Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 If the shoe fits. It's like if he called me white, I am white, so I accept it. I've also never calmed to be sane. Apparently you can see and understand what I'm saying which either means great minds think alike, or we're both mad as a hatter. Please note that I didn't call him stupid, I just said not smart ENOUGH, because I do believe he's smart. Take it to the grammar thread, and go get a spell check. Maybe those are all typographical errors but yeah you tend to misspell one or two words. Try Mozilla Firefox as it has a built in spell check and underlines errors in red. Obviously that won't help with grammatical errors such as interchanging the words affect and effect but it's at least some help. Also aint isn't a word, but it's become one through time (or at least generally accepted). Talking to your general run of the mill average person they wouldn't know the difference between morals and ethics either. I didn't know because I've never paid attention to either. So congratulations on teaching me something new and giving me more power, because knowledge is power and I will use that power to CRUSH YOU ALL LIKE ANTS! If you really want to point out fallacies in the English language though lets start with ebonics, dawg. Where is my grammer and spelling off? Where did I use the word aint? I will admit I may have affect/effect switched in a few places... I have to have at least one fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev.Reverence Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 You are not making sense. First you make a statement that hints that you subscribe to Determinism. then you say that Ethics vary from person to person... but morals are defined by the majority. Which is it? If you subscribe to Determinism, there are no Morals or Ethics... If not... You need to realise that Morals are determined by Ethics. Ethics are the rules by which we make Moral choices. then you say there is no Good or Evil.. but you say there is Karma... and Karma is all about Good and Evil. Karma is basically the law of cause & effect...or the transference of energy...what goes around comes around.. NOT an "good over evil" thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Guy Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Where is my grammer and spelling off? Where did I use the word aint? I will admit I may have affect/effect switched in a few places... I have to have at least one fault. I never said you used the word aint. Just stated that it wasn't a word. Your use of affect/effect was fine too. I was just stating another example. Also it's grammar, not grammer Copy everything you've written into a spell check and see what comes up red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) Deontology and Teleology... but they are not in standard dictionary's. Edited April 8, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taysteewonderbunny Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 ..I was not following the tree-bird bit until the factory came in (as the tree can not be held as an active participant in a moral dilemma)...I got that it was passive #2 as soon as the factory was mentioned...[note: my attention span is very bad right now, as I am in a creative flux...so there is not much concentration to go around] See, Gaf? I was not the only person confused by this. Mine isn't a rebuttal--it's an editing suggestion. Your idea isn't stated as clearly as it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Karma is basically the law of cause & effect...or the transference of energy...what goes around comes around..NOT an "good over evil" thing. Karma is a system of Teleology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Guy Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Karma is a system of Teleology. However Teleology is not required for Karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 See, Gaf? I was not the only person confused by this. Mine isn't a rebuttal--it's an editing suggestion. Your idea isn't stated as clearly as it could be. I did not, at that point, want it to be very clear. I wanted you to read to that point and wonder where the hell I was going. To keep you reading. As I said, I was complimented by my Prof on my crafting of that moral dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 However Teleology is not required for Karma. Teleology is a blanket term for all Cause/Affect Ethical systems. I suppose you are right though, one does not need to know the definition of Tree to appreciate the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev.Reverence Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) Karma is a system of Teleology. I did not read the second paper yet...I'll catch up in a minute Teleology is a blanket term for all Cause/Affect Ethical systems. I suppose you are right though, one does not need to know the definition of Tree to appreciate the woods. Edited April 8, 2009 by Rev.Reverence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taysteewonderbunny Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Deontology and Teleology... but they are not in standard dictionaries. I beg to differ. Merriam Webster definition: deontology Merriam Webster definition: teleology American Heritage definition: deontology American Heritage definition: teleology Dictionary.com definition: deontology Dictionary.com definition: teleology Btw, what was the above post a response to? My question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) I beg to differ. Merriam Webster definition: deontology Merriam Webster definition: teleology American Heritage definition: deontology American Heritage definition: teleology Dictionary.com definition: deontology Dictionary.com definition: teleology Btw, what was the above post a response to? My question? I don't even remember anymore. oh, and those definitions of Teleology are dismal. Edited April 8, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev.Reverence Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 I beg to differ. Merriam Webster definition: deontology Merriam Webster definition: teleology American Heritage definition: deontology American Heritage definition: teleology Dictionary.com definition: deontology Dictionary.com definition: teleology Btw, what was the above post a response to? My question? *AHEM* Are these two systems mutually exclusive?...or are they interchangeable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 read the second paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taysteewonderbunny Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 read the second paper. More on the topic from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Just mentally insert "teleology" for "consequentialism" in the first part, Rev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev.Reverence Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 read the second paper. I was afraid you'ld say that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I was afraid you'ld say that... Read it yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev.Reverence Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Read it yet? *the thumping bass resounds* In a minute...I can't read that & listen to the rap ...different brains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taysteewonderbunny Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I don't even remember anymore. oh, and those definitions of Teleology are dismal. Actually, I think they're spot on. I am used to 'teleology' only being used in reference to Aristotle's causes, generally relating to the supposed 'purpose' of an existent thing. I've adopted your usage as a synonym for consequentialism because I don't really want to debate the proper use of the term since I can 1) readily grasp your intent, and 2) may be ignorant of its other uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Teleology and Ethics Teleological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus on the consequences which any action might have (for that reason, they are often referred to as consequentalist moral systems, and both terms are used here). Thus, in order to make correct moral choices, we have to have some understanding of what will result from our choices. When we make choices which result in the correct consequences, then we are acting morally; when we make choices which result in the incorrect consequences, then we are acting immorally. The idea that the moral worth of an action is determined by the consequences of that action is often labeled consequentialism. Usually, the "correct consequences" are those which are most beneficial to humanity - they may promote human happiness, human pleasure, human satisfaction, human survival or simply the general welfare of all humans. Whatever the consequences are, it is believed that those consequences are intrinsically good and valuable, and that is why actions which lead to those consequences are moral while actions which lead away from them are immoral. The various teleological moral systems differ not only on exactly what the "correct consequences" are, but also on how people balance the various possible consequences. After all, few choices are unequivocally positive, and this means it is necessary to figure out how to arrive at the correct balance of good and bad in what we do. Note that merely being concerned with the consequences of an action does not make a person a consequentialist - the key factor is, rather, basing the morality of that action on the consequences instead of on something else. The word teleology comes from the Greek roots telos, which means end, and logos, which means science. Thus, teleology is the "science of ends." Key questions which teleological ethical systems ask include: What will be the consequences of this action? What will be the consequences of inaction? How do I weigh the harm against the benefits of this action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taysteewonderbunny Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Ha ha ha ha! I just got schooled. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 No problem... In my search for "The Truth" I am perfectly willing to drag others along with me... even if they are kicking and screaming all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taysteewonderbunny Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Kicking and screaming? Not here, not from me. I like an occasional spanking. Besides, tantrums are counterproductive to finding the answers I seek. Rarely do people have the patience to give full explanations to people who behave as brats. Btw, after reading your second essay, I find the last paragraph the most intriguing. I almost wish your paper started there. Yet, you did say earlier that you don't endeavor, in that paper, to find a resolution to the problems besetting those two major ethical systems--would you be game for trying, even if we both fail miserably, here to hash something out that perhaps better withstands those criticisms with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Spiral (13) Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Having finally been able to focus long enough to read the whole topic... (Every time i try to read a long-form subject on DGN I typically get sidetracked with DGN "work" and never get around to actually responding.) I read both papers. Nice to read longer gaf language where the context required a minimum of anger. They were good gaf, and I'm guessing some of the confusion that might have been there for some was not there for me as I probably read the latest edition. One of the problems I always foresee is a problem with definition of terms and context, which, as evidenced above, absorbs much of the conversation. A problem of technical language vs colloquial language. No matter how hard lexicographers try, this problem will remain. For instance in an everyday conversation if someone asked "Was that action that we took against them ethical?" I'd understand that the speaker meant something like "Was that action Immoral , Moral or Amoral?" without having to think twice about it. But, from a philosophically technical standpoint "Was that action ethical?" seems silly or begging the question or just nonsensical. Well DUH it was ethical, that doesn't even make any sense! TitsMcGee's comment above falls under this. Most of us know what she meant. That is "Washington does not act morally." but the actual language she used "Washington has no ethics." doesn't make much sense if we drill down using more focused philosophical thought. I wouldn't say she was making no sense, she just was not speaking in the technical context many of us might be expecting. Then there is a problem between people that spend a ton of time on these type of subjects vs people that deal with them more casually. My reaction to Scary Guy's first comment was similar to gafs (although I'd have tried to avoid the negative tone of the response). SG comes off as very contradictory even though it was not intended as such. (and the fact that I agree with what I think his conclusions were meant to be, at least partially.) Its just a problem between people that are used to thinking about such subjects and grasp some of these concepts immediately vs someone that thinks about such things more casually. It does not mean they are a moron, they perhaps just are not used to discussing things with such focused / studied thoughts / language. It did make SENSE to me, reading it without my Platonic glasses on, with them on my thoughts probably would be something akin to "WTF?". I've got so many thoughts on the subject its hard to pin any of them down. I didn't have a problem with the tree/bird example, even though I can see the confusion. If its viewed just as its stated without trying to read into it and start making conclusions, its straightforward. We don't even need the chemical company part to help us out, as it is just an example for definition of terms. I just probably would have avoided using that example since It seemed apt to cause confusion, unintentionally. Using a more "human" example. Often I find myself using examples I don't like all that much, but they are useful given whatever my audience is. But in the above case the audience was going to most likely be a professor, in which case there would be no need. I just immediately replace Teleology with Consequential ism as a term. Not because I think it is more correct, or that there is no distinction its just easier to remember and if there is a distinction, it seems so slight to me that I'd rather focus on something else. "Consequential deals with ethical consequences." (too over simplify) Is just easier for me than "Teleology deals with ethical consequences." I never majored in philosophy. I Majored first in art (probably about as subjective as it gets) and then in Science (probably about as objective as it gets.) I view philosophy as being in between the two subjects and have long found it fascinating. But I have had my share of philosophy, especially since I've been out of school. In school I was taught that there were three branches of ethics, which there was an acronym for N.A.M. Normative, Applied, Meta. Never even occurred to me that Dentology or Teleology were "main branches" of ethics, I assumed they were properties or systems to be applied to the three branches mentioned in my last sentence. Or, perhaps your phrase "... of ethical systems." means "of [Applied/Meta/Normative(?)] ethical systems." or something similar? So we'd end up with 3 "main branches" and 2 sub categories for each branch there I guess. Taken from there though I thought Virtue Ethics was separate from these two, although I guess it could be lumped into Dentology. I've long viewed attempts to describe the universe in language as word-symbols and we just have to declare them. Often one system of word-symbols is pretty much as good as the next and I've often seen technical descriptions of similar phenomenon use different terms, but mean exactly the same thing as far as I can tell. e looking it up, I know it could get really technical as hell if we start talking about the differences between Normative , Descriptive and such so I'll run away screaming from that for now. lol I wish there were more focused discussions like this. I've long been trying to get at some sort of clear understanding of "Truth and/or Reality." and such subjects help get closer to it. I spend a large majority of my private-thought time on similar subjects, and have long wished there were more on DGN. Often the problem is the difficulty of staying remotely on topic or quite often, people turn into Fire-breathing Ass-hats (technical term) and are unable to stay calm enough to actually have such a discussion. At least so far its been mostly about definition of terms, thus (I think) helping avoid the F.B. problem. Suffer with me on some of the above commentary I made, there was a bare minimum of proofreading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted April 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) I never majored in philosophy. I Majored first in art (probably about as subjective as it gets) and then in Science (probably about as objective as it gets.) I view philosophy as being in between the two subjects and have long found it fascinating. But I have had my share of philosophy, especially since I've been out of school. In school I was taught that there were three branches of ethics, which there was an acronym for N.A.M. Normative, Applied, Meta. Never even occurred to me that Dentology or Teleology were "main branches" of ethics, I assumed they were properties or systems to be applied to the three branches mentioned in my last sentence. Or, perhaps your phrase "... of ethical systems." means "of [Applied/Meta/Normative(?)] ethical systems." or something similar? So we'd end up with 3 "main branches" and 2 sub categories for each branch there I guess. Taken from there though I thought Virtue Ethics was separate from these two, although I guess it could be lumped into Dentology. Your N.A.M. is applicable to Deontology and Teleology. Each is a complete Ethical systems. (I could have also used "Moral Code") I think perhaps that terms we were taught are slightly different. I was not taught N.A.M. I was taught Moral/Ethics/Meta-Ethics. I think though, we were taught the same thing but different terms were used by our profs. Virtue Ethics, as I was taught, is one of the very few Ethical systems that is neither Deontology nor Teleology. Though, it is more closely related to Deontology than Teleology. Social Contract is another "independent" Ethical System. Some examples of Teleology: Egotistic Hedonism Hedonism Utilitarianism Some examples of Deontology: Religion "Just" Authority (our legal system and the Constitution that created it) Reason (Not logic, Logic without Reason is stupid) And yes Troy, this is the type of conversation I love. It's why I finally, after 23 years of living in the world, went to college for the first time. Edited April 10, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now