- Lucretia wrote:
- That's a non-sequitur. There is no presumption that everyone actively chooses to act ethically. When people do elect to act ethically it is consistent, or at least the algorithms used for ethical reasoning are consistent, but the product will be different because the basis of ethics is human preference. However, ethical reasoning does consist of universal principles which are useful for inferences into social conduct, therefor they certainly exist. The existence of unethical people has nothing to do with the usefulness of ethics.
Morality and ethics judges everybody therefore if it can judge everyone I'm assuming everyone must actively behave in a moral or ethical manner in order for everyone to be judged in the first place.
Are you saying morality and ethics can judge everybody but when it comes to the presumption that everyone actively chooses to act morally or ethically doesn't exist?
So let's see here when it comes to judgement everyone is liable to punishment through someone's narrow subjective opinion of right and wrong but for some odd reason we should not presume that everyone actively choose to act morally or ethically.
What's inconsistent with this picture?
- Quote :
- the basis of ethics is human preference.
And yet when it comes to judgement human preference kinda gets thrown to the way side in that judgement includes everybody doesn't it?
- Quote :
- However, ethical reasoning does consist of universal principles which are useful for inferences into social conduct, therefor they certainly exist.
It includes universals yet we should not presume that everyone actively chooses to act morally or ethically.
( interesting.)
What universals are you talking about?
In order to understand morality or ethics what universals should we be concerned about?
- Quote :
- The existence of unethical people has nothing to do with the usefulness of ethics.
Perhaps for it's usefulness of controlling others however the absence of everybody acting moral or ethical combined with the hypocrisy of morality and ethics does show that the foundation of such beliefs is built upon a very inconsistent foundation.
That's what this thread is discussing.
Do you know what a logical inconsistency is?
Let me throw you an example:
Sim is cleverer than Jim. Jim is cleverer than Tim. Tim is cleverer than Sim.
Let's all go to the football game tomorrow. My wife doesn't like football. I know you're busy. We'll all enjoy ourselves.Now understanding all the inconsistencies of morality and ethics how are they any different?
How is morality and ethics not logically inconsistent?