[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1 KB, 230x174, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1540364 No.1540364 [Reply] [Original]

(1/2) (make sure to read both parts before discussing)

In almost all ethical philosophy treatises (Western especially), there is a fundamental tripartite division of the world into: individual, whole, and good

obvious examples off the top of my head: utilitarian, kantian, holism, stoicism, anything Platonic, etc

they all seek to first prove that the whole of the world inherently aims toward a good, so that 'natural law' can be associated with 'good'

then they seek to prove that the individual, as an imperfect part of this whole (in a Platonic sense), is seeking to become this whole, and thus become good

so that we have this chain of events or becomings: Individual -> Whole -> Good

But this also does not leave room for the moral agent to have knowledge of the objective good, which is why the individual pursues its whole so as to consequently and almost indirectly pursue the good.

Example in Mill's utilitarianism-

The competent judge knows the good because the competent judge has experienced 'both sides' so that the competent judge is the collection of all of individuals so that the competent judge knows an objective good because the competent judge is all-experiencing. Thus, the competent judge is the collective of all individuals, the 'whole'. The individual is not a competent judge because the individual only has self-experience.

>> No.1540367

Is this a problem that most of ethical philosophies do not attribute objective knowledge of the good to moral agents? Should not the moral agent be able to look within himself and find a good with which to view also in everything he sees? I think philosophers like Nietzsche and Emerson, for example, DO give the moral agent this capability since they give the individual the power to be the creator of values, and that moral agents are not dependent on finding morality in its collection of individuals.

Can individuals know an objective good or be able to identify one without using the 'whole' or 'collective' as a point of reference?

Crass thought experiment off the top of my head:

Imagine that you are the only life form on the earth -- there is no longer a collection of individuals to look to, so you can only look to yourself to find good. Can you find good still in yourself if you are the only life form on the planet? I am more persuaded that you can, and also that since you are now the only individual and one without belonging to a collection, I would say that if anything the good in you has actually increased and expanded without limitation from multitude. Instead, you are now somewhat of the 'ultimate good'


discuss

>> No.1540373

>>1540367
I think it that hypothetical situation you are the ultimate good because you have no other standards to compare it to. So you may be moral but that isn't saying much

>> No.1540376

>>1540367
No, the collective must be present for the idea of morality as it's based on the preservation and perpetuation of the collective. I single unit has no definite purpose, no community and so it cannot found moral basis for any event or action.

>> No.1540380

>>1540376
the idea of morality is not based on that; you are referring to certain mainstream ethical theories like utilitarianism

for example, Aristotelean virtue ethics is based on teleology and the individual's function

if you were the only life form on earth, you could still do a good action according to Aristotle by developing your functions; you can accordingly do a good action by developing your intellect, body, etc etc

>> No.1540383

also it would be better to focus on questions in my first two posts rather than my quick example, keep the example in mind for reference if needed

>> No.1540385

>>1540380
The individual function of all conscious life is in essence to maintain and advance all creatures which share their genome. You can't develop function without an initial function, much like an object doesn't move without energy. All viable functions are based on growth of the community. To say the development of self is "good" is unreasonable especially in these hypothetical circumstances as there is no reviewable source of morality, no check and no balance. You must have at least one other individual.

>> No.1540386

>>1540385
are you sure you cannot develop function without initial function? First, there was no life on earth, and then there was life on earth. Is this a good example of function developing without initial function?

also I do realize that my crass thought experiment is rather derailing the discussion from my main points

>> No.1540391

>>1540386
There is in all creatures an initial function, self-preservation. Self-preservation is an innate function in all organisms down to the microscopic level, but without community there can be no genuine basis for morality as the agent can't understand as a single being what is good, and what is bad, and what is in between. The growth of morality requires review, else it is purely subjective and is more prone to excess on either side of the spectrum.

Also, is this not answering your questions as conversation develops?

>> No.1540396

>>1540391
assuming we throw out my example, no you would not be answering my question because what I am proposing does not assume that there is only a single life form on earth. I ask: must one look to all that is not himself for a good? or must he look for good in himself and see all others with this same good that is within him and love and respect them thusly?

>> No.1540402

>>1540396
Yes, one must look at their own community as it is necessitated not only by their own survival, but the survival of their entire species. If one looks into themselves they're liable to what would be best described as greed. And because one man is "good," and even perhaps the majority is "good" that doesn't mean there aren't outliers whom act as corrupt agents and are a detriment to society as a whole. To look at all men as commonly good is an act in immeasurable naivety and acts against the functions which we are innately programed to act out.

>> No.1540405

>>1540402
And acts in blind faith would undoubtedly be considered "bad" as it could hold a vast number of variable consequences for an individual, and for his community. This is a reasonable explanation for the art of social skepticism, as well as the act of exiling an individual to maintain strength and integrity of the community; a good example to seek is in the behavior of wolves, if one behaves erratically it is subject to exile from the pack as it could cause a great deal of damage to the pack.

>> No.1540406

>>1540405
>>1540402
but this would posit that it would be moral to molest children as long as it makes the rest of the world better off

>> No.1540408

>>1540405
for example, in your position, it would be moral to be a slave-owning society - you are exiling the integrity of individuals and as a result your society thrives

>> No.1540411

>>1540367
"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil."

If you find yourself agreeing with this statement, or find it interesting, you may enjoy The Virtue of Selfishness.

>> No.1540417

>>1540406
I must ask how the act of molestation, especially with a minor could possibly benefit society, how did you conclude this?

>>1540408
First one must define society and community. You're twisting my words here as I was clearly defining them as the whole of the species. Secondly I was implicating the exile of the individuals who are a detriment to society.

>> No.1540419

Is there not a difference between the good of society and the good of the individual? I think the philosophies you mentioned would prioritize the good of society over the good of the whole, and I feel that it has the potential to impinge on the freedom of the individual to seek out his or her own goodness. In your thought experiment, by killing off everyone else on earth, you make society equal to the individual, as that person is at the same time both society in a sense and a single person, which would erase the tension between societal good and individual good.

>> No.1540423

tl;dr

Spinoza's Ethics is superior in every way.

>> No.1540432

>>1540417
I do not think morality is so empty as to only be a matter of its propagation of one's species and its evolutionary consequences, it's too anthropocentric. If this is the case, then slavery is clearly a better choice for the human species. We can take a small portion of the human species and treat them as lower so that while the rest of the species thrives and progresses, this small portion remains where it began - humans will have moved on, and this slave population will not have changed, and is thus now literally something less than what the human species have moved onto becoming.

Also, in your treatise of morality, you propose that what the majority of the whole of your species are acting for the purpose of a survival in togetherness, but it does not consider the means upon which your species achieves this end of 'survive and thrive in togetherness' - and it is 'by any means necessary'

>> No.1540435

>>1540432
and also, as moral agents, human individuals possess the capability of acting with reference to right and wrong; if the individual acts without consideration upon the means in which his acts are carried, is he really exercising his moral agency? Something from Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche comes to mind:

"You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I tell you: it is the good war that hallows every cause."

>> No.1540436

>>1540435
another thing that comes to mind is that Plato's Republic is not revered for its cause for which it fights, that is, totalitarianism, but it is revered rather for the how well Plato fights for totalitarianism.

>> No.1540456

are you still there anon?

>> No.1540467

>>1540456

Hi, I was just wondering what books would you recommend on this topic?

>> No.1540484

>>1540467
books on classical philosophy, books on Mill and Kant, books on Western ethics in general, and there's quite a bit more

but if you want a general scope and grasp on the general topic of ethics, I would recommend you begin reading classical philosophy, beginning with pre-socratics and going all the way through to the hellenistic and end at neo-platonism/christianity under augustine

since I'm arguing against traditional western ethics, you should read extensively from Mill and Kant and things written about them, and they are better understood once you've read up on classical

>> No.1540491
File: 27 KB, 500x500, 41dm1UEjXtL._SS500_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1540491

>>1540484

Is this book worth reading?

>> No.1540500

>>1540491
yes

>> No.1540505

>>1540491
take note that it's always better to first read philosophy from the actual philosophers, so that when you do read ABOUT them, like from James Miller over there, you will be able to judge what James Miller says about them since you have read the source yourself.

>> No.1540510

>>1540505

I'll take that in note, thank you.

>> No.1540541

>Can you find good still in yourself if you are the only life form on the planet? I am more persuaded that you can,
Okay. I can agree with this, very solid rea-.

>and also that since you are now the only individual and one without belonging to a collection, I would say that if anything the good in you has actually increased and expanded without limitation from multitude. Instead, you are now somewhat of the 'ultimate good'
What the fuck? That makes no sense at all. You realize a collective can do more than limit the individual, right? A collective can also be (and usually is) hugely responsible for the development of an individual. Feedback from collectives is one of the most important influences an individual has on his behavior and philosophy. The idea that removing the collective immediately pushes the individual towards good is therefore ridiculous and removed from all experience, and I absolutely do not say this as an economic collectivist, but as a person who is able to recognize that culture exists and has many positive and many negative effects.

>> No.1540543

>>1540541 cont'd

Basically, you take an interesting observation about philosophy, and you go arbitrarily in the other direction, so far that you absolutely forget what it was you were critiquing. This is the worst thought experiment I've ever read. Sorry we're focusing on it, but it is just that bad. Seriously, the "ultimate good"? What the fuck? What the fuck? I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to picture an individual life form having the "ultimate good" and it's just as reductive and ridiculous as the idea of a collective of individuals having the "ultimate good". Also, it's hardly picking a nit to notice that even if you were the last life form, you might be the only entity you would look to for good, but it's just as possible that you see no purpose in 99% of morality because there is no one your actions could possibly help or harm except yourself. "Do unto others" would likely wither and die in such a garden, not because you are more or less moral, but because the familiar context of moral interaction has been completely removed. Looking at this as the ultimate good, even hypothetically, reveals misunderstandings about the human condition and the political sphere that are too glaring to ignore, even through the philosophical lens of a thought experiment. Good lord.

Alright..., anyway, the main point of your post is interesting, but you seem to conflate "objective good" with "good" with "acting on objective knowledge of the good". Most of what we do takes place with respect to contexts and subjective and intersubjective experiences. Most of what we think of as good is subjective or contextual.

>> No.1540544

nonsense

>> No.1540551

>>1540505
>take note that it's always better to first read philosophy from the actual philosophers, so that when you do read ABOUT them, like from James Miller over there, you will be able to judge what James Miller says about them since you have read the source yourself.

And we have more evidence for the "completely detached from human interaction" hypothesis. You don't benefit (in a categorical sense ("always") ) from having others frame ideas for you based on their more extensive reading in modern terms before attempting to read extremely dense and often archaic prose? Most of philosophy is not lucid like, say, Hume's billiard thought experiment, and this "read the source first LOL" is a great way to give up after 10 pages in futility on Kant. Most of philosophy is difficult to read, and many of it is difficult even to think of, and many of the ideas are difficult because the philosopher preceded the terms which make talking about them so easy in modern times (like with economics and Adam Smith) Even the philosophers who are eminently readable like Mill and Nietzsche make statements that are easy to overlook without the benefit of secondary framing. Saying that you should read the original text first smacks of the implicit belief that the chronological source of text is more important than the content of text. We live philosophy, every day, and we don't have time to go from the pre-Socratics up to the 20th century philosophers. We read bits and pieces, and we read what is readable. I suppose we should go back in time, go back to the original languages, peep on the original time when the book is written, and vicariously look at the pages as Kant wrote the sentences. Because that's the only way we can truly go to the source.

>> No.1540552

>>1540543
yes this is an idea and question of mine that I haven't developed, and I just brainstormed generally to begin discussion - you will have to excuse the unfitting thought experiment

anon in this thread has defended the evolutionary/preservation/survival of one's species as the greatest good on the premise that the greatest function is survival, so that as a collective species survival, thriving, and a general progress of species is what is most virtuous

I think this evolutionary argument is a good argument and difficult to challenge, but is nonetheless not impossible to challenge

in opposition to this position, I bid we examine a Nietzschean idea:

"You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I tell you: it is the good war that hallows every cause."

Can the 'ultimate cause' which is strength and integrity of the species be one that should be fought for by any means necessary? Or is it with the greatest and the best means in which you approach any cause will make it 'ultimate cause'? If I want a thing, is this thing great because I will do anything to get it? Or is this thing great because I will do only the greatest and the best things to get it?

>> No.1540555

>>1540551
you misinterpret me

of course I believe that reading secondary sources will help you understand the primary, but I also believe you should attempt or at least look at the primary before you refer to the secondary

nobody's trying to be extreme here

>> No.1540556

>>1540551
good post. but it is always helpful to also read the original text aside from secondary introductions.

>> No.1540557

>>1540544
afraid to participate onion?

>> No.1540559

no your system is obviously stupid i am not going to waste time on it.

>> No.1540561

>>1540552
>anon in this thread has defended the evolutionary/preservation/survival of one's species as the greatest good on the premise that the greatest function is survival, so that as a collective species survival, thriving, and a general progress of species is what is most virtuous

And that really is ridiculous. I really do not care what that other person thinks. Just because we are a product of evolution does not mean our sole function as individuals or as a species is self-preservation. What about development of the self? You could just as well argue that self-development precedes self-preservation

>> No.1540563

>>1540559
I wish that you would not attack positions without offering a better replacement

>> No.1540565

She's a feminist bro, she wouldn't have much to contribute anyway.

>> No.1540567

>>1540555

>of course I believe that reading secondary sources will help you understand the primary, but I also believe you should attempt or at least look at the primary before you refer to the secondary
>nobody's trying to be extreme here

You said you should "always" read the primary source before the secondary source. I'm not sure why "attempting to look" with a huge failure rate (as it is with most people, including most extremely intelligent people) is acceptable to you then. And you also implied in another post that you should read philosophy more or less as a whole and chronologically. I mean, maybe I'm inferring too much here, but gosh, I'm pretty sure this is a valid interpretation of what you've said, especially given your OP. Like, you seem really tied to the language game instead of the content of ideas, and this tendency has hurt your ability to understand and communicate the content of ideas. I could be projecting other people I know onto you here, but yeah, that's the sense I get.

>> No.1540568

>>1540565
Feminist philosophy has a great many interesting ideas

Have you actually read any of it?

>> No.1540569

>>1540568

Of course, but it's not relevant to the debate you're having and feminists are notoriously concrete.

>> No.1540570
File: 7 KB, 252x240, 1263207747996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1540570

>>1540568
>>1540568

>Feminist philosophy has a great many interesting ideas

>> No.1540572

>>1540567
Well, when I say you should always first read the primary source, I do not mean read in a way as to comprehend it, but to read it for the purpose of knowing what it looks like, and the general arguments being put forth and the way which the arguments are structured - not necessarily to understand each argument and term, so that you are not going into the secondary sources completely blind.

In some ways, yes, you can say I am tied to the language game more than the content of the ideas, but this is what exactly my OP sets out to examine. The reason that I advised for a chronological reading was also precisely because of what I am trying to do beginning with my OP - to show that a bulk of Western traditional ethics is tied to the subject-object language game of Plato, and all of these doctrines are just, at a fundamental level, different manifestations of Platonism

>> No.1540737

ok here are my problems with your post

>In almost all ethical philosophy treatises (Western especially), there is a fundamental tripartite division of the world into: individual, whole, and good

assuming i understand clearly what your divisions are, this is a rather greedy generalization. you should at least point out that this division is not explicit in most of these theories, but it is you who read them as having such divisions.
then again, "fundamental tripartite division of the world" is so damn heavy you need to do a lot of work to show how even one ethics follows this idea.
>they all seek to first prove that the whole of the world inherently aims toward a good, so that 'natural law' can be associated with 'good'
this reads like teleological nonsense. i hope it is not.

>then they seek to prove that the individual, as an imperfect part of this whole (in a Platonic sense), is seeking to become this whole, and thus become good
very false. this platonic system of individual-whole isn't very useful for the majority of ethical systems. liberals start from the idea of rights, consequentialists like to play with states of affairs, virtue ethics deals with a concept of good life/flourishing of species being. the fact that these systems can be extended to an arbitrary set of cases(individuals if you'd like, but not every ethics has the individual as a unit of analysis) does not mean that they are all concerned with platonist ontology or conduct their work in the platonist frame of mind. the difference between say consequentialism and virtue ethics isn't explicable in the platonist framework.

>moral agent to have knowledge of the objective good
wat@this paragraph

you seem to think that it's cool to read all philosophy like a platonist. it is not, and it's not allt hat productive.

>> No.1540740

>Imagine that you are the only life form on the earth -- there is no longer a collection of individuals to look to, so you can only look to yourself to find good.
>to look to
what does this mean for real. you are sounding like a randoid here. having others as the object of one's ethical concerns is not the same as being others' slave. i thought you read plato, must have missed the symposium.

>Can you find good still in yourself if you are the only life form on the planet? I am more persuaded that you can
duh. is this your radical conclusion?

>and also that since you are now the only individual and one without belonging to a collection, I would say that if anything the good in you has actually increased and expanded without limitation from multitude.
wat

>Instead, you are now somewhat of the 'ultimate good'
wat