From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "Absolute Ethics" (was Re: Who are you guys?)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:24:13 GMT

Perhaps we have a fundamental communication problem here.  This is the
best guess I can come up with.  So let me ask a question to clarify
the basis of this discussion:

When you use the term "absolute ethics", do you mean a single,
comprehensive moral or ethical code which defines the ethical
action in every situation for every person?

If one is of a religious bent, feel free to insert references to God,
Allah, Buddha, Lord Krishna, etc. as appropriate.  As in, "Do you
believe that God determines what the ethical action is in every
situation....", etc.

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <#g+3!fc@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:


>>>>>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?

>>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards

>>Which "absolute ethical standards" are you referring to?  If you refer
>>to your own ethics, are you certain that they are as absolute as you
>>claim?  

>My ethics are the best approximation I know of to the absolute. (If
>I knew of a better approximation, I'd switch to it.)

Ok. Now if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that there
exists an absolute moral or ethical code, you're just not sure what it
is, nor even how close your understanding of it is.

Or are you simply saying "I live the best way I know how, by the best
set of ethics I have come up with."?  If so, do realize that this is
pretty much true for everyone on the planet, including those women who
choose either abortion or parenthood.  Which makes me wonder about the
relevance of your comments on "absolute ethics".

>>Are you saying that you have never changed 
>>your mind about whether something is ethical or not?  If you have, are
>>you saying that your ethics are now correct and have ceased to evolve?

>No, and no. My ethics don't evolve without reason, and so far the 
>pro-choicers haven't given me any.

So you're saying that even though your own ethical code isn't absolute,
you're sure that there is an absolute set of ethics out there somewhere,
and you're just trying to find out what it is.  Am I correct so far?

>>As for the existence of some absolute ethical standard for everyone
>>that's floating around out in the universe somewhere I say hey, why
>>not?  I've never seen an extraterrestrial, but I don't discount the
>>possibility that they exist.  I've just never seen any evidence that
>>any human is privy to that information, if it exists.  

>Of what would such evidence consist? 

Positive evidence would be provided by even a reasonable amount of
consensus on what constituted a comprehensive ethical code by members
of a relatively homogenous group.  In other words, if all Christians
could get together and agree on say, under what conditions war might
be considered ethical.  I believed I had implied this by my comments
below.  After all, one would expect that if absolute ethics existed
and were obtainable by asking for Divine Inspiration (doctrines which
are taught by many churches), we would expect to see many people, asking
the same questions of the same God, come up with reasonably similar
answers.

While not proof, this would constitute strong positive evidence.
However, I've seen no such agreement.  You're more than welcome to
present such evidence, although I do warn you that I scrutinize
such things as implied definitions and underlying assumptions to
avoid such content-free tautologies as "Murder is wrong."

>(Or is this an unfalsifiable statement?)

No, I think it could be demonstrated by a preponderence of the 
evidence.  I was going to mention solipsism making it unfalsifiable,
but then I realized that pure solipsism gives the only solid evidence
that absolute morals DO exist.  (There IS an absolute moral code -
MINE!  (-: )

>>I really don't
>>believe you could get any two people on the planet to agree on a 
>>comprehensive ethical code.  Some people believe it would be ethical
>>to kill if necessary to protect 50% of the population of the planet 
>>from being wiped out.  Some believe it would be ethical to kill to
>>avoid physical or emotional pain, i.e., self-defense against rape.
>>Others believe that it is never ethical to take
>>a life.  The Jains sweep the path before their feet to avoid killing
>>any living thing, even bugs.

>Relevance?

Absolutism.  If these "absolute ethics" are out there, why doesn't
anyone agree on their definition?

>>>Isn't it either pointless or self-contradictory?

>>If you feel that debate between persons of differing ideas is either
>>pointless or contradictory, 

>Not at all -- assuming they recognize that there is AN answer toward
>which they both strive.

Feh, too limiting.  I prefer to recognize that there may be a thousand
equally valid approaches and conclusions.

>> After all, _I_ feel that the _only_ interesting debate occurs
>>between people of differing opinions.

>Amen!

Hmmmm.  This doesn't seem to jibe with your earlier comments, but then
perhaps I misunderstood you.

>Mark Pundurs

                 -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55154 alt.abortion.inequity:6399