/lit/ - Literature

I don't, I'm a hedonist. I'll go further and argue there's not such a thing as free will.

>>3065405
What I mean is, how could consent by a ground from which people create an ethics out of? What would ground consent?

I'm looking for critique not proof. I don't believe in it myself.

>>3065414
*be a ground

>>3065398
We deal with it by stating that ethical stances are as arbitrary as one's taste in food and therefore nonsense beyond that very notion. Morality: Stop liking what I don't like.

>>3065420
>Morality: Stop liking what I don't like.

Its not as individual as that. Morality is a more utilitarian, group based concept, and it serves to try and benefit the greater number of humans. The focal point is obviously murder: We, generally, don't want to be murdered, so we set up a kind of interactive, collective axiom[1] - that murder IS wrong - and create a social code around that. Then we further our social values with additional agreed upon 'axioms;' Theft of private property IS wrong, forced intercourse IS wrong, etc.. With regard to OP's question, anything that violates these agreed upon rules is uncontested to, therefore wrong according to the majority.

[1] "An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."
Now, while we may not be able to claim any form of objective universal truth to our axiomatic groundwork for morality, the truth lies in the fact that the majority want this; the majority believes taking the life of an innocent citizen by any member of society to be a negative act, so in the collective eyes of society 'Murder IS wrong" becomes a statement of truth within our social framework.

>>3065470
utilitarian pls go

I'm looking for some serious philosophy here.

>>3065476
>I'm looking for some serious philosophy here.

Well you're not going to get it in the field of morality. Right/wrong, good/evil are human constructs, they will only 'exist' if we choose to adopt them in a social structure. You can use whatever system you want, from utilitarianism to a benevolent dictator, but you wont find any ethics floating around the universe, independent of human conciousness.

>>3065482
There was a guy, or a couple of guys, on here the other day talking about how anglo saxon ethics is silly because they ignore Being, ontology. I want to see what he would say about this.

>>3065470
Utilitarian descriptions of morality are not an "is" they are always an "ought." If morality in practice were "utilitarian" humanity wouldn't have survived. Stop using "utilitarian" as a pompous synonym for "practical."

>>3065489
Believing in "anglo saxon ethics."

>>3065470
You are so fucking boring. You sound like a textbook. Typical analytic. You know that being boring doesn't make you right. According to vitalists and Nietzscheans and various pragmatists, being boring in fact makes you wrong.

>>3065494
Utilitarianism was invented by the english, and it only finds adherents in anglo saxon countries... so yes.

>>3065496
>being boring in fact makes you wrong.
Tell us more.

>>3065497
Lol, yeah I'm sure it was... (not knowing the French invented Utilitarianism in 2012).

>>3065470
I dont get it.

If your society sets up this maxim, what compels people to also accept it? Why is the criminal wrong to do what he does? He just rejects your society's maxims.

>>3065497
Helvetius invented Utilitarianism. He was French.

>>3065504
Batman invented the utility belt. He was a cartoon.

>>3065414
I guess one could say personal ethics are what you want to do. meanwhile breaking consent is breaking personal ethics. if you consider all personal ethical system valuable, you can construct a greater ethical system where consent plays a part in.

>>3065506
Claude Adrien Helvétius was a real person.

>>3065504
It is still english.

>>3065507
And if I don't accept that system?

There's no reason why I should.

>>3065508
>implying batman isn't real

>>3065509
What is specifically? English utilitarianism is English? ... oh really?

Chapeau to the English & their desperate nationalism.

It's all a footnote to Plato anyway. As if France wants it. Incidentally, Bentham and Mill were great assholes and they entire life's work is reducible to cribbing Helvetius's De l'esprit and translating it into English.

>>3065517
their*

>>3065414
How could it not be a ground? The only ground for our ontological notions is the collective belief, cause the minute you individually try to grasp it, you can't.

It is like a mirage: we both see one, and in order to verify it we have two choices 1- go check 2-ask the other. We live in groups by definition, so we take the 2nd option; it seems to work, so we base out collective live around it.

It is not a weak ground, it is actually the strongest one, cause it is the only possible.

Maybe the answer to your question lies in this: Consent lies on an intersubjective basis. It's a collective subjectivity which, in order to work, is taken unconsciously as objective.

>>3065517
Comme il faut, mon frère.

>>3065519
*our collective life around it.

>>3065519
"Collective belief", which you think is a purely epistemological category, requires first an ontological notion of a collective.

You're trying, like a typical analytic, to prove Kant right. Why can't the Analytic scum get past Kant?

>>3065398
I think it is a hegelian idea, based on the recognition of the other as your equal.

Can´t really tell you much more. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to read some Levinas, or Hegel himself (but certainly not Kojeve).

>>3065519
>The only ground for our ontological notions is the collective belief
What the fuck...

>>3065531
Or more precisely, Hegel gave the most convincing account of it. Consent as the foundation of ethical behavior is present in every egalitarian theory - Spinoza, Locke, Mill, Rawls, whoever - since if you are equal to everybody, you don´t have a right to interfere with them and vice versa - and therefore you need consent for any kind of interpersonal activities.

The real problem is founding the equality in a satisfactory way, and here lies the importance of Hegel.

>>3065537
So what about non-egalitarian theories, like nietzsche, since he wasn't an egalitarian.

>>3065525
You find that ontological basis for your notion of "collective" only by experiencing it, never by pure reasoning. You can't, by definition; like an eye, which you use to see but can't see itself.

That "experience" I'm talking about is that of alterity. The philosopher does not know it, cause he rests inside his books, projecting his notions everywhere and, at best, trying to find what determines those notions just following the signs they leave as they pass.

You dont find alterity, but it finds you. Useless to put into words, but it could be said that it is when you find a different use for one of you notions, which makes you see the impermanent character of the ground where your permanent notions work.

>>3065514
No, there isn't, I don't believe in ti either. I support utilitarianism.

Worth can only exist in consciousnesses, it cannot exist in a rock, it must be in something that relates the rock and the consciousness. However, it cannot contain the rock at all because if it does, it means what is connecting to it is interacting with it and thus, is physical. Therefore, it must be purely mental. All that is mental can be separated into thought and emotion. Thoughts are just a physical world inside your own head, it means you perceive a world that exists solely in your head. You cannot create consciousnesses, therefore that world is purely physical. That leaves your perceptions of the internal world. However, to think of something is to perceive that thought, so by perceiving it after thinking it, you gain nothing.
This leaves emotion and emotion can be separated into happiness and unhappiness regarding physical things. eg: jealousy being unhappiness regarding things others have and you don't. Then, we are left with happiness and unhappiness. Those can be experienced and separated into good and bad, respectively because it is impossible for a consciousness to describe happiness as bad and likewise for their negatives. That, because you can do this whole chain band replacing objective worth as personal worth and noting that all people give worth to something. By experience, that something must be happiness out of 2.

Very hodgepodge, but good enough. (that, assuming there is worth in the world.)

>>3065562
pls go

>>3065542
Nietzsche is very clear that all human relations are based on the dominance-submission dichotomy, i.e. in every relationship there is a "ruler" and a "ruled". The foundation of the rule can be almost anything: brute force, erotic attraction, intellectual superiority, etc. The only exception to this he names is true friendship, which he says is based on an adherence to a common higher goal.

But Nietzsche doesn´t really care about comprehensive ethical theory; what you could call his "ethics" (but calling it so goes against the spirit of his thought) is focused on
a) self-mastery and self-improvement - "becoming who you are" - being able to go your own way (and to find it in the first place) without being hindered by others.
b) helping others to achieve their personal heights, since "developed" people who are capable of pursuing their own goals are much more inspiring and challenging than stupid proles.

In one sentence, the point is "to see as beautiful what is necessary in things" and so to become "one of those who make things beautiful".

>>3065470
>Its not as individual as that. Morality is a more utilitarian, group based concept, and it serves to try and benefit the greater number of humans.
"Stop liking what we don't like," then.

>The focal point is obviously murder: We, generally, don't want to be murdered, so we set up a kind of interactive, collective axiom[1] - that murder IS wrong - and create a social code around that. Then we further our social values with additional agreed upon 'axioms;' Theft of private property IS wrong, forced intercourse IS wrong, etc.. With regard to OP's question, anything that violates these agreed upon rules is uncontested to, therefore wrong according to the majority.
Non sequitur, my nuitur. I don't want to be fucked up the ass, but I fuck women up the ass. I don't want to be killed and eaten, yet I kill and eat animals. I don't want to have a job, but I want other people to have jobs. I don't like being lied against, but I lie to other people. Me doing those things benefit me, me being on the receiving end of those things is detrimental to my well being. It's totally absurd as to group all acts in my favour and all acts not in my favour together as if I should be just as invested in the well being of a mosquito as in my own. I have my sensory experiences, not other people's. That's a legitimate reason to prefer my pleasure above theirs. I'm not even sure if theirs exists.

The best way of handling things is not making group based axioms and living by them, the best way of handling things is making group based axioms and making other people live by them and then secretly not living by them yourself. It's the reasonable thing to do.

>>3065576
Interesting, so how would that relate to the idea of consent? What would he think of it?

We don't. If you make reference to ontology you disregard automatically any form of consent. You are taking certainty as a synonym of opinion.

That question makes no sense.

>>3065600
What I was looking for was some ideas against consent based ethics, you see.

>>3065588
Consent is a conscious action, which for Nietzsche means in the first place superficial. I think he didn´t believe that our conscious considerations of what we want or don´t want are what really moves our actions. The influence of consent is for him negligible.

>>3065610
>consent based ethics

What's to prove wrong? The notion itself falls before you try to analyze it.

>>3065618
Please tell me how. That's why I made the thread.

>>3065635
see >>3065600

it is as if you were trying to find the form of the color red just cause you see that red things have a definite form.

I cant tell you how, not cause i want or dont want to, but because it simply cant be told; it makes no sense to ask for the color of a rabbit's horn.

>>3065648
I didn't really get what the guy in >>3065600 said.

Maybe I phrased my original question badly. But why does referring to ontology disregard any notion of consent?

>>3065618
What I meant was, people seem to think an action becomes good because both parties agree to it.

How is this wrong?

>>3065556
You still can't restrict philosophy to epistemology on the basis of falsely arranging your epistemological rules - epistemology is the product of ontology.

Ontology is derived experientially from that experience merely in the form of notions, because that is how ontology (and all philosophy btw) expresses itself in its most clear and explicit form. "Experience" is an ontological mode.

Alterity is an abuse of latinity, and. as you have described it, a mystery as obscure and important to me as the hindu liturgy.

>>3065586
Yeah, I'm convinced that utilitarianism is just secularised Christianity, the group based ethical thou shalts are basically "all equal in the eyes of God" and "eye for an eye" taken to the extreme distastefulness. It's even worse than organised religion because it lacks the rhetorical, artistic, and mysterious gloam that surrounds those things. At least Christianity et al. are a romance with our God-Saviour-Lover. Utilitarianism, if it is a romance, is a romance with some dried husk of a tenured academic living in some far-flung irrelevant outpost of learning, possibly some insignificant American university campus, or some even more insignificant university campus in Australia or New Zealand. Utilitarianism is backwater philosophy.

>>3065676
Because the value of good only exists inside the social framework they create, there is no truth to it.

If the entire human population was 4 people, three of them agree that A. murder is wrong and B. giraffes don't exist. Is the one remaining person who believes murder has no objective moral value and giraffes exist wrong? No.

>>3065715
I understand. So from the higher perspective, there is nothing that makes it wrong to violate consent, since its just based on social conventions?

>>3065708
Not really, it's a philosophy set up with the preservation of humanity at it's core. It values human life, well-being, and the benefit of the majority above all else. Christianity created a system of ethics based on fear of punishment, and a slave morality that teaches you to be content with misery and suffering because all will be fine after death.

>>3065726
Whereas Marxism engenders a slave mentality that forces the user to be content with misery and suffering because somehow, everyone owes everyone else servitude - because somehow, the individual only really exists to the extent that he's of use to some ill-defined :greater good."

>>3065840
>Whereas Marxism engenders a slave mentality
lel

enjoy being "free" prole

>>3065661
(im that same guy). if something IS, opinions and agreement about them are irrelevant to its ontological status.

>>3065676
why would you affirm it is wrong or correct? thats my point. consent is not wrong nor correct simply cause there is no criteria to judge it as such. why? cause consent itself is the criteria we use to distinguish between wrong or right. if one wants to consider consent, the wrong/right vision begs the question.

>>3065697
mmm yes and no. one cant say whether epistemology is the origin of ontology or viceversa. they are dependent, therefore the question about which one is the product of the other is a contradiction, cause when an answer is given supporting one, its opposite works too. also, i dont think we can say that ontology is derived just from experience, cause experience is nothing in itself. you lack the notions to define it, then how can it be already expressing itself with them? there's the collectivity thing, only graspable by the alterity experience. (btw yeah, i dont know if alterité exists in english.)

>>3065871
*hence the collectivity

>>3065496
i lol'd

good show, i'm surprised you actually got someone with this post, you're rather obvious

>>3065724
>>3065618 here. im not >>3065715.

I see where you are going and im not defending that cheap relativism saying that one can do anything cause rules are not objective.

idk, i guess you could check the karma notion in buddhism, or the intersubjectivity in sociology/anthropology... the denial of rules does not mean the affirmation of the inexistence of rules. things are not black or white.

Can I ask why social conventions--or social constructions--must not be taken seriously?

I understand the argument that they are arbitrary, and therefore they can be disregarded. What I don't understand is why this means all discussion is useless in the first place. Surely one can grant the contingency of ethics in any given cultural system and proceed from there.

>>3065933
>arbitrary, and therefore they can be disregarded

wrong my friend. the fact that they are arbitrary does not mean they are made at random. let's take the construction thing literally: one can build a building with any form, but once it is built that form is fix, and rather hard to change.

we cant choose to follow or not follow conventions. that is the consequence of reading everything through the prism of freedom.

>>3065904
The funny part is, at least re Nietzschean vitalism, he's right.

>>3065942
>we cant choose to follow or not follow conventions.

That makes no sense. People actively choose to go against convention all the time.

All I know is that I'm telling on you if you steal my cookie you asshole sociopath.

OP, this is a good question. Thank you for asking it. I'm going to think about it.

My knee-jerk thought was that there's nothing wrong with a consent-based ethics, but I quickly realized that human beings can be easily pressured into consenting to things they do not truly wish for, or made to desire this or that without the use of violence.

This might even be THE critical question for debate about economic systems (especially as a basis for criticizing capitalism).

>>3067654
yeah son, when you choose to do something it is your inner self expressing its freedom, the very nature of our humanity!

>>3065496
>Criticizing a well written, lucid response by calling it boring.
>Suggesting that if text is boring, it is wrong.

Get it together Onii-chan.

What do you mean 'deal with'? it's not difficult to accept.
For the most part, you consent to an ethical framework because you're not omnipotent.

>>3068144
Perhaps the only answer which attempts to address OP's question seriously?

To OP, is consent the basis of ethics? I don't doubt its a big part.

Why would consent be the basis of ethics? Quickest response I can offer is that by forcing things on people, you will cause them pain. Causing pain unnecessarily is very close to what most would consider evil.

>>3068144
Raises an important point. People can be coerced or brainwashed into consenting to things they may not wish to. This makes consent seem flawed as a foundation for judging actions.

Maybe you could avoid this by defining consent instead as a non-coerced, non-brainwashed agreement to some policy. I suppose this may run into problems of many things being considered coercion, or brainwashing-lite, like persuasive but infirm arguments.

Another criticism of of consent as ethical basis may be that consent and goodness are different, because people just don't do what is good for them. For example, a smoker may consent to the idea that smoking will eventually kill them, but they continue to smoke.

Another example of consent and good being separate may be found where forcing something on someone is closer to goodness. Consider imprisoning a serial killer. He does not consent to his incarceration, but depriving him of his freedom results in death.

You might take this further and say that the serial killer deprives other of their consent not to die, and thus we must balance non-consent of some with the consent of others in order to be just. And thus we arrive at some sort of utilitarianism, which we then can remind ourselves of all the problems that system has.

>>3068806
>Cont:

So to sum up, just a sketch of first criticisms one may have:
>An individuals consent can be manipulated or forced
>People consent to stuff they should not consent to, even when they are informed.
>Depriving people of consent is sometimes necessary, leading to a consensus based utilitarianism theory.

On second thought, the second point seems kind of weak. I think most peoples sense of what is unjust won't be triggered by someone doing stupid shit to themselves, but more to other people.

I'm interested in your views on the subject OP, since you invested the time and effort to bring up the subject, and wrestle with people more interested in talking about their own ideas than answer the question.

>>3068726
No, it's criticising arid demonstrations, tedious explanations, lacking style, flair, and therefore substance and veracity, taking the measure of the latter from the former, which is one of the deepest and most discomforting lessons to be learned from philosophy.

Finally not suggesting that; in fact declaring that. Let the unphilosophical think that philosophy can't be used to make such statements. But it can; it is right now; thanks be to father philosophy for that; if it would be otherwise, I would not read it.

"Moreover I hate everything that merely instructs me without increasing or directly quickening my activity." Goethe, as quoted by Nietzsche.

>>3068840
>criticising arid demonstrations, tedious explanations, lacking style, flair, and therefore substance and veracity

>>3068846
That attitude is of no value to me.

Will you then tell me that it is of value to you; that mine is of no value to you?

That doesn't open the way to the great synthesis, the return of so-called objective values. It only means that we are both of no account to each other.

It itself is demonstrative of nothing.

Nothing.

>>3068840
You can string together sentences so you can't be as retarded as your response indicates.

Well done, had me going.

>>3068806
There is no such thing as unnecessary suffering.

>>3068810
I agree with Nietzsche.

When I asked the question I was trying to think of an argument against these people who say everything is OK as long as it's between two consenting adults.

>>3068880

>Causing pain unnecessarily is very close to what most would consider evil.

>There is no such thing as unnecessary suffering.

The original post used 'unnecessary suffering' perhaps poorly to convey 'suffering without any other gain for you'. The pain that comes from having a rotten tooth pulled is a suffering with a gain. Being murdered is a suffering without any gain for you. In this sense it is unnecessary suffering.

You've got a point if you are a determinist, and you think every event is necessary. Here we throw morality out the window. But even then, you could say being murdered causes you to suffer without any gain for you. There is no other possible option, but you are still in pain without any compensation.

>>3068910
'Unnecessary' doesn't exist.

>>3068890
I haven't read Nietzshe, but I thought his shtick was that the strong create ethics.

So under this theory, if you've got a very anti-gay government, then two adult homos are still in the wrong even if they consent to gayness.

Alternately, someone from virtue ethics may argue that if what these adults are consenting to promotes wickedness then what they do is evil. Imagine heroin junkies shooting up together, that leads to dissoluteness and lack of willpower.

A deontologist may say that there are certain things you shouldn't do. Maybe these two agree to lie to each other once, over the course of their life. Kant would say this is wrong.

At the moment I can't think of realistic examples that would contradict the claim.

Does that help? Do you have some ideas you'd like to share about it?

>>3068865
Are you calling something retarded on the internet? What a bad ass. Thanks for essentially grunting unfavourably at me - that is all retarded means on the internet, unless you want to relate some specious psychological claims - diagnosis based on internet post.

>>3068925
If only the strong created ethics, there wouldn't be slave morality.

>>3068930
Again, I don't know Nietzsche. If he didn't think that the strong create ethics then did he think that the strong should create ethics?

>>3068928

If you are tricking me son, you've done well.
The idea that something is untrue if boring is nonsense, you know that. The grunt should communicate to you that the pompous nonsense you have posted is not making you look cool but is instead making you look moronic. Look at the three who thought your original post was a troll. By all means, write with flair, just don't write bullshit with flair.

>>3068942
Call it nonsense. Address me with a diminutive. Modify nonsense with "pompous." Indirectly call me or my post "troll."

By your post, your stereotypical and pompous way of confronting the enemy of British enemies, "nonsense", I'm going to guess that you're British; but then there's "son", which is too American for that. Somewhere on the East Coast I'd say.

Boring things are untrue according to many perspectives, all of them as internally validating as your own criterion for validity, and perhaps even more valid.

>>3068925
Homos follow slave morality.

>>3068947
Just thought it may interest you that saying things like 'what is boring is false' sounds as dumb as 'blacks are inherently evil' or 'women are inherently dumb'. It just makes you look bad, pal.

But if you really believe that what is boring can't be true, then share your argument. Burden of proof is yours because you are being controversial.

>>3068914
If I wanted to go to the shop to buy milk, it would be UNNECESSARY to sit around posting on 4chan. Is English your second language or something?

>>3069876
The only one here interested in superficial appearances you. I am aware of how it sounds, and say it anyway. How things may sound to fools and what they mean are two different matters. If we were to confuse them, it would not be worth saying anything at all.

I don't want to share my argument, as I don't want to share my values with you. I wouldn't want someone like you to think or value things the same way as I do.

>>3069876
According to my logic, the only proof is not to bore, and that burden lies on your shoulders, and you have not borne it.