Doxa

RY

I had said, “And if so, isn’t it very important to differentiate between “self interest” as being at bottom and “society’s interest” or “the surrounding environment’s interest” or “the harmony of life” as being at bottom? I’m thinking that it’s really important to know what’s at bottom, what’s the basis for determining benefit and value and the actions required to obtain it, don’t you?”

I think this is a false dichotomy. The Hadza video above, shows that, I believe.

Wut runamok said! Here's another link Rob. What if, in deep reality, we are not so individuated as we - &sp those in the West - believe we are? What if that cheesy, new agey platitude how "we are all connected" is more profound than we realize? What if (eg) "society's interests" and our own are, at the bottom line, very difficult to differentiate?

This is what i been saying about 'ises" and "oughts." They interrelate, inevitably . To the extent that it's hard to discern which of them a philosopher - or any other person - is really addressing in the first place.... do our "oughts" derive from what (we think) "is," or do we adopt metaphysical stances in accordance with whatever we believe ought to be....(?)

Interesting question, IMO.

Hi met,

You say,

What if, in deep reality, we are not so individuated as we - &sp those in the West - believe we are? What if that cheesy, new agey platitude how "we are all connected" is more profound than we realize? What if (eg) "society's interests" and our own are, at the bottom line, very difficult to differentiate?

This is what i been saying about 'ises" and "oughts." They interrelate, inevitably. To the extent that it's hard to discern which of them a philosopher - or any other person - is really addressing in the first place.... do our "oughts" derive from what (we think) "is," or do we adopt metaphysical stances in accordance with whatever we believe ought to be....(?)

Thanks for the link. It said, “competition benefits one, co-operation benefits all.” In fact, in the long run, both competition and cooperation benefits all. We all have to find our niche where we can compete and provide trading value most effectively. And, because of the trader principle, we all benefit by cooperating with other productive members. And, in the converse, we all suffer loss by cooperating with long term unproductive members. If we fail to compete and only cooperate, we become weak and are overcome by those who are strong. If such an attitude prevails, we may ultimately find ourselves as third world countries depending on the handouts of the more productive parts of humanity who have not overemphasized cooperation at the exclusion of competition. You and I didn’t make up the rules of nature. We do however, all need to discover them and judge our actions accordingly. Now, if you still prefer to appeal to that “that cheesy, new agey platitude how ‘we are all connected,’” well, I for one strongly agree that we are all connected, even spiritually connected. That doesn’t for a minute reduce our need to compete, to overcome adversity as individuals while at the same time cooperating with other productive members of society. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is important to note in all this however that at bottom, for the rational volitional (spiritual/physical/other) organism, self interest is at bottom. And our "oughts" do not derive from what (we think) "is" but from what actually “is.” And adopting metaphysical stances in accordance with whatever we believe ought to be needs to be clearly differentiated from deriving what "is" but from what actually “is.” Error happens.

Rob

Robin Yergenson wrote: In fact, in the long run, both competition and cooperation benefits all. We all have to find our niche where we can compete and provide trading value most effectively. And, because of the trader principle, we all benefit by cooperating with other productive members. And, in the converse, we all suffer loss by cooperating with long term unproductive members. If we fail to compete and only cooperate, we become weak and are overcome by those who are strong. If such an attitude prevails, we may ultimately find ourselves as third world countries depending on the handouts of the more productive parts of humanity who have not overemphasized cooperation at the exclusion of competition. You and I didn’t make up the rules of nature.

Robin Yergenson wrote:Now, if you still prefer to appeal to that “that cheesy, new agey platitude how ‘we are all connected,’” well, I for one strongly agree that we are all connected, even spiritually connected. That doesn’t for a minute reduce our need to compete, to overcome adversity as individuals while at the same time cooperating with other productive members of society.

As fleet said, Rob, you're just pouring ought sauce over ises. Even granting all your 'factual' claims, you haven't demonstrated that there is anything particularly 'ethical' about anything you say.

Some people may feel - and in fact many people around the world do - that's it's better to be a lean, hungry and cooperative person or culture than a fat, strong, competitive one. Even if it means a shorter, disrespected, and/or totally obscure life. Or at any cost whatsoever. They might feel their way of life - their happiness and contentment - is of greater value than even their survival. Better a dry crust in peace than a house full of feasting and strife, as the OT Proverbs say.

What is your argument with them? Why are they 'objectively' wrong? (After all, another 'real' aspect of nature is that 'winners' only last, at best, a few short decades - or in the case of cultures, maybe a few centuries - longer than 'losers,' in the end, we all just get old, weak, frail, and fall apart...)

I have to cross reference my answer with a discussion in another thread. The idea that we should have benefit when we see it is possible is the acceptance of a per-given ought so that doesn't help us in showing how is can become ought. It's based upon circular reasoning. That's a necessary step that must be overcome before moral realism (natural objective morality) can be understood.

Meta, this is like what you were discussing with me before - some philosopher's POV - McIntyre was his name, wasn't it?

Seems like there is a universal value underlying different behaviors, but when we look closely, is there? For Americans and other Westerners, to "have benefit" usually means 'having benefit' as an individual , whereas for the Ubuntu (in the link I posted above) 'having benefit' exists only as a community. (In comparison with real life, this is obviously an oversimplification, as Americans can be cooperative and the Ubuntu, I'm sure, can be competitive sometimes, but it still works as an example.

Are these things - these different concept of 'benefit' - really the same at all, or do we just use language and concepts carelessly to make them seem to fit into the same category?

It's up-in-the-air - if you ask me - not really clear that there are any universally 'objective' values. Or not many - maybe prohibitions against murder and incest? But a few general basic similarities doesn't go far to justify the idea that ethics have an universal grounding across cultures, an objective baseline.

Ethics always involves human (and sometimes animal) well being though and whether it leans more to the individual or the group is just a modality of that underlying concern.

but, fleet...

does 'well being' tell us anything? Is that an 'objective' ground for ethics? Since we don't know and can't prove what really "is," we can't even say what "well being" really looks like (at least not in the longer run), so how can we derive "oughts" from our (unprovable) theories and assumptions? Rob, in fact, is trying to derive a universal morality from some (kinda) lcd observations about what "is," about life and nature, but his cultural, socioeconomic & psychological biases come thru quite clearly, IMO...

fleetmouse wrote:
Ethics always involves human (and sometimes animal) well being though and whether it leans more to the individual or the group is just a modality of that underlying concern.

Careful, while well being is generally taken into account, it is not always the basis for decisions made, such as in Kant's deontology, which has more emphasis with treating people as an ends to themselves than making them happy. That would be considered superogatory.

mdsimpson92 wrote:

fleetmouse wrote:
Ethics always involves human (and sometimes animal) well being though and whether it leans more to the individual or the group is just a modality of that underlying concern.

Careful, while well being is generally taken into account, it is not always the basis for decisions made, such as in Kant's deontology, which has more emphasis with treating people as an ends to themselves than making them happy. That would be considered superogatory.

That sounds sort of libertarian. I'm morally obliged not to enslave someone but not morally obliged to pour a bucket of water on him if he's on fire.