Satya's Ethics of Belief

[Satya]

I argue that a responsible society has ethical principles about how we acquire and affect our beliefs.

I would argue that studying, researching, making a genuine attempt to gather as much information as possible, and critically evaluating that information is the ethical approach to acquiring and affecting belief.

I would argue that ignoring evidence, arguments, and ideas which might tend to create doubt about long-held assumptions is the unethical approach to acquiring and affecting belief.

I argue that individuals who engage in this unethical approach are prone to confirmation bias, which is the tendency to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.

I argue that confirmation bias significantly inhibits an individual's ability to learn, to make informed and rational decisions, and to take actions that truly better their respective society.

As such, I find religious and political dogma (doctrinal and ideological values) to be morally reprehensible, as they require people to choose an unethical approach to acquiring and affecting beliefs.

I base my ethical arguments, not on dogma, but on the evidence of humanity's sum technological and scientific development which has allowed us to expand civilization and to progress in our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. By contrast, dogma is the major source of human stagnation, only serving to unify humans against one another in groups set in an endless battle of moral supremacy and driven to act in the most inhumane ways to one another in a mindless adherence to their unethically developed belief systems.

This line of reasoning reflects my values, my preference concerning the appropriate course of action, and my sense of "right" and "wrong".

 

[just me]

A man joined a monestary, knowing part of the rules of engagement included no talking all year long. At the end of each year, he was allowed to speak two words.

The first year he was called in and asked if there was anything he would like to say. He stated, "Bed hard."

The end of the second year came around and he stated, "Food bad."

The end of the third year he stated, "I quit!"

The man in charge simply stated, "You may as well; you've done nothing but complain since you've been here."

With all your reasoning, can you imply why I would share that joke? For a hint: it is not a personal attack.

 

[Satya]

A man joined a monestary, knowing part of the rules of engagement included no talking all year long. At the end of each year, he was allowed to speak two words.

The first year he was called in and asked if there was anything he would like to say. He stated, "Bed hard."

The end of the second year came around and he stated, "Food bad."

The end of the third year he stated, "I quit!"

The man in charge simply stated, "You may as well; you've done nothing but complain since you've been here."

With all your reasoning, can you imply why I would share that joke? For a hint: it is not a personal attack.

You find homosexuality morally reprehensible and I find your religious dogma morally reprehensible. I'm simply providing the rational for my ethical standards. What is yours?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I argue that a responsible society has ethical principles about how we acquire and affect our beliefs.

I would argue that studying, researching, making a genuine attempt to gather as much information as possible, and critically evaluating that information is the ethical approach to acquiring and affecting belief.

I would argue that ignoring evidence, arguments, and ideas which might tend to create doubt about long-held assumptions is the unethical approach to acquiring and affecting belief.

I argue that individuals who engage in this unethical approach are prone to confirmation bias, which is the tendency to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.

I argue that confirmation bias significantly inhibits an individual's ability to learn, to make informed and rational decisions, and to take actions that truly better their respective society.

As such, I find religious and political dogma (doctrinal and ideological values) to be morally reprehensible, as they require people to choose an unethical approach to acquiring and affecting beliefs.

I base my ethical arguments, not on dogma, but on the evidence of humanity's sum technological and scientific development which has allowed us to expand civilization and to progress in our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. By contrast, dogma is the major source of human stagnation, only serving to unify humans against one another in groups set in an endless battle of moral supremacy and driven to act in the most inhumane ways to one another in a mindless adherence to their unethically developed belief systems.

This line of reasoning reflects my values, my preference concerning the appropriate course of action, and my sense of "right" and "wrong".

The merit of an ethical system is generally weighed by how conducive it is towards a peaceful life; and how broadly it can be applied to this effect.

Your system would seem to disturb people's peace and wellbeing unnecessarily. There are already avenues open for people to make their own inquiries/decisions.

 

[Satya]

The merit of an ethical system is generally weighed by how conducive it is towards a peaceful life; and how broadly it can be applied to this effect.

Says who?

Your system would seem to disturb people's peace and wellbeing unnecessarily.

Let me get this right...you support ignoring evidence, arguments, and ideas which might tend to create doubt about long-held assumptions because it may disturb people?

There are already avenues open for people to make their own inquiries/decisions.

Really? Please go into more detail of how this avenue differs specifically from mine.

 

[Spiritual Leo]

That's awesome

 

[just me]

You find homosexuality morally reprehensible and I find your religious dogma morally reprehensible. I'm simply providing the rational for my ethical standards. What is yours?

Wrong. Can't find the reason behind my post?? I repeat;
With all your reasoning, can you imply why I would share that joke?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The merit of an ethical system is generally weighed by how conducive it is towards a peaceful life; and how broadly it can be applied to this effect.
Says who?
It is not an argument based on authority. How would you measure the benefit of an ethical system?

Your system would seem to disturb people's peace and wellbeing unnecessarily.


Let me get this right...you support ignoring evidence, arguments, and ideas which might tend to create doubt about long-held assumptions because it may disturb people?
Most people have interests that are not centered on philosophies. To encourage the general population to question norms would simply be to invite them to break them in favour of whatever they feel like doing. How could society function if all the population were constantly engaged in questioning political systems - not just policies, but the fundamental systems, including taxation, policing, etc.?

There are already avenues open for people to make their own inquiries/decisions.


Really? Please go into more detail of how this avenue differs specifically from mine.
They are directed by curiosity, or utility, not necessity.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Deus ex machina

The merit of an ethical system is generally weighed by how conducive it is towards a peaceful life; and how broadly it can be applied to this effect.
Says who?
It is not an argument based on authority. How would you measure the benefit of an ethical system?

Your system would seem to disturb people's peace and wellbeing unnecessarily.

What makes it ethically right that the comfort of a 'group' can determine that an 'individual' is automatically unnecessarily engaging in creation just because they are a group?

It is unethical to override that individuals self-respect and that they set aside their abilities regardless of their wishes? Or indeed the ability of individuals to positively affect the world even if the group does not see it as the case on a basis of opportunity cost.

Yes, reality cannot in truth provide everyone's wants. However, if the individual really can turn the situation to his needs then he has by default ethically proven the validity of his position in reality. The group then 'flipping the chess board' does not an ethical stance make.

The ability of the individual whether that be to experience pain/suffering or in the opposite, ecstasy/creativity can be far greater in balance than the minor impact on a group of many billions. There is of course no empirical way to measure this opportunity cost other than the fact that the individual had both the will and the ability to exercise their action whereas the group had neither the will nor the ability to stop them and thus reality answers who had the best opportunity in a deliberate and obvious way.

This is best encapsulated from the Latin: Deus ex machina - literally translated as 'god from our hands'/'god that we make'. If we can we are the embodying ethics itself and we are the embodiment of god at that time.

 

[invisible]

deja vu

 

[InvisibleJim]

What @Satya is saying here is on the cusp of the nature of humanity and greatness of the individual and of society as a whole.

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.

 

[invisible]

praps this aint the place to make a mans fortune.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I support the inclusion of peoples avatars in posts.

praps this ain't the place.

praps, praps not.

 

[invisible]

praps, praps not.

and who am i to say dear guildenstern?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Shakespearean Parody

and who am i to say dear guildenstern?

why dear Hamlet, one can say what one likes. after all we can only control our actions not the reactions of those around us.

 

[the]

You guys are making a meme!

 

[InvisibleJim]

In which meme's are discussed.

Carrot, carrot. Lettuce, lettuce.

I say!

 

[Satya]

Wrong. Can't find the reason behind my post?? I repeat;
With all your reasoning, can you imply why I would share that joke?

If you are going to attempt to be coy, then you should probably first learn the difference between implying and inferring.

 

[Satya]

How would you measure the benefit of an ethical system?

A system which leads us to greater understanding of ourselves and the world around us is beneficial because it allows us to challenge the fear of the unknown rather than to cower from it behind a pretense of absolutism.

Your system would seem to disturb people's peace and wellbeing unnecessarily.

There is no harmony without cacophony.

Most people have interests that are not centered on philosophies. To encourage the general population to question norms would simply be to invite them to break them in favour of whatever they feel like doing. How could society function if all the population were constantly engaged in questioning political systems - not just policies, but the fundamental systems, including taxation, policing, etc.?

Anomie is not the state of a questioning mind, it is the state of a mind isolated by the very social controls that were created to protect it. The order of society is built on the consensus of individuals. You claim that the consensus collapses simply because people seek a better understanding of themselves and the world in which they live? Ridiculous. A better understanding motivates people to make a better world. It is ignorance and fear that drive people to defy and break the very norms they claim to espouse.

They are directed by curiosity, or utility, not necessity.

How can you be driven by curiosity if you ignore evidence, arguments, and ideas which might tend to create doubt about long-held assumptions?

How can you be driven by utility if you ignore evidence, arguments, and ideas which might tend to create doubt about long-held assumptions?

 

[invisible]

hamlet?! flabbergasted!! like as if!!! i am so not even close to being the hamlet here. rosencrantz maybe? i'm feeling so nonliterary right now.