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-20/10/2005 01:19
Dear Ani (in Hebrew ani means poor but also speaker...)
Where shell I start?.... mmm…
Let's begin with what I believe is the core of our disagreement; you argue that a human is awareness or in your words: "there is only awareness" and I argue that what defines us is "will".
I have to be honest that both opinions are speculations. Humanity steel didn't fully comprehend the brain and what humanity is.
Nevertheless awareness doesn't define the deference between two people. What defines them is 'will'. Particularly when the subject is ethics. Ethics are human will.
Bear in mind that my thesis simplifies the question regarding here (according to Occam's razor). Without drive even awareness won't exist because nothing drives it. And of corse it answers the question you've raised in this tread "why be ethical" as will is preliminary to every thing the questing is not legitimate.
Notwithstanding I respect your way of thinking and I do not reject what you say I jest don't think it gives us an accurate picture so our world. Let us first try to figure out that issue than we shell precedes step by step to the other matters.
Sorry for the delay.
נשלח ב-21/9/2005 04:18
Mr. Cosmo,
I challenged you to find an ethical act that is not about equalizing yourself with others. You claim you have one, namely, defending yourself even by killing someone else.
I don't think that you've met the challenge.
I still say that Ethics is all about Equalizing yoursef with others, it's about getting rid of this illogical 'me first' mentality, but it's not about making others more than you, the keyword is 'equalizing'.
I maybe should've phrased the general idea of ethics as follows,
Do unto others what you would have done to yourself and , in turn, do unto yourself as you would do to others.
But I think that the second part doesn't need to much coaxing. It's the first that is what we try to get ourselves to do.
נשלח ב-21/9/2005 03:38
I wrote in one of my above posts the following;
We sometimes look at the relationship between my mind and my actions in a manner of 'my mind is telling my body what to do' but if we will look at this approach more clearly it will fall apart. My mind is telling whom, my hand? Does my hand have the capacity of consciousness, of 'understanding' the directions of my mind?
Let me add one little point;
At the end of the day, the only thing the mind does to facilitate action is 'being aware'. Can you disagree with that? If you can, please tell me what more the mind does.
You claim that "will" is the what constitutes our individuality I would say that if you take away the emotional part of 'will' you stay with a person thinking 'I see that this belongs over here' it's again an awareness. I already explained (I think) what is meant when saying "I see this belongs here". One is just saying "I have a picture in my mind of and this goes here in that picture"
I'm not sure if I'm bringing my point across well enough or maybe it's that I don't understand it well enough, who knows
נשלח ב-20/9/2005 17:17
Mr. Cosmopolitan
You wrote,
A man without will, rests . Resting in this case means: static- not an outcome of wanting. I'm not talking of going to lie on the couch. But being motionless.
Ok so this hypothetical 'man of no wants' will rest. How will he rest? Sitting in a chair? Lying in bed? Or maybe even leaning against a wall. But wait, don't we all know how many millions of actions is necessary in order to accomplish any of the above.
True rest would be lying in a crumpled heap on the floor with every body-part being completely loose (chin hanging, tongue sticking out etc.)
Yet our hero here does none of the above, do you know why? Because he didn't realize that he's doing something he thinks he is not doing any action.
Sure, action means change and there is no change unless a force is acting upon it hence your point about 'static'. But in his world (his mind is his world) there is no change, he isn't aware of any other option.
Looking at it from a different angle, let's give our man a limitless supply of energy, there is no effort whatsoever for him to do anything, it's just as easy for him to act as to rest. Now although they are both equal, I agree that there still has to be a force to make a change [Just like the general law of inertia where continuing in a straight line is as easy as staying put, yet once the object is in one position it won't change unless acted upon] The key here is that the change is in the mind, I wouldn't apply the Law of Inertia in it's typical formulation saying that this man will continue walking forever, because if in his mind he sees it as action then every step is actually a change from the option of the static position for in order to see it as action he sees the position prior to action and how the action changes it. Action is change.
But if he doesn't realize the prior position and for some reason he will just think that this is how 'it is', then this man with limitless energy will continue doing (or rather 'not doing' from his perspective) forever, until he will realize that there is an option of statis.
The issue is a bit confusing because we are talking about action which means change, which is the opposite of inertia, but we forget to realize that this man has his own world and in his world it isn't change, for change is only if there is the option 1 and 2, but in his world there is no option 1. It's action from our perspective but not from his.
Dear Veto,
I'll try to respond to your points later.Thanks for your constant input,
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 20/09/2005 17:20:25
נשלח ב-20/9/2005 14:32
Veto and Poor at the Door…
Due to many reasons - things I'm occupied with, and the effort I have to put in to understand and respond to the many deep points and thoughts you've raised above .
It will take me a while
But just one comment, Ani_ Ba'Passach, , what you wrote in your last post is pure speculation.
In order to imagine a door one need thousands of details .
A man without will, rests . Resting in this case means: static- not an outcome of wanting. I'm not talking of going to lie on the couch. But being motionless.
And – you askd for an example of an ethical value that dose not mean " valuing others as you value yourself" . I have at least one: defending yourself even by killing someone else.
תוקן על ידי - מנהלמשנה - 20/09/2005 16:19:48
נשלח ב-20/9/2005 03:06
R' Yid,
You write;
'' 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.''
I was envisioning an awareness that obviously encompasses all necessary data for opening the door but only that, nothing more.
My point is simple, if you have no knowledge of any other option how could you not do it?
We sometimes look at the relationship between my mind and my actions in a manner of 'my mind is telling my body what to do' but if we will look at this approach more clearly it will fall apart. My mind is telling whom, my hand? Does my hand have the capacity of consciousness, of 'understanding' the directions of my mind?
Imagine a person with no want whatsoever; what do you expect this man to do? You'll probably say that he just won't do anything he'll just rest. But remember, this man has no wants; he has no want to rest either, he wants absolutely nothing. So again, what should we expect the actions of this man to be? I suggest that whatever course of action comes to his mind will be acted out. If he sees himself as jumping he'll be jumping without further ado. It wouldn't be a process of 'ok I should jump now'; it will just be a manifestation of his thought in the physical, acting out of what he's aware of at this moment.
Habit, too, is about acting out what you see in your mind as happening, You walk into a room and your hand automatically goes to the light switch although you have changed the layout of the room 2 weeks ago and the light switch is not there anymore. Your mind sees a course of action, doesn't see any other options and poof it's done.
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.
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-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-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-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-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 01:29
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 01:27
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 01:23
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
