On Whether Morality And Ethics Exist Or Not.

Challenge: Lucretia challenging The Fool on whether morality and ethics exist or not.

Lucretia is holding the position that ethics and morality exist while The Fool supports the position that they do not.

Subject: On Whether Morality And Ethics Exist Or Not.

Mutual Agreed Guidelines: Between those who are debating.

Judges: Any

Sorry about the delay, forgot about this.

Human beings have preferences for conduct in social situations. The articulation of them in the form of language is ethics and morality. The existence of preferences is their basis, and because we know that people have them, we know that ethics exist.

Lucretia wrote:

Sorry about the delay, forgot about this.

Human beings have preferences for conduct in social situations. The articulation of them in the form of language is ethics and morality. The existence of preferences is their basis, and because we know that people have them, we know that ethics exist.

And why should a amoral person like myself or others care about the preferences of institutions and other people?

What are such institutional preferences to a person like me? Why should I care?

My preferences are my own irregardless of the preferences within other people.

The Fool wrote:

Lucretia wrote:

Sorry about the delay, forgot about this.

Human beings have preferences for conduct in social situations. The articulation of them in the form of language is ethics and morality. The existence of preferences is their basis, and because we know that people have them, we know that ethics exist.

And why should a amoral person like myself or others care about the preferences of institutions and other people?

What are such institutional preferences to a person like me? Why should I care?

My preferences are my own irregardless of the preferences within other people.

Unless you have a preference for finding no company and no social interaction, which our biology makes impossible without rare psychological malfunction, then it is necessary to consider the preferences in other people. If you disregard social interaction entirely then of course ethics are no longer relevant to you because you do not conduct any activities which are within their scope of discussion. They are specifically the balance of social preferences. The margin of people with no interest in interaction is insignificant. The shier number of people who interact with each other makes it necessary to have identified standards of expected conduct for anyone to enjoy themselves. Often times what is ethical is based entirely on two people in one situation and people in similar situations will come up with an entirely different result entirely because the people involved had different preferences in different strengths. It is sufficient that there are standards by which these judgments are made and then allow people to come to the most applicable conclusion for their circumstance.

While ethics exist absolutely, it is important that no one consider it a more precise method of deduction than it is designed to be. It certainly does not exist in a fashion that will consistently yield the same results. Being based on human preferences one has to question what human preferences are based on, and generally we only consider them reasonable if they come in and of ourselves entirely. Foreign influences and strong emotions are said to cloud our judgment. So at times ethics are necessarily based on arbitrary judgments. The method of human reasoning is arbitration. The balance of them exists in the strength of the source of those preferences which often times will be entirely different between large groups of people, but they are balanced in each case for the sake of pragmatism. They take the position which most reasonably allows the people involved in the situation to function, because these judgments are often necessary and there must be some method by which this reasoning occurs, it is not useful to presume that ethics do not exist.

Quote :

Unless you have a preference for finding no company and no social interaction, which our biology makes impossible without rare psychological malfunction, then it is necessary to consider the preferences in other people.

What is psychological malfunction?

Your still assuming there is a right way to act, behave, and socialize.

Quote :

The shier number of people who interact with each other makes it necessary to have identified standards of expected conduct for anyone to enjoy themselves.

You are arguing from the position of the majority. This is a fallacious appeal to populism.

It means nothing.

Quote :

Often times what is ethical is based entirely on two people in one situation and people in similar situations will come up with an entirely different result entirely because the people involved had different preferences in different strengths. It is sufficient that there are standards by which these judgments are made and then allow people to come to the most applicable conclusion for their circumstance.

Why is it sufficient to have these standards and more importantly for whom?

Is everything applicable?

Quote :

While ethics exist absolutely, it is important that no one consider it a more precise method of deduction than it is designed to be. It certainly does not exist in a fashion that will consistently yield the same results. Being based on human preferences one has to question what human preferences are based on, and generally we only consider them reasonable if they come in and of ourselves entirely.

In and of ourselves entirely? In-of-itself? Ghost within the machine?

Quote :

Being based on human preferences one has to question what human preferences are based on,

Selfish pursuits against other people's selfish pursuits.

Quote :

Foreign influences and strong emotions are said to cloud our judgment. So at times ethics are necessarily based on arbitrary judgments.

When is it not emotional? Foreign influences?

Quote :

The method of human reasoning is arbitration.

Don't forget random, redundant, and chaotic.

Quote :

The balance of them exists in the strength of the source of those preferences which often times will be entirely different between large groups of people, but they are balanced in each case for the sake of pragmatism.

Practicality of utility is entirely subjective.

Quote :

They take the position which most reasonably allows the people involved in the situation to function, because these judgments are often necessary and there must be some method by which this reasoning occurs, it is not useful to presume that ethics do not exist.

And what exactly is reasonable to allow people to function as you so boldly put it?

These judgements are necessary? Necessary in what way?

It's not useful to presume that ethics and morals don't exist? Haha!

Not useful for whom? It's definately useful for a person like me who doesn't believe in ethics and morality.

If you have any belief about certain conduct being acceptable then you have an ethics. If you would be angry at someone for maliciously taking a dump on your chest while you were sleeping, you have an ethics. Now maybe if you lived in India you would be so accustomed to shit that you'd find it forgivable, but over here that is certainly not the case. So those preferences are often given to us by the habits we're accustomed to in our society. In fact the etymology of the word ethics has to do with habits. I believe Aristotle coined the word.

People develop preferences, and yes they are entirely founded on selfishness. The self is the only means of knowing anything. It would be impossible for the foundation to exist anywhere else. For this reason, it is in fact based on the vast majority of people, which isn't meaningless, it's practical.

I don't like people to shit in my cereal while I'm eating. It's not really an unreasonable request.

Quote :

If you have any belief about certain conduct being acceptable then you have an ethics.

What if I believe everything and anything is acceptable? What then?

Quote :

If you would be angry at someone for maliciously taking a dump on your chest while you were sleeping, you have an ethics.

Or a preference. I prefer the word preference. It sounds less sanctimonious.

Quote :

So those preferences are often given to us by the habits we're accustomed to in our society. In fact the etymology of the word ethics has to do with habits. I believe Aristotle coined the word.

And all habits being relative to preference.

Quote :

People develop preferences, and yes they are entirely founded on selfishness.

My selfishness versus yours and vice versa.

Quote :

The self is the only means of knowing anything. It would be impossible for the foundation to exist anywhere else.

And yet isn't it interesting that people within religion, politics, and government discuss such higher authorities coming from elsewhere beyond their own selfishness. ( From the divine.)

( From a mystical connection to objectivity pretending to know all purpose which they devise so called social movements of directional progress.)

Quote :

For this reason, it is in fact based on the vast majority of people, which isn't meaningless, it's practical.

You act as if "somthing" supported by a majority makes somthing right or correct by then calling it practical.

The majority has it's hysterias which often enough can be incorrect by fundamentalist beliefs that do not correspond to reality. ( I have discussed about such topics on this forum. Look at the social sciences section of this website.)

( Ever heard of tyranny by the majority? ) ( Slave mentality? ) ( Blind leading the blind?)

Quote :

I don't like people to shit in my cereal while I'm eating. It's not really an unreasonable request.

It is a unreasonable request to believe that you are entitled to somthing thinking that others must give in or obey your wants and desires.

It is the ultimate vanity. (I want this therefore don't do this to me or else I shall define you with imaginary terminologies of defamation that mean absolutely nothing in order to attack you because I can't fend for myself.)

Ethical conduct isn't a belief, it's the function of collective human preference, we're talking about a majority of 100 percent. And no, you don't believe anything and everything is acceptable, our biology predisposes us to enjoy certain things, hence why ethics develop in a reasonably consistent manner between independent cultures. Ethics that change between cultures should not always be heavily expected upon, but several of them actually don't.

Quote :

Ethical conduct isn't a belief,

If morality and ethics isn't some fundamentalist belief what exactly is it?

A innate biological propensity?

If that was so we would have everyone being moral or ethical but wait we don't have that, do we?

Quote :

it's the function of collective human preference, we're talking about a majority of 100 percent.

There you go again with that majority defence.

When the majority says jump off a cliff I guess your the type that asks, how high shall I jump?

Quote :

And no, you don't believe anything and everything is acceptable,

Yes I actually do. ( So long as I'm not bothered by the act as mostly I'm only concerned with myself.)

Quote :

our biology predisposes us to enjoy certain things,

Like?

Quote :

hence why ethics develop in a reasonably consistent manner between independent cultures.

If anything morals and ethics developed out of a innate selfishness to control the activities of others.

If you can be bothered by any act then you have an ethics. You speak of controlling the activities of others, but expectations of ethics don't have to do with things that a mentally stable person has a desire to do. It's a custom of understood standards of behavior on the basis of our collective preference. Our recognition of those standards makes them exist.

Is this the right place to vote? I vote Lucretia for simplicity of form and style; and The Fool for content.

Quote :

If you can be bothered by any act then you have an ethics.

Not really. There is a difference between a preference and a absurd set of social rules known as ethics or morals.

A preference is a individual self opinion that means nothing beyond the user who holds them.

( Meaning that noone should have to do anything in regards to another person's preference.)

Morals and ethics however always speak about how people should do this and that where one person's preference is dictated into a collective dogma where it is commanded that everybody else should have the same preference. ( Or else.)

Quote :

You speak of controlling the activities of others, but expectations of ethics don't have to do with things that a mentally stable person has a desire to do.

What are you even talking about here?

Quote :

It's a custom of understood standards of behavior on the basis of our collective preference.

Explain in depth.

Quote :

Our recognition of those standards makes them exist.

No.

The use of violent enforcement makes such standards exist since without violence enforcement they wouldn't otherwise.

*thread locked due to The Fool's departure*