much you focus on that leg, you're not going to feel what they feel.
Also why should I focus on other's pains and pleasures
?
"Think for a minute about two people who are completely the same in every way, can you logically find a reason to treat one differently than the other?"
If they are identical in every possible way, yes, you're right. But there are no real people like that
.
"Now think of one these people being yourself will the above statement lose it's veracity? No!"
That's impossible. Through the example given - both of those people would have to be me. Otherwise you've just invited a difference and then differential treatment can become justified
.
"I claim that there is no ''inherent self interest'' it's just a habit of focus, if you focus on x you'll do what's logically sensible to do for x, but if you focus on xyz you will do what's logically sensible for xyz."
Ok, questions:
1) Where does this habit come from?
2) What is the better focus you are arguing for?
3) What is the reason for taking one focus over another
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 01:23 |
|
| |
Shtern says;
I can actually be more hurt by my friends pain of his broken foot than he is himself. Sure the one is a direct sensation whereas the other is a perception but that doesn't necessarily make the experience less forceful.
Please don't lose sleep (as I am now) over the people not being real, that's the beauty of a thought experiment, we don't worry about the logistics.
No it doesn't change when you change places with one these two guys in my thought experiment. The only thing that changes is that you say now 'I want to give it to myself' but can you give me a reason other than your want? No. So can I say that your want is not based on reason? unreasonable?
Why is it so difficult for you to agree that you are not objectively more valuable than the next person so that there is no objective logic backing your want which in turn says that you position is not logical.
the habit happened because we are cofronted with our own selves constantly so that is what gets detected on our radar screen so we get into the habit of zooming our focus on ourselves.
Question 2 and 3, - focusing on x when y and z are just as much part of the picture is without reason (unreasonable) and reason will always push you to do things her way (you can't do anything without a reason and if you have a reason to do something you will do it,except if you have some other reason not to do it, then too you follow reason). What follows is that ethics which is all about not putting yourself in front of someone else (do unto others) is following the dictates of reason, hence my position that ethics is reasonable and logical and being unethical is unreasonable and illogical
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 01:27 |
|
| |
Ortho says;
"The only thing that changes is that you say now 'I want to give it to myself' but can you give me a reason other than your want? No. So can I say that your want is not based on reason? unreasonable?"
Why is it unreasonable to do what you want? How is it reasonable not to do what you want? In fact, it could be argued that the only rational reason to do anything is because you desire to do it. Why else should we do anything?
"focusing on x when y and z are just as much part of the picture is without reason"
Of what picture? How is taking a wider view more rational than the narrow one?
"What follows is that ethics which is all about not putting yourself in front of someone else (do unto others) is following the dictates of reason..."
So you take the wide view because you say it is what's reasonable. How is it reasonable?
You can't just appeal to reason and call something reasonable and it is so. What are your reasons for thinking it reasonable
?
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 01:29 |
|
| |
Shtern says;
2+2 is 4 that's a logical statement, but I 'want' it to be 3, well, no problem with your wanting that but youll have to admit that this particular want does not coincide with logic.
Wanting something doesn't change the brute facts.
Let me tackle it from another direction;
Humor me for a moment and let's assume that all my wants are dictated, nay, created, according to reason, will I then be able to put myself in front of someone else? Can you diffentiate between two things that are logically, factually, completely the same? It's impossible, for if their the same then yup they are the same.
So I think I have proven clearly that if 'want' is dictated by reason and reason only then the fact that these two objects are the same will make it impossible to choose/want to focus on one more than the other.
If it is the same according to reason/logic/fact (before 'want' comes into play) then the want will not be able to differntiate as it doesn't have reason dictating it so.
But that is all if we agree that want is dictated by reason, you say. What a big if that is, hmm.
Then again aren't we all talking about how it's reasonable to want X, it's reasonable to be self-centered? So you gotta make up your mind are you looking up to the Goddess Reason and asking her to dictate your wants or not.
When asking if my selfcentred wants are reasonable think as if you are talk to the pure Goddess of reason and asking her what to want. Don't confuse yourself into phrasing the question as if you already have a "want" and are now asking for a .... what? Blessing?
When asking for a reason to be ethical you have tacitly agreed to shape your wants according to reason. REASON COMES FIRST AND THEN WANT FOLLOWS ACCORDINGLY.
This all looks at things from a different angle than the usual that's why it's difficult to agree to it (or maybe cause it's ridiculous).
I haven't really explained why it is that we all want all our wants actions to be according to reason. By the mere fact that we all are asking for explanations and reasons for what we should or would do, is proof enough that this is how we are.
I did touch on it a little in that list I rattled off about "The essence of man..." I wish you would rattel my cage on that one.
Logic is what we named the process of our identifying and defining our experience/awareness.
Wants is what we named the cases where we misconcieved, or, wrongly identified our awareness of our future existence so that we think this is how it will be soon, we named that expectation and wants. If and when we will clearly see the true picture of our future no mistaken awareness, we will not have any expectations (do you have expectations on the past? If we are smart enough we don't have a wants on past events not even like 'I would've loved it if I wouldn't have fell down last week' you just know there is nothing to want about).
The better we will see the facts of our existence, past peresnt and future, clearly, by a process called logical reasoning, we will just float along accoding to those fact, the expression of our knowledge/concsiousnes/awereness in it's 'physical' format, i.e. what we call action, will smoothly portray our awareness.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 01:31 |
|
| |
Ortho says;
Shterenzeyer,
"Wanting something doesn't change the brute facts."
Yes, I agree. What I'm not convinced of, however, is that moral oughts are facts at all and that they are not simply preferences.
You say that we should treat others as we'd treat ourselves because objectively we are all pretty much the same and that there is no rational reason to put yourself before others.
But what if others would want differently than you? Then you would have cause to act differently. And even objectively, they are different.
Though I do find that the "put-yourself-as-the-mediator" idea is powerful. Moral is what a third disinterested party would decide when confronted with differences of opinion
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-17/9/2005 01:36 |
|
| |
Ortho,
Do you agree to the concept I was trying to convey about realizing that WANTS ARE DICTATED BY REASON so that first you have to have a reason and then a want kicks in.
The proof is by the mere fact that all of us appeal to reason when legitimizing our wants.
If you agree that self-centerdnesss is not rational hence It wouldnt tell Want to want it then you have an ethicall system based totally completly on reason.
Being that reason is only a tool for identifying facts we are basically saying that facts are what dictate my wants. That is what I meant when i said that brute facts dictate wants and wants don't dictate facts.
The above sounds strange, facts dictate wants? But as mentioned above what actually are wants? Wants are expectations, Wants are what we project the future to be, projections made according to the facts as i see them. so ultimately facts, as I see them, dictate, and create my wants.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-18/9/2005 03:48 |
|
| |
First let me thank you for sharing the above enlightening discussion .
There are meny remarks in my pocket I would like to comment on your thesis.
I understand that you built your thesis gradually. Therefore I'll start with what I understand is your foundations.
You have wrote:" All ethics boils down to "doing unto others what you would have done to yourself" no?" I can see here traces of Kant, precede by Haz"l, is that all? I'm not so sure, let's try to get into this matter.
In order to understand accurately what ethics are, we should understand that eventually all starts and ends with the human will. What I want and believe is some times in conflict with what my neighbor wants. It is the very essence of the definition of the human individual. That's, by the way, whet defines an individual from another the "will". Having said this, takes us to the next level: ethics equals will.
One may not question why being moral? Because there is no explanation yet, and probably never will be, to the psycho physical question, how do we want? How dose the soul integrate with the physical body.
.But -one does not want becase of x . One want- that's the origin- and wrap the will with so calld reason
You said that if one awareness will contain only his hand opening a door he won't have a choice but to do it. I'm sure that you can see the absurd of this situation. Before being aware of opening the door there are so many details one should be aware to . But more significant- no one can imagine knowing just one fragment of his knowledge. Its like trying to visualize a broom with just one edge.
Not to mention that you disregard the 'will' he has to want to do it.
Is he aware of his desire to open the door without will there is no awareness that is being human being?
To be continued
תוקן על ידי - cosmo_jew - 18/09/2005 3:55:04
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-19/9/2005 12:31 |
|
| |
Dear Ooni_Bapesach,
I just saw Cosmo_jew's response to you and I consider his premises such that should be primarily addressed, so I will try to include in my response to him, some remarks relevant to your arguments especially about facts versus preferences.
Cosmo_jew,
You wrote:
One may not [ask the] question why being moral? Because there is no explanation yet, and probably never will be to the psycho physical question, how do we want? How does the soul integrate with the physical body.
But -one does not want because of x. One wants -that's the origin- and we wrap the will with so called reason.
Psycho and physical is one and the same. The composed we call physical and its abstracted parts from a certain level onwards, we call psycho. The height of the level we call psycho starts at a point when it becomes less noticeable like air "ruach" versus matter "chomer", which cannot be escaped "chamur". The abstraction of colour is still considered physical but the abstraction of order/justice enters already into the definition of psycho, going on to spiritual and the like. It all starts very simply. A table of brown wood in a room, for example, is perceived as "brown-wood", abstracted into two separate aspects of brown and wood and in the table's arrangement as it may stand in the room in a symmetric or asymmetric position.
"Soul" is merely a general name for the general aspects of thought and choice, which are no more than the totality of our consciousness composed of composed entities [physical], its separate aspects and its inner relations [like symmetry] arranged by concepts of time and space [psycho/spiritual etc...]. One of those arrangements is that a choice occurs upon an identification of chosenness.
This system is all we know. Within this system there is what we know as preferable [like symmetric, harmonious and the kind] which becomes the chosen and thus the wanted. The inclusiveness of all thoughts and choices, we call neshama-soul.
We want because of the sequence of preference-choice. There is nothing ever wanted that is not "preferred-chosen". Once something has been identified as being the chosen [preferable] many times, it becomes an automatically chosen and wanted. It is because of that, that we rationalize [or as you say "wrap our reason"] around it. But it originates from our identification of the fact of its chosenness.
If one would be absolutely clear of any preference as an absolute fact, it would also be automatically chosen. Our choices requirement of considerations, stems from lack of clarity. We understand that for a human being to behave humanely is preferred to his behaving animalistically and if there would be no opposite consideration we would automatically choose it. The problem is that we have counter-preferences like intensive pleasures and the like and we do not clearly identify it to be less preferable to a more humane "thought over" behavior.
This brings us to the point of individual choice. Every person has his own levels of identification-choice-want. We cannot dictate and even not communicate our preference of being animalistic over being humane or the opposite to another who has another way of identification. It would be like trying to tell a newborn not to wet his clothes or the newborn telling us that we are stupid to be careful about it.
Therefore we would waste our time here if we would try to argue about individual values like which specific ideology or religion to choose. We are merely trying here to discover our common basics of the process of choice, like the idea of preference being an identified fact.
Even the solipsist argument of Orthoprax [to which I basically agree but which requires a seperate discussion] that the barrier between self and other, that self is what is directly perceived and other is that which is only a reflection through another body, is not sufficient for totally denying the other's rights. As Ooni pointed out, we are capable of putting the other above the self despite this fact. One can discuss if such priority is right-preferable-chosen or wrong, but one cannot escape that right and wrong is an absolute preference. If we find out that putting any life above ours is foolish, then this is the ethical.
תוקן על ידי - ווטו1 - 19/09/2005 13:18:46
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-20/9/2005 02:20 |
|
| |
R' Cosmo Yid,
You wrote;
''That's, by the way, what defines an individual from another the "will".''
I contend that there is no will, there is only awareness, we are conscious and aware beings that is all. Wants are a certain type of awareness which we named 'want'.
Let me try to explain my above contention;
It all starts with our picture of reality,
We are nothing more than Conscious beings.
We see reality (our conception of reality) but reality keeps on changing, so in theory we should constantly change our picture of what we have of our reality. Now what if we see something that tells us that there might be a change in our picture of reality [a certain fact happened that might trigger a change in what I thought will be the future reality], remember it doesn't say 'it surely will change' it only shows a chance of change. Due to the fact that we are habitually used to assuming things based on it's likelihood, [I am assuming now that you are a person with 5 fingers on each hands, etc.] we will then, most likely, continue to assume our picture of reality is true disregarding the fact that should trigger some doubt to its veracity. So we then have a picture of reality but we also have something here that doesn't belong in the picture, it doesn't fit in the picture, as we have disregarded this fact we essentially have a picture without this fact so this fact is not in the picture yet it's here, but it doesn't belong here. This is the first kernel of 'want', we say that x doesn't really belong to be here or to exist at all. I want this to be here really means this belongs over here (according to my picture of reality). How 'want' becomes an emotional element needs to be addressed in the general context of 'what are emotions'.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-20/9/2005 02:35 |
|
| |
R' Yid,
I wrote;
All ethics boils down to "doing unto others what you would have done to yourself" no?"
You responded,
I can see here traces of Kant, precede by Haz"l
I respond now;
It's not about Kant Chazal or anyone else. As I wrote to Orthoprax I wasn't trying to prove a theory with this particular statement, It was an observation that all ethical systems are about not putting yourself in front of someone else. You show me any ethical rule and I'll show you that it's about valuing others as you value yourself (or, as Veto would have it, almost as you would value yourself, an extremely close almost). Not putting yourself before others, not making a distinction between yourself and others will end up with you doing unto others whatever you want done for yourself. Hence my above encapsulation of all Ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
