tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post529461253970742259..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Ethical reticenceLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-14464511085687263252007-04-05T14:21:00.000-06:002007-04-05T14:21:00.000-06:00Yet traditional ethics does seem to make many assu...Yet traditional ethics does seem to make many assumptions about freedom and intention which are hardly warranted, as even old ratchopper Skinner realized. Perhaps ethics cannot occur until there is some unified theory of intention and action, cognitively speaking--if not sanity (not really a given). So is it neo-behaviorism that should be on the table (which might tie into the writing of some contemporary deterministic writers, ie Quine Churchlands, etc) or is it perhaps Wilhelm Reich (at least the early Reich of masscult, not the vaguely occultist one), and other pathologists..............Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-75817991657752111762007-04-05T14:07:00.000-06:002007-04-05T14:07:00.000-06:00I am no ethicist, but I do think there is a reluct...I am no ethicist, but I do think there is a reluctance among academics, either in the sciences, or humanities, to discuss that field of study known as "ethics." You are also correct in suggesting that ethics is all too often taken to be some lightweight type of virtue chat or character analysis, when it is really an analysis of actions--and the effects of actions. Which is to say, consequentialist ethics ultimately relates to physics, probability, measurable effects over time. And that is why it is so difficult: how does one trace the effects of certain actions, say a crime or political event? Good can come out of bad (I dont have time to bring up hypotheticals, but they are easy enough to imagine). Yet a pure consequentialism also has problems (as I think the utilitarians themselves grant)--as does of course any ethics by consensus (three's nothing, via ethics by consensus, from voting in the murder of certain minorities as law--as the fascists did in 30s more or less). At most the rational ethicist (at least a secular one) can sort of suggest, that act seems inconsistent or hypocritical, causes unwarraned pain, etc. Yet eventually even unjust acts could result in more good of some sort---------ethics thus is really far more complex than many realizes, and touches on many other issues, psychological and scientific..........Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-21107641364488209962007-04-04T11:34:00.000-06:002007-04-04T11:34:00.000-06:00How do they reward dishonesty? And that is really...How do they reward dishonesty? And that is really strange... my other question is why anyone would encourage that.DBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-5002655751421966222007-04-04T10:06:00.000-06:002007-04-04T10:06:00.000-06:00Pakistanis encourage insincerity and dishonesty. T...Pakistanis encourage insincerity and dishonesty. They don't *say* so, but they reward insincere and dishonest behavior and punish the converse.<BR/><BR/>Good essay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com