tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post8154069945361392321..comments2024-01-07T05:17:58.943-05:00Comments on Orthoprax: On Ethics:Orthopraxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-56724165708838682442007-09-24T09:54:00.000-04:002007-09-24T09:54:00.000-04:00Dear Do Over!Maybe the zoniug regulation is wrong,...Dear Do Over!<BR/><BR/>Maybe the zoniug regulation is wrong, or just some bureaucratic non-sense. Regulations vary from state to state, and from municipality to municipalty, so whose to say withc is right. Moreover, no-frum people violate zong regualtions all the time, and they don't even bother to ask their Rabbi. Just pick up a newspaper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-41236666097310609472007-09-23T22:41:00.000-04:002007-09-23T22:41:00.000-04:00The knock on religious 'absolute' ethics, is that ...The knock on religious 'absolute' ethics, is that if the whole thing isn't true (as many here believe) then who says that 'they' are getting it right. And once it an act that I might find as being unenthical is determined by a posek to be 'mutar', the frum Yid is absolved of making their own moral judgement and will do the unethical act without batting an eyelash.<BR/><BR/>I have a neighbor whose wife is extremely nice and kind. They are 100% 'da'as Torah' jews. They were doing some work on their house and they pulled some shtick so as to circumvent a particular zoning regulation. I raised my eyebrow and she said that her husband asked their Rov who told them that it was mutar. Had this lady never become a BT, she would never of thought of doing this shady act. But since it got the kosher 'shtemple' from their Rav, her moral judgement was suspended.<BR/><BR/>This is sad.Do over!https://www.blogger.com/profile/08365003924668858373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-84000037590135873472007-09-19T17:30:00.000-04:002007-09-19T17:30:00.000-04:00Anon,Not all feelings are emotions. Intuition is a...Anon,<BR/><BR/>Not all feelings are emotions. Intuition is a sense of knowledge not founded in strict rationality, but that is not the same as emotionally driven responses. Common sense is like this. There are many examples of things where people have an intuitive sense of knowledge. What emotion is that? <BR/><BR/>A motor based skill is an example of subconscious knowledge too. And the more experience one has, the better one's muscle control gets - likewise do our intuitive judgements improve with experience.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-91109828499936659472007-09-19T10:02:00.000-04:002007-09-19T10:02:00.000-04:00Throwing a ball is a motor based skill that is roo...Throwing a ball is a motor based skill that is rooted in the cerebellum. Moreover, there is motor skills learning. <BR/><BR/>What is intuition if not a feeling, e.g. an emotion. It just doesn't feel write.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-47859188827957443482007-09-18T19:33:00.000-04:002007-09-18T19:33:00.000-04:00I've been taught lots of things, that doesn't mean...I've been taught lots of things, that doesn't mean I don't think critically about them. In any case most people, even without consciously thinking about it, intuitively conclude that murder is wrong. This intuition is not the same as emotion.<BR/><BR/>In an analogy - I know intuitively how hard I need to throw a ball if I want it to hit a target. I know this without any emotion being involved. Emotion may come into play when I decide to actually throw the ball - the potential sense of satisfaction when I hit the target, but the knowledge of how to do it is not emotional.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-19363994329603251952007-09-18T15:43:00.000-04:002007-09-18T15:43:00.000-04:00Maybe you think murder is wring because you where ...Maybe you think murder is wring because you where taught that way. How else would you know, unless you feel it emotionally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-3623277070506323302007-09-18T15:05:00.000-04:002007-09-18T15:05:00.000-04:00Anon,"How about doing a mitzva lishmo, and not for...Anon,<BR/><BR/>"How about doing a mitzva lishmo, and not for the sake of a reward?"<BR/><BR/>Sure, what of it?<BR/><BR/>"How could a sense of right and wrong be anything other than an emotional motivator. Waht is any inate sense other than a emotion? You do soemthing good because it feels right."<BR/><BR/>A sense of right and wrong can exist independently of the emotional motivations to act rightly or wrongly. For example, we recognize that murder is wrong even without guilt aversion ever being a factor in our thinking.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-84862669439644232132007-09-18T14:54:00.000-04:002007-09-18T14:54:00.000-04:00How could a sense of right and wrong be anything o...How could a sense of right and wrong be anything other than an emotional motivator. Waht is any inate sense other than a emotion? You do soemthing good because it feels right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-41270107314634283352007-09-18T14:51:00.000-04:002007-09-18T14:51:00.000-04:00How about doing a mitzva lishmo, and not for the s...How about doing a mitzva lishmo, and not for the sake of a reward?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-3797210236177961592007-09-18T13:20:00.000-04:002007-09-18T13:20:00.000-04:00Anon,"Are you saying above that jail is preferable...Anon,<BR/><BR/>"Are you saying above that jail is preferable to religion?"<BR/><BR/>No, I'm saying that human derived punishment for wrongdoing is in the same category of motivation as deity derived punishment for wrongdoing.<BR/><BR/>"So what if religion is self interest if that is what to takes to keep some people in line."<BR/><BR/>I'm not arguing with you. I recognize the utility, but for those skeptical of the whole construct it just doesn't work. And for those who don't believe it, it's going to be tough to convince them to promote what they consider a lie.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"What else is an inate moral sense if not the fact that doing good makes you feel good, and helps you avoid guilt?"<BR/><BR/>I would say that it's more than that, more of a sense of right and wrong that is not necessarily bound to emotional motivators.<BR/><BR/>"Maybe a person who uses religion as a means to overcome his natural inclination to not be good, (such people do exist) deserves more credit."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, though I'll let you make that judgement call. I see the one who is afraid of punishment as totally self-concerned while the naturally good person has their sights on doing good for others even while they are following their internal motivators. In any case, both of your given options fall short of the ideal where people act right for its own sake.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-5347638745183314432007-09-18T10:13:00.000-04:002007-09-18T10:13:00.000-04:00It could be argued that a person who is good becau...It could be argued that a person who is good because it makes him feel good is also operating in his own self interest. What else is an inate moral sense if not the fact that doing good makes you feel good, and helps you avoid guilt? Does a person who does good because it feels good deserve any more credit that a person who eats a donut because it makes tastes good? Maybe a person who uses religion as a means to overcome his natural inclination to not be good, (such people do exist) deserves more credit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-41365813571473751882007-09-18T09:42:00.000-04:002007-09-18T09:42:00.000-04:00Are you saying above that jail is preferable to re...Are you saying above that jail is preferable to religion? Do you really believe that? So what if religion is self interest if that is what to takes to keep some people in line. Also, religion can keep good people form slipping occasionally. After all nobodies perfect. It is valuable for that reason. It can also serve to make good people better. Waht is wrong with that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-68441955153248582662007-09-17T22:15:00.000-04:002007-09-17T22:15:00.000-04:00Whatever you say Sancho.Whatever you say Sancho.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-2666704161132892612007-09-17T21:28:00.000-04:002007-09-17T21:28:00.000-04:00"The point is that skeptics don't find your scenar..."The point is that skeptics don't find your scenario very reasonable."<BR/><BR/>The point is that amoral libertines don't find my scenario very reasonable. That needs to change.jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-26331052524568640272007-09-17T21:25:00.000-04:002007-09-17T21:25:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-40342205117050289372007-09-17T21:07:00.000-04:002007-09-17T21:07:00.000-04:00Baal,"...the bottom line is people behave better w...Baal,<BR/><BR/>"...the bottom line is people behave better when there's someone keppeing score."<BR/><BR/>It's true, you can't argue with results. But it's also true that more people better respond to a kick in the pants than to thoughtful consideration.<BR/><BR/>"Perhaps that's why religion evolved in the first place. Communities that believed in an external God fared better than those that did not."<BR/><BR/>Doubtful since most ancient religions don't hinge morality on a deity in the first place.<BR/><BR/><BR/>JP,<BR/><BR/>"You may not like the idea of a Cosmic Cop, but have you got a better idea?"<BR/><BR/>What if the cop was an intangible dragon who lived under your bed and would do terrible things to you if you misbehaved? The point is that skeptics don't find your scenario very reasonable.<BR/><BR/>Though, to note, the concept of karma hinges morality on the fabric of the universe and not on any particular zapping deity. I'm not saying I believe in it, but it seems like an approach that works similarly to the ethical monotheism in the sense you propose.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-30341540489783328242007-09-17T17:28:00.001-04:002007-09-17T17:28:00.001-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-17094333790976278522007-09-17T17:28:00.000-04:002007-09-17T17:28:00.000-04:00And if you're worried about science having discred...And if you're worried about science having discredited religion, then fear not! Just visit my blog!!<BR/><BR/>My motto is: No Skeptic Left Behind.jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-91550415325087721432007-09-17T17:26:00.000-04:002007-09-17T17:26:00.000-04:00Ortho, that's why I specified:The best guarantee t...Ortho, that's why I specified:<BR/><BR/>The best guarantee to being nice a person is: believing in God, believing the He commanded you to be nice and believing He will zap you if you aren't.<BR/><BR/>You may not like the idea of a Cosmic Cop, but have you got a better idea? I submit that without it, we are just primates whacking each other with sticks. Although today we have advanced from sticks to nuclear weapons. Without religion, and the right type of religion, we are lost.jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-79589271712814941542007-09-17T16:54:00.000-04:002007-09-17T16:54:00.000-04:00>>>My answers: I value my own ethical integrity an...>>>My answers: I value my own ethical integrity and that integrity is worth more to me than any monetary gain or whatever.<BR/><BR/>>>"Unfortunately, everyone has his price, and I dare say, even you. And that's where a religious system based on a personal God, where there's an external scorekeeper who will right all wrongs and reward you for your deprivation, has us beat."<BR/><BR/>>Perhaps so, in a Hobbesian sense - but as a moral theory that's awful. It's the moral theory for scoundrels. Far better to serve an ideal for the validity you see inherent to it than for extraneous factors that compel you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Maybe it's a bad moral theory and maybe it's better to serve an ideal (define better), but the bottom line is people behave better when there's someone keppeing score. Perhaps that's why religion evolved in the first place. Communities that believed in an external God fared better than those that did not.Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-62250493719013556282007-09-17T16:31:00.000-04:002007-09-17T16:31:00.000-04:00Tobie,"We tried to disprove that we are profit-dri...Tobie,<BR/><BR/>"We tried to disprove that we are profit-driven, but in the end, our ethics are based on the best way of achieving the goal that we, for whatever innate reason, want most to achieve. And ethics still are nothing more than the best way of getting what we want."<BR/><BR/>Ah, but you see the key here is with the 'we' being different from the 'I.' There is no problem being motivated for the greater good since it goes beyond the interests of the "merely personal."<BR/><BR/>What my perspective establishes philosophically is that morality is objective and theoretically testable which saves it from the impotence of subjectivism. What drives us to do the objectively correct thing is of lesser importance and only really matters in the academic world of measuring the nobility of our interests. Kant might not be satisfied, but it's good enough for me. The deed counts far more than the thought.<BR/><BR/><BR/>JP,<BR/><BR/>Osama bin Laden has religious ethics. <BR/><BR/>The point is that skeptics understand that what people believe about God's ethics is actually the expression of whoever said them in God's name.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anon,<BR/><BR/>"ther are people who have no, or a very weak, inate moral sense. Waht is there for those people"<BR/><BR/>That's what prison is for. If morality isn't enough to keep you in line then society has emplaced other kinds of motivating factors.<BR/><BR/>Those are at the same level of motivation as believing in a wrathful deity. Pure self-interest.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-43620605646539181222007-09-17T15:35:00.000-04:002007-09-17T15:35:00.000-04:00ther are people who have no, or a very weak, inate...ther are people who have no, or a very weak, inate moral sense. Waht is there for those people?<BR/><BR/>Moreover, it has been my experience that sometimes, even people with an inate moral sense can slip up. Nobody is perfect. When you add religious morality into the mix, it helps keep is inline.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-15234152605469931842007-09-17T11:51:00.000-04:002007-09-17T11:51:00.000-04:00I think there are basically two different types of...I think there are basically two different types of ethics:<BR/><BR/>Religious ethics, based on whatever God thinks is ethical.<BR/><BR/>Secular ethics, based on whatever most people in my society think is ethical.<BR/><BR/>A Victorian atheist would probably have considered abortion terribly unethical. A Soviet atheist would have considered murdering a successful businessman ("capitalist parasite") highly ethical. A present day American atheist would say the opposite.<BR/><BR/>The best guarantee to being nice a person is: believing in God, believing the He commanded you to be nice and believing He will zap you if you aren't. <BR/><BR/>Keep that in mind when you raise your children.jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-81025614910707307082007-09-17T11:12:00.000-04:002007-09-17T11:12:00.000-04:00Well, of course I'm pro-humanity, as a general rul...Well, of course I'm pro-humanity, as a general rule. But the thing is I still don't see what this discussion has accomplished, philosophically speaking. We tried to disprove that we are profit-driven, but in the end, our ethics are based on the best way of achieving the goal that we, for whatever innate reason, want most to achieve. And ethics still are nothing more than the best way of getting what we want.<BR/><BR/>I'm just not sure what this new way of defining your ethics is meant to refute, disprove, or accomplish. You asked 1)why should we be moral if it's profitable not to be? 2)how do we know what's moral? and 3)why should we care about being moral?<BR/>Your answers- if I understand correctly- are 1)it's not more profitable, 2)whatever is most profitable for society is moral (tested or guessed) and 3)we just do. <BR/><BR/>Which means ethics is whatever will most effectively attain results that we intuitively- but without rational basis- care about, and it's still profit-driven and it's still inexplicable. What have we accomplished?Tobiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930468887760990485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-27412392388045824622007-09-17T10:47:00.000-04:002007-09-17T10:47:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Shoshanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07365142117481675663noreply@blogger.com