Universality as an a posteriori value
May 25th 2007 12:49
Coming back to the affair of ethics.
After the "Essays on collectivity" (a collection of 4 posts which is based on the Smith and Nash divergences on how economy works, starting here) i got to the conclusion that "universality" (the "categorical imperatives") should be a rule on ethics. Not that i like, but it is (prooved mathematically) true that the best way to act is that one.
Well, let's come back to the thoughts developped in other posts and see what they have to say.
Actually, in this post i got to the conclusion that no moral comes a priori in men.
With this i get closer to the existentialist way of seeing ethics: "what's the good thing to do? we don't know, you have to balance thinks yourself, act, and then take responsability of the effect of your acts in history." The best idea on ethics we got from Sartre, which is really well explained in his Existentialism is an humanism
I see also that one might think i get closer to utilitarism in this posts here, and here. This means quite a lot, since the main ideas develloped are based on this. So i have to explain it better
The worst, i use universality to explain that you should not help people on this post here.
And, to finish with the things to present, i do not agree (completely) with determinism, and thus you have no excuse to do what you do. This can be seen when we deny to causality the status of a "real" thing (here), and in comments in this post here.
So, where do we go now?
First of all, let's jsut see that the old discussion between kantism and utilitarism ethical systems is an old thing. First, as showed in the links before, kantism is old and full of holes. You can see one example of them in this post here. Second, utilitarism (and it variations) are even older than the Kant's system, and you can see their problems here.
The existentialist ethics are quite better, but philosopher's have this problem that ethics should be derived directly from metaphysics, otherwise they're not valuable. And thus, kantism can't be used. I quite agree.
But there's this thing we learned from tit-for-tat. And you can't deny it, it's maths. And this is an actual proof that universality should be considered into any ethical system. So, how?
The last answer i got in mind is to develop it as a consideration after time. Or after history. Universality is not a thing that can be considered as being part of human nature, or be a conclusion to humans behaviour by itself. It can only be achived after experience. Learned trhough history, culture, time. And thus universality can be developped only as an a posteriori value.
And if you don't agree that, from our history, universality should be a value?
Then you can still follow the existentialist ethical system. Or best, use Nietzsche, whose only ideas on ethics are: you can't measure the value of life and grand style (both ideas presented in the links showed before..)
And, as last conclusion, i have to reanalyse this "grand style élargie" presented on other posts to reevaluate how i can put this all togheter (and be coherent).
Cheers. Uula
After the "Essays on collectivity" (a collection of 4 posts which is based on the Smith and Nash divergences on how economy works, starting here) i got to the conclusion that "universality" (the "categorical imperatives") should be a rule on ethics. Not that i like, but it is (prooved mathematically) true that the best way to act is that one.
Well, let's come back to the thoughts developped in other posts and see what they have to say.
Actually, in this post i got to the conclusion that no moral comes a priori in men.
With this i get closer to the existentialist way of seeing ethics: "what's the good thing to do? we don't know, you have to balance thinks yourself, act, and then take responsability of the effect of your acts in history." The best idea on ethics we got from Sartre, which is really well explained in his Existentialism is an humanism
I see also that one might think i get closer to utilitarism in this posts here, and here. This means quite a lot, since the main ideas develloped are based on this. So i have to explain it better
The worst, i use universality to explain that you should not help people on this post here.
And, to finish with the things to present, i do not agree (completely) with determinism, and thus you have no excuse to do what you do. This can be seen when we deny to causality the status of a "real" thing (here), and in comments in this post here.
So, where do we go now?
First of all, let's jsut see that the old discussion between kantism and utilitarism ethical systems is an old thing. First, as showed in the links before, kantism is old and full of holes. You can see one example of them in this post here. Second, utilitarism (and it variations) are even older than the Kant's system, and you can see their problems here.
The existentialist ethics are quite better, but philosopher's have this problem that ethics should be derived directly from metaphysics, otherwise they're not valuable. And thus, kantism can't be used. I quite agree.
But there's this thing we learned from tit-for-tat. And you can't deny it, it's maths. And this is an actual proof that universality should be considered into any ethical system. So, how?
The last answer i got in mind is to develop it as a consideration after time. Or after history. Universality is not a thing that can be considered as being part of human nature, or be a conclusion to humans behaviour by itself. It can only be achived after experience. Learned trhough history, culture, time. And thus universality can be developped only as an a posteriori value.
And if you don't agree that, from our history, universality should be a value?
Then you can still follow the existentialist ethical system. Or best, use Nietzsche, whose only ideas on ethics are: you can't measure the value of life and grand style (both ideas presented in the links showed before..)
And, as last conclusion, i have to reanalyse this "grand style élargie" presented on other posts to reevaluate how i can put this all togheter (and be coherent).
Cheers. Uula
| 38 |
| Vote |
