PDA

View Full Version : Your Ethics: Deontological or Teleological?



Psychonaut
01-16-2009, 01:08 AM
Deontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics)


Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of intentions or motives behind action such as respect for rights, duties, or principles, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.

Teleology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_ethics)


Teleological ethics (Greek telos, “end”; logos, “science”) is a theory of morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. It is opposed to deontological ethics (from the Greek deon, "duty"), which holds that the basic standards for the moral rightness of an action are independent of the good or evil generated by the ethics. Modern ethics, especially since the 18th-century German deontological philosophy of Immanuel Kant, has been deeply divided between a form of teleological ethics (utilitarianism) and deontological theories.

Basically, deontological schools hold that the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an action is inherent in the nature of the act itself, whereas the teleological schools hold that the consequences of the action determine its value. What position do you agree with? Most forms of monotheism adhere to a command-ethic that is firmly rooted in dentology, as do the ethical systems of absolutists such as Kant and Hegel. Teleological thinkers include Utilitarians, Machiavellians, and Pragmatists.

Ulf
01-16-2009, 01:27 AM
Depends. Which is why I'll say I'm a relativist.

What if I do something that is 'good' but it has a 'bad/wrong' outcome?

Or vice versa?

Deontological: I did something right. Teleological: I did something wrong.

I lean towards teleological because the actions and outcome affect this life and "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Is this analysis correct or am I just tired ranting?

Psychonaut
01-16-2009, 01:37 AM
Depends. Which is why I'll say I'm a relativist.

What if I do something that is 'good' but it has a 'bad/wrong' outcome?

Or vice versa?

Deontological: I did something right. Teleological: I did something wrong.

I lean towards teleological because the actions and outcome affect this life and "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Is this analysis correct or am I just tired ranting?

I think your analysis is mostly right. I'm comfortable with a teleological label myself. I don't really think that any action has inherent value, but that value is derived from the consequences. Like your example, if you do something "good" that has a negative outcome, how can you say that the action itself was "good"?

Skandi
01-16-2009, 12:14 PM
moral universalism, moral relativism and moral nihilism three different standpoints that break down your opinions a little further.

Wikki article;

....moral universalism which holds that the same things are right and wrong for all similarly-situated people, regardless of anyone's opinions, though not necessarily regardless of context. Moral universalism is in turn opposed to moral relativism (which holds that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal preferences), and to moral nihilism (which holds that nothing is right or wrong in any sense at all).

I use this sort of classification and probably hold an opinion somewhere between nihilism and relativism if that is possible

Nodens
07-26-2009, 09:46 AM
Old thread, but this section of the forum is near empty. I choose 'Other', as I feel the question presumes too much. Neither the intent nor the effect should necessarily be viewed solely as components of the act. To reduce them to such devalues them individually. I should say that the act itself is always neutral, while both the intent and the effect ought to be evaluated separately. Both have their significance, but the effect is often the more relevant (as it is felt longer).

Or, to play the cliche game, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

Edit: I should say that the evaluation of the intent should be in term of malicious/benevolent/indifferent, and the effect in terms of advantageous/disadvantageous.

Vargtand
07-26-2009, 10:06 AM
Umm, an innate feeling what is right and wrong, in that particular group and what is true to my own ideals, I'm not religious how ever.

Hard to say really... but I guess in a sense I strive to do what will make my self feel the most ... manly? silly as it might be but I have ideals and try to strive for them.

Troll's Puzzle
07-26-2009, 05:53 PM
voted 'Teleological'. My favorite ethicists are Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume.

I've always found the inflexibility of absolutism leads to silly beliefs/events etc. Regarding Hegel, I've never read any of his works but feel him to be my 'least favorite' already because of the ways which some people (Marx, Fukayama, etc.) intepreted his historical absolutism (always to bad ends, and always enduringly, like a religion - especially true of marxists - the hegelian part was the worst part of marx's philosophy IMO - and even when debunked there was still a hard core who felt it communism was a historical inevitability). Likewise Kant, whose absolutism lead him to conclusions which obviously feel wrong, eg. on babies born out of wedlock:

Legislation cannot remove the disgrace of an illegitimate birth … A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law … and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it was not right that it should have come to exist this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation
another Kant quote: 'Let justice be done, though the world perish' - hell no, I'd rather get relatavistic and save my bacon :P

Piparskeggr
07-26-2009, 06:12 PM
I try to do what is right; that which helps my kin, kith and community.

Otherwise, my "ethic" is bound by the circumstance of the individual situation.

Absinthe
07-26-2009, 06:15 PM
Mixed feelings about this, but since human beings are *supposed* to be sentient & intelligent beings and not stimulus-response machines, I generally incline towards deontological ethics.

That been said, I take a person's motives into serious account because the outcome of an action alone does not suffice.

E.g. killing someone by accident does not hold the same moral gravity as premeditated murder.

SwordoftheVistula
07-27-2009, 06:23 AM
If someone is 'Deontologically right' but 'Teleologically wrong', could he/she not at least be assumed to have poor judgment and lack of adequate reasoning facilities regarding cause and effect?

Nodens
07-27-2009, 06:33 AM
If someone is 'Deontologically right' but 'Teleologically wrong', could he/she not at least be assumed to have poor judgment and lack of adequate reasoning facilities regarding cause and effect?

More or less, but then the act (or the decision to act) must be interpreted in terms of prudent/imprudent, rather than 'right' or 'wrong'.

Freomæg
07-27-2009, 08:22 AM
I lean towards Teleological. I suppose that's the 'Libertarian's' choice really isn't it - the freedom to do anything that doesn't actually cause harm. It seems to me that Deontological ethics require adherence to some sort of dogma, whether it be religious or political. Teleological are the ethics of the free-thinker who has developed their own set of ethics based on rational thinking and compassion.

lei.talk
07-30-2009, 05:25 PM
since human beings are *supposed* to be sentient & intelligent beings
and not stimulus-response machines
I generally incline towards deontological ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics)

I generally incline towards teleological ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_ethics)why does the first statement lead to the second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism)
and not the third one?

Lulletje Rozewater
08-02-2009, 11:03 AM
We are pfeffing around with words.
Words are symbols not based on facts.
The meaning of " right" or "wrong" has changed 100 times since we became Homo Sapiens Sapiens.Only the Laws of Nature have been constant.
In the law it depends on the Judge
In Church it depends on the interpretation of the Priest.
In Real life it depends on the value you put on your existence.
Neither the Law(Man) nor the Church(God) has a right to make your decisions 'right or wrong'.
Give the lame your swiftness.
Give the blind your vision.
Give a politician your excrement
Give a forked tongue of your honey.
Only then
shall I always be Me,even in death.
Men shall live beyond death if their
Words become death before they are born.
If you want freedom,you needs must turn to mist

If you want serfdom, you soul must become artless

Rudy
08-02-2009, 03:37 PM
teleological schools hold that the consequences of the action determine its value.
If a bunch of yahoos try to make consequences for actions, why would a person that was correct in their actions according to their personal ethics care?

It seems like a mob mentality to me.

Cato
08-02-2009, 10:51 PM
We exist for the Good, not for nebulous and subjective ethics that each person can define on a whim.

Lulletje Rozewater
08-03-2009, 07:42 AM
We exist for the Good, not for nebulous and subjective ethics that each person can define on a whim.

Pallamedes,can you extract Good from Bad ???????
May you define your friends action as Good or Bad?????
Is it not true that you or I determine Good or Bad on a whim involving ones self.

You steal(bad) my loaf of bread and I define on a whim that I now am unable to eat myloaf of bread(bad),which is now your loaf of bread.(good)
I paid for it(bad),I longed for eating it(bad),must I helplessly look on your grin eating my loaf.(good)
Easier to donner you on a whim(bad) and let you look at my grin eating my loaf.(bad)
My Goodness and subjective ethics of a full stomach may give you the reaming crumbs(good)

One can not separate good from bad,only Angels can do that.
Only an Altruist like your Jesus(if you believe in Him) is foolish enough to offer His life as 'Zoete Koek' for' mahalah'

Having said that I do agree that Good and Bad should be mixed.

SwordoftheVistula
08-03-2009, 11:09 AM
why would a person that was correct in their actions according to their personal ethics care?

They don't, which is why they are so fanatic and dangerous

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/store/communism.jpg

Cato
08-03-2009, 02:27 PM
Pallamedes,can you extract Good from Bad ???????
May you define your friends action as Good or Bad?????
Is it not true that you or I determine Good or Bad on a whim involving ones self.

You steal(bad) my loaf of bread and I define on a whim that I now am unable to eat myloaf of bread(bad),which is now your loaf of bread.(good)
I paid for it(bad),I longed for eating it(bad),must I helplessly look on your grin eating my loaf.(good)
Easier to donner you on a whim(bad) and let you look at my grin eating my loaf.(bad)
My Goodness and subjective ethics of a full stomach may give you the reaming crumbs(good)

One can not separate good from bad,only Angels can do that.
Only an Altruist like your Jesus(if you believe in Him) is foolish enough to offer His life as 'Zoete Koek' for' mahalah'

Having said that I do agree that Good and Bad should be mixed.

Jesus huh?

Jehovah: Thou shalt not steal.
Jesus: Not one jot or tittle of the [Mosaic] law will pass away.

So, Jesus doesn't want people to steal.

Lulletje Rozewater
08-04-2009, 06:57 AM
Jesus huh?

Jehovah: Thou shalt not steal.
Jesus: Not one jot or tittle of the [Mosaic] law will pass away.

So, Jesus doesn't want people to steal.

Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him." (parallels in Matthew)

That is theft my friend and the owners were dinkum frightened,for what they saw as Palastinian mafia i.s.o. disciples.;);)

Cato
08-04-2009, 02:26 PM
Then Jesus denies his words about the importance of his father's laws and can't be trusted as any sort of moral authority.

Lulletje Rozewater
08-04-2009, 05:33 PM
Then Jesus denies his words about the importance of his father's laws and can't be trusted as any sort of moral authority.
Pallamedes,you force me to say something which I do not like.
I am or was a Roman Catholic,now nothing.
To answer you.
The Holy Bible has been raped throughout the ages.
Starting with Emperor Constantine.
Yet read between the Lines and read every verse 4 times.
There is a fast wisdom in what Jesus as a MAN said.
To throw that away is tentamount to killing wisdom,which comes from God His Father,through the eternal Spirit
I would be the last person to say,Jesus has no moral authority,again as a man not as a god,
Jesus' beauty shines brighter in the heart of him-you- who longs for it than in the eyes of him who sees it.
There are three 'miracles of your man Jesus.
1.He was a man like you and me(ate-starved- betrayed-put to death)
2.He had a sense of humor(he changed water into wine at a party)
3.He conquered the impossible

Surely the love of Judas' mother for Judas was not less than the love of Mary for Jesus. Jesus knew that you can not separate good from bad.It are the 2 faces of Janus.
Make a distinction between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus the Christian.
If these two would ever meet,they would never agree with each other.
Damn, I sound like a priest.:embarrassed:embarrassed:D:D

Cato
08-05-2009, 02:00 AM
Jesus only has moral authority for those who believe in the teachings of the cult of eternal guilt. Many have said, often quite eloquently and less ambivalently, what most Christians seem to attribute solely to him:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."

-Confucius emphasizing the so-called golden rule.

"A kind word need not cost much, the price of praise can be cheap."
-Odin saying basically the same thing.

"Let us as it were celebrate the first God, not as establishing the earth and the heavens, nor as giving subsistence to souls, and the generation of all animals; for he produced these indeed, but among the last of things; but prior to these, let us celebrate him as unfolding into light the whole intelligible and intellectual genus of Gods, together with all the supermundane and mundane divinities - as the God of all Gods, the unity of all unities, and beyond the first adyta, the highest order of intelligibles, as more ineffable than all silence, and more unknown than all essence, - as holy among the holies, and concealed in the intelligible Gods."

-Proculus the Neoplatonist demonstrating his love for [the Supreme] God

I don't believe in the self-pity and meekness that Jesus teaches. I do believe in honoring others, honoring God, but never in an abject manner. I don't consider Jesus to be an authority on anything, quite honestly. Marcus Aurelius I consider to be an authority on morality; Mithras I consider to be a savior. Jesus just taps out, so to speak, because he preaches doctrines that I find to be questionable: unmanly meekness, loving one's foes and so on.

Lulletje Rozewater
08-05-2009, 08:09 AM
Jesus only has moral authority for those who believe in the teachings of the cult of eternal guilt. Many have said, often quite eloquently and less ambivalently, what most Christians seem to attribute solely to him:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."[QUOTE]
Firstly the NT is not guilt but LOVE,and the OT is about Justice.
Secondly it is Do onto others etc. This is a positive approach in contrast to your Never impose etc
While similar, these forms are not strictly the same; they differ in what to do with what you would like to be done to you and the other party would not like to be done upon it.

Golden Rule, is an ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others.
Reciprocity is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights,
The golden rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts;[2] it was present in the philosophies of ancient Judaism, India, Greece, and 'China'. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways, but its most common English phrasing is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Luke: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The "Do unto others" wording first appeared in English in a Catholic Catechism around 1567, but certainly in the reprint of 1583.

A key element of the golden rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration.(which means it does not apply to me,I do not like Blacks.)


[QUOTE]-Confucius emphasizing the so-called golden rule.

"A kind word need not cost much, the price of praise can be cheap."
He also said:"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." which is a negative to the golden rule.
None of the "wise guys" really had it right.
There is only 1 Golden rule:" Eat or be eaten-Fill your own stomach and that of your own kind first and leave the scraps for others. Not doing so means that your next meal my just be dead.IE "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules".
"Is my neighbour's tastes the same as mine" My kind word my be very expensive



-Odin saying basically the same thing.

"Let us as it were celebrate the first God, not as establishing the earth and the heavens, nor as giving subsistence to souls, and the generation of all animals; for he produced these indeed, but among the last of things; but prior to these, let us celebrate him as unfolding into light the whole intelligible and intellectual genus of Gods, together with all the supermundane and mundane divinities - as the God of all Gods, the unity of all unities, and beyond the first adyta, the highest order of intelligibles, as more ineffable than all silence, and more unknown than all essence, - as holy among the holies, and concealed in the intelligible Gods."[QUOTE]
Come now Palladin.
Realism is better than dogmatism is what he said too. Odin never existed bar in the mind of a bunch of wandering Vikings farting around the globe and eventually disappearing. The modern Odinic rites are-as far as I am concerned-hyped ideas of"Back to the future crap"


-Proculus the Neoplatonist demonstrating his love for [the Supreme] God

I don't believe in the self-pity and meekness that Jesus teaches. I do believe in honoring others, honoring God, but never in an abject manner. I don't consider Jesus to be an authority on anything, quite honestly. Marcus Aurelius I consider to be an authority on morality; Mithras I consider to be a savior. Jesus just taps out, so to speak, because he preaches doctrines that I find to be questionable: unmanly meekness, loving one's foes and so on.
Well,lets see.
Let me make it clear I am not for or against Jesus,I am against dogma
Jesus meek and self pity.???????. How long would you last. Vilified-walking along the streets with a cross on your shoulders-nailed to the cross-bleeding to death-lanced, and all that because he loved His Father,His God and honored Him with His death. So Phooiieee to Proculus the Neo- Plasmatist.:D(In Dutch Plas maar raak)
Marcus Aurelius:"And as for death, if there be any gods, it is no grievous thing to leave the society of men.(Sounds like Jesus pissing on dogma)
According to Marcus Aurelius everything will be turned in absolute oblivion, even legends.
Look , Marcus was a very noble man,but not stupid in the reality of life.

Is there any real difference between Mithra and Jesus.

My advise:Do what you think best for you,and leave the Gods to the wombats.Carve your own road without help from destitute and guilt ridden legends.Listen to your parents,who seem to be wise people.

Cato
08-05-2009, 02:47 PM
I can only go by what Christians say about Jesus, that, basically, he's a crucified sissy (or a tyrannical monster). As the Bible teaches, people are the image of God, intellectual and moral image, and so we're all equally capable of divine inspiration. Few seek that out, however.

Odin doesn't have to exist for his advice in the Havamol to be sound, nor does Confucius being an ancient Chinaman detract from the soundness of his version of the golden rule. Yes, Mithras was a manly God who taught courage, generosity, morality and patriotism (much like the Stoics)- his salvation was based on education and initiation and wasn't some free gratis gift that attracted lowlives or the ignorant. In other words, Mithras' salvation was based on works as well as on faith.

I'm not against Jesus; he doesn't really enter into my mind as being worthy of regard. I dislike how people whitewash him, or turn him into this ultra-intolerant, hyper-violent tyrant who'll wash the earth in the blood of his enemies at the second coming. So, he had some pithy country parables and morals. That doesn't make him God. So, he was executed by the Romans. So were a lot of people. I don't buy the fable that he rose from the dead. Actually, so little is known about him, unless you read stuff like Eusebius' questionable history of the early church, that he can basically be called a pseudo-historical person.

Lulletje Rozewater
08-05-2009, 04:19 PM
I can only go by what Christians say about Jesus, that, basically, he's a crucified sissy (or a tyrannical monster).
Christians are like a hunted fox followed by 20 horsemen and a pack of 30 Beagles and how stupid it would be if 20 Christian foxes riding on 20 asses and followed by 30 wolves to chase and kill 1 man. Christians do not know the true meaning of Christianity. (parody or paradox)




As the Bible teaches, people are the image of God, intellectual and moral image, and so we're all equally capable of divine inspiration. Few seek that out, however.
I am totally in agreement,we are GOD.
You have reached the end of what you should know,,Pallamedes,you are now at the beginning of what you should sense-- your divinity.


Odin doesn't have to exist for his advice in the Havamol to be sound, nor does Confucius being an ancient Chinaman detract from the soundness of his version of the golden rule. Yes, Mithras was a manly God who taught courage, generosity, morality and patriotism (much like the Stoics)- his salvation was based on education and initiation and wasn't some free gratis gift that attracted low lives or the ignorant. In other words, Mithras' salvation was based on works as well as on faith.
You know my answer to that.
Were it not for the poor and ignorant Mithra would be faithless.Mithra does not preach to the educated"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."
The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.

Sounds familiar


I'm not against Jesus; he doesn't really enter into my mind as being worthy of regard. I dislike how people whitewash him, or turn him into this ultra-intolerant, hyper-violent tyrant who'll wash the earth in the blood of his enemies at the second coming. So, he had some pithy country parables and morals. That doesn't make him God. So, he was executed by the Romans. So were a lot of people. I don't buy the fable that he rose from the dead. Actually, so little is known about him, unless you read stuff like Eusebius' questionable history of the early church, that he can basically be called a pseudo-historical person.

Agree on a number of your assessment,BUT are you not confusing the Old Testament with the New,besides compare Mithra with Jesus and you will be surprised. Even Alex the great was all for Mithra and I reckon he would be all for Jesus too.
Jesus was not a God,neither was Mithra.
They were made Gods by the blessing of the people and the narrow mammon vision of the priests.
There is neither religion nor science beyond beauty of the natural thinkingman.

Cato
08-05-2009, 09:20 PM
The Old Testament stands alone; the New Testament is like a case of posthumous collaboration added onto the writings of the Jews centuries after the fact by non-Jews.

The writings of the Jews, the Torah or whatever, are fine by themselves. Adding the New Testament to them is a case of confusion.

Lulletje Rozewater
08-06-2009, 06:31 AM
The Old Testament stands alone; the New Testament is like a case of posthumous collaboration added onto the writings of the Jews centuries after the fact by non-Jews.

The writings of the Jews, the Torah or whatever, are fine by themselves. Adding the New Testament to them is a case of confusion.

Typical example of Gentiles messing around with the" wailing wall";)

Cato
08-06-2009, 03:42 PM
It's a typical case of non-Jews being convinced that the Jewish myths and legends are true whilst non-Jewish ones aren't. Certain portions of the Torah are indeed nice to read, like the opening of Genesis, the Psalter and Job, but I'm not going to swear by any of it simply because I like what I read. I'm also passingly familiar with near eastern mythology, so I can't really say that the contents of the Torah are that unique- the tree of life/wisdom prefigures into many ancient, non-Jewish tales, for example.

Lulletje Rozewater
08-07-2009, 07:46 AM
It's a typical case of non-Jews being convinced that the Jewish myths and legends are true whilst non-Jewish ones aren't. Certain portions of the Torah are indeed nice to read, like the opening of Genesis, the Psalter and Job, but I'm not going to swear by any of it simply because I like what I read. I'm also passingly familiar with near eastern mythology, so I can't really say that the contents of the Torah are that unique- the tree of life/wisdom prefigures into many ancient, non-Jewish tales, for example.

I did some surfing and came across this website,which has only partially to do with this thread.
I liked it.
He knows how to beat into the Bush i.s.o. around

http://www.thebirdman.org/

Liffrea
08-17-2009, 09:42 PM
This is a tough question, many actions motivated by self interest can lead to the benefit of others, whilst acts motivated by love or concern for others can cause great harm, especially if reason is clouded by emotion.

I don’t believe it is wise to be strict on either principle, the reasoned approach is surely to take all circumstances and motives into account before reaching judgement.

Germanicus
08-17-2009, 10:43 PM
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of intentions or motives behind action such as respect for rights, duties, or principles, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.

This is more or less what sounds right with my reasoning.

Rudy
08-18-2009, 01:47 AM
They don't, which is why they are so fanatic and dangerous

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/store/communism.jpg
Communism does not have personal ethics. It is mainly the imposed ethics of the Leftist Jews.

lei.talk
03-11-2011, 02:09 PM
...trapped in a zero-sum game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum#Non-zero-sum) of his own creation:

"It's the question of moral responsibility that you might not have studied sufficiently, Mister Galt (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/Atlas-Shrugged-Character-Analysis-John-Galt.id-7,pageNum-94.html). You seem to have talked on the radio (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=302126#post302126) about no thing but sins of commission. But there are also the sins of omission to consider. To fail to save a life is as immoral as to murder. The consequences are the same - and since we must judge actions by their consequences, the moral responsibility is the same.
. . . For instance, in view of the desperate shortage of food - it has been suggested that it might become necessary to issue a directive ordering that every third one of all children under the age of ten and all adults over the age of sixty be put to death, to secure the survival of the rest. You wouldn't want this to happen, would you? You can prevent it. One word from you would prevent it. If you refuse and all those people are executed - it would be your fault and your moral responsibility."

Phil75231
04-18-2011, 01:57 AM
Voted deontologist, even though I find the divide simplistic. I'm not purely deontological, nor am I purely teleological. Ultimately, I find no moral connection between the means and the end. Examples

*Outright stealing a kidney from someone is wrong, even though a person on an organ donor list may benefit from it (you're saying the end justifies the means).

*Con Artists are experts at figuring out who is lonely, desperate, or in a weak position. They may befriend that person, get them what they desperately want, or side with them in court. But all this is for the purpose conning them out of money, to blackmail them, or whatever. The con's actions clearly were originally good for the person, but they were just a means to an end. The end, of course, has no moral legitimacy.

In the end, end justifying the means or means justifying the end is not as cut and dry as that. The only safe moral course of action is to have BOTH the means and the end be moral. Whether and especially to what extent you can bend one or the other is up for debate. But there's no question that for an action to be truly moral, both the ends and the means must be just.

GeistFaust
05-02-2011, 06:32 AM
I tend to like deontological acts more so because in the end what is right and wrong is clearly something that is going to have to be determined by us in respect to our use of free will. Is there a predisposed right or wrong well that is something I think you can is self evident but at the same time it is very obscure and unknown by us because we tend to direct our duties towards ends that will more likely then not benefit the other if we possess a strong moral feeling. On the other hand just because we direct our duties towards an end that we believe is right and good for ourselves and others this does not mean the end results will necessarily be positive. The effect and consequences of our actions can sometimes be unintentional and this sometimes leads to confusion to the rightness or wrongness of an act. That is why I think it is much safer to err on the side of deontology because a teleological understanding does not give us a clear picture that can be applied to our ordinary day to day lives.

Oreka Bailoak
05-02-2011, 02:21 PM
If one donates to charity to make himself look good to others and has no real concern about the people the charity is helping- then he is morally wrong. But that doesn't mean that he should quit donating- instead, it means that he needs to truly value the people he is helping.

If a man is married and tries to get to know another woman and gives her free stuff because he hopes he can maybe sleep with her- and she appreciates it- then that is morally wrong- even if his wife would never know and all people knowledgeable would benefit. Because he is being unfaithful to his wife and dishonoring his family and children. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be friendly to the woman. Instead it means that he just needs to make his intentions good.

Picking between a choice of only two options which both have massive negative results doesn't mean that whomever had to chose was wrong. If his intentions were to pick the lesser of two bad options then he was morally right.

It's all about the personal intentions behind actions. I don't want to live in a society where everyone is fake- what a sad world that would be.

I'm a hardcore deontologist.

Agrippa
05-02-2011, 02:57 PM
Obviously Teleological Ethics - because what's ethical from my point of view being determined by the results for the people in general, the majority of individuals, the collective and "the greater whole".

To say it is not right to kill someone, as a principle, would be the best example. Obviously I would agree that killing someone is in itself no good action, but immoral. But if it is good or even necessary to help many individuals and the collective (hiearchically defined), it can become not just a good action, but a duty to be fulfilled, to reach the higher goal.

So every action must be put into a cost : benefit or means-ends analysis, considering as much consequences as possible. If the results are fine with the individuals and collective, the action is fine - if not, then not, regardless of other considerations.

The end justifies the means.

But of course, everything must be seen in context and the commensurability must be guaranteed.

Because even if it might be a benefit for the group and many individuals to eliminate some people, their rights and value as individuals are a high cost, so the benefit for the group must be very, very big and actually being a necessity, something of vital interest to be justified - for example if those individuals are very dangerous, violent criminals, traitors and spies, carry a very contagious and dangerous virus, which can't be stopped otherwise or something like that - everything which poses a serious and great threat to many individuals and even worse the group as a whole.

Minor material profits alone don't justify such drastic means against individuals, which represent a value in itself.

So moral from my point of view is always an evaluation of involved factors and values, in which the goal is to bring forward and better the situation both of the individuals and collective (hierarchical definition).

Compare with this, if you can read German I made up a longer thread in another forum about that, Q & A's on my worldview.
http://forum.thiazi.net/showthread.php?t=22492

For my ideas in short:
Let's assume we have a leadership like it should be and they have the power to control the members of the group, individuals like you and me, they should have two duties: 1. Never endanger the future and possible higher development of the group, the species, the ecosystem.
2. Dont harm, not even let individuals suffer, if it is not absolutely necessary by following rule 1.

Somewhat more elaborated the basic rules should be like that:

I would define myself as a Progressive Collectivist.

The Collective is something defined in structures hierachically:

F.e. Family/relatives, Tribe, Folk or Subrace (F.e. German/Nordish), Ethnic great group/Race (F.e. Europeans or Indoeuropeans/European Europids), progressive mankind/races (F.e. all Europids, East Asians, some Amerindian Races many mixed forms), Mankind (all of those + the rest), Ecosystem (all life on this planet).

-Just what is good for the preservation and progression of the collective, species and ecosystem should be morally acceptable.

-From an utilitaristic point of view as many people as possible should live good on the highest standard as possible, always considering the first rule.

-Individuals got a value their own, but the collective is usually more important because it is made up by many individuals and it survives the individuals.

-I'm Pro-Eugenic and for the preservation of my Race(s).
Progression of mankind on the long run isn't just something happening in technology and culture, it must be something biological too.

-All good traditions of Europe and of my folk which are NOT AGAINST the other rules should be preserved.

-If it is possible (by all useful means which don't threat the whole Species or Ecosystem) the European race(s) should be preserved in their SUBSTANCE.

-Moral and the political system should depend on the needs for the other rules.

But I have to add, if it is about personal evaluations, that I always consider the intentions and individual has or had.

So while I don't care as much about Deontological Ethics in general, I consider it for the evaluation of individuals, primarily because I think that someone who "tried to be good", has good traits, even if doing something from from the objective and rational perspective, the considerations I usually have.

This means such people might be socio-culturally and biologically more valuable, than a person which acts like I would prefer it, but does so only because of its own advantage - f.e. because me and other people like me would reward those actions very directly.

Therefore my ideal people are individually deontologically driven, but act teleologically, if that makes any sense to you readers :)

They want to be good in itself, and this is their intention and matters a lot for their value, but they act teleologically, because they are rational and know that their actions would be careless and dangerious by bad results for themselves, the people and collective (hierarchically defined).

This is what I usually define as higher or rational Idealism, people which want to act good and do good things, but are so rational, well-educated and informed, intelligent and capable, that they can evaluate what is the right ideal and action under the given circumstances, to achieve the maximum for oneself, the closer environment, as much individuals as possible and the group as a whole - with the higher collective hierarchy always coming first - for example a hierarchy of interests in that sense: individual < family/clan/village/local group < tribe/region < nation/state/population < race/cultural greater group < progressive elements of mankind culturally and biologically < species and human culture as such < higher life on this planet as a whole).

Things have to be put into context and evaluated, so that the end result is valuable.

Just good intentions without this ratio is worthless, can be even dangerous, like lower or irrational Idealism, common especially in religiously fanatic, dumb and uneducated people, which must be led by people capable of developing and sustaining higher Idealism.

Curtis24
05-02-2011, 08:31 PM
The end justifies the means.



I must disagree here, the end doesn't justify the means. That kind of thinking can really fuck up a community or nation, because resorting to immoral means creates worse problems down the road. If you really believe the ends justify the means, you should not have power.

Agrippa
05-02-2011, 09:02 PM
I must disagree here, the end doesn't justify the means. That kind of thinking can really fuck up a community or nation, because resorting to immoral means creates worse problems down the road. If you really believe the ends justify the means, you should not have power.

I agree with you insofar, as there is a danger, if taking it too lax - but I also said, that there must be the rule of commensurability.

Actually, if you don't agree with this, you are not allowed to lead, because leading is a liability people take, since they know there is no better one who could do it under the given circumstances - good leaders don't strive for being the leader at all costs, but just do what they feel is necessary for the greater good - they have to for not letting worse individuals doing worse things.

And part of that liability they have is to make hard decisions, even such which might cause them inner and moral conflicts, if it is necessary for the greater good. Simple and average people might not care, they might not be forced to make such decisions, but someone has to make it, for not everything is being lost, because of a weakness or false moral, which results would be catastrophic.

Still, a good leader doesn't make decisions careless or without compassion, not without trying to consider as much factors as possible and evaluating the benefits, costs and risk against each other.

Any moral which is NOT teleological, is religious/pseudoreligious anyway, because what justification does it have, if not the ends?

Tell me, can you be proud that you didn't kill someone, because of "ethical considerations" you made up from an deontologically perspective, if the PREDICTABLE outcome would be many dead, a lot of suffering, even damage and a real threat for your whole community and group, in a worst case scenario even mankind?

What justification would you have, in the face of all those victims of your false actions - that you "acted moral from a deontologically perspective..."

Does that help? Would that make anything better? No, you would be guilty, you would be guilty for not having done what was necessary in the given situation - and you KNEW IT WAS WRONG, you just did it for "saving your own soul", for your pity minded considerations of you "being morally perfect" - but if someone acts and thinks that way, he is as bad as the greedy murderer next door, probably even worse, because the greedy murderer at least acted logical and rational, he was HONEST - AT LEAST TO HIMSELF.

But those false "morals" are just pure egoism and weakness, which allow people to don't act, to don't do what's necessary, it is a cheap excuse, as stupid as if someone says he doesn't want to give birth to children, because there are so many people here already - if actually knowing his genes and memes would be better, but being too lazy, weak or desperate for raising a family, so searching for poor excuses rather than acting in the right way.

All this religions and morals, which preach indifference actually, are degenerated, the results of a decadent cultural background.

The healthy, the active, the right way to life means to face the threats, those which go against the very personal interests, as well as those going against your closer kin, wider kin, people, race, culture, species - life.

There is no reasonable excuse NOT TO ACT - as it seems to be appropriate, to save real and higher values.

And if this results in the use of means, means which would be usually considered immoral, for good reasons in NORMAL SITUATIONS, but being used for a greater good, in a DESPERATE SITUATION and out of necessity, then be it so!
But only then of course...

That is, because of this, why I'm saying:
The end justifies the means.

Not because me being careless or the people which should rule should be - even on the contrary. They should care, always, but they should know the RIGHT PRIORITIES.

If mankind can be ONLY saved by butchering one billion - if there is no other way, after considering all possible alternative scenarios and options, we have to do it.

You don't have to agree, but a leader has. Because a leader has to look into the future and see the greater good, he has to take the responsibility, it is him who has to save the true values and make the hard decisions.

Weaker ones can follow, weaker ones can ignore reality, but the spiritual, the true elite, has to jump in and do what's necessary to save as much as possible under the given circumstances.

Curtis24
05-02-2011, 09:17 PM
Those things are all true. I think what needs to be done though is to create a code of what you are allowed to do, and in what situations.

antonio
05-02-2011, 09:28 PM
It's somewhat absurd to regard a behaviour as Ethical by its consequences rather than its reasons. It's like bounding Intelligence with Goodness. Although, nowadays, many try wrongly to related both.

Magister Eckhart
05-02-2011, 09:50 PM
The drive of the spirit is more important than the action of the body, because the spirit's inclinations are eternal, while the body's actions are not. However, it is further important to assert that there are good and evil actions, and social order originates in right action. It is, though, impossible to act wrongly if action and spirit are in tandem, which is the definition of morality.

One can desire good and do evil, but this is an expression of imperfection, the inability to connect right thought and right action. In the words of Wang Yangming, "to know, and not to act, is not truly to know": thus good actions done for themselves indicate a righteous heart, but it is the heart that is still the focus of this ethical system. If one acts without thought, one always acts wrongly, regardless of the consequences.

Man dwells in evil; it is his natural inclination to be imperfect - we are not Gods, nor were we born Gods. We are born apart from and below the eternal, even if we are born of the eternal - we are imperfect ("incomplete" not "evil") by definition as mortals. As such, only those actions motivated by and bringing us nearer to the eternal and divine can be called "good", but to act in such a way requires awareness and motivation. In short, the conscious motivation toward Truth defines proper action.

Agrippa
05-02-2011, 09:50 PM
Those things are all true. I think what needs to be done though is to create a code of what you are allowed to do, and in what situations.

That's true, but then again, there are so many situations and considerations, that it can be mostly more about "guides" rather than strict rules. Since the decision has to be made, depending on the situation.

A strict order is not always the best way to reach a goal, to say it that way. Sometimes it is just best to say what has to be achieved, giving some basic instructions, but intelligent and capable man have to find the exact way to the goal then...


It's somewhat absurd to regard a behaviour as Ethical by its consequences rather than its reasons. It's like bounding Intelligence with Goodness. Although, nowadays, many try wrongly to related both.

You are right, the comparison is good.

Yet whats goodness worth without intelligence, if the "good individual" has to make an important, yet complicated decision?

Same here, an ethnic which is not useful is worthless, even worse, it might be threat which just hinders people to do what's right and in their very interest, even good for the greater whole.

Such a "moral" must lead into dead ends and failures, especially of those which follow it.

Worst of all, they are often very inconsequent, because what does it mean to save one, but letting 1.000 suffer instead? Just for not letting this one down?

Hypocritical it is too, and as I said, an egoistic moral, based only on "feeling superiour", rather than ACTING SUPERIOUR - which always means acting for the good of the people and greater whole!

Hess
05-04-2011, 12:14 AM
Our Laws, our culture, and mainstream social norms are grounded in Deontology. I can think of quite a few reasons why, none of which are too flattering. By making the wrongness of actions Intrinsic, deontology virtually bars humans from performing actions which have been delcared "wrong", no matter how good the justification.

Example: If you are a Christian and you have to lie in order to save a persons's life, you can't. If Lying is intrinsically wrong, there can be absolutely no excuse for it.

I would delve deeper, but I see no need. This is the rebuttal, the checkmate for Deontology. If a lie can be used in a situation where it could save a life, why is it intrinsically wrong? The only counterpoint that could be made is the "we can make some exceptions" argument, which consequently exposes Deontology for what it is: A paradox.

Deontology is a belief system whose sole purpose is to systematically restrict the natural will of man by making up Arbitrary restrictions that all fall into the paradox category upon further examination.

Christianity is a purely Deontological religion that was made, Ironically, by the biggest Opportunists of them all- the writers of the bible.

Magister Eckhart
05-04-2011, 01:03 AM
Our Laws, our culture, and mainstream social norms are grounded in Deontology. I can think of quite a few reasons why, none of which are too flattering. By making the wrongness of actions Intrinsic, deontology virtually bars humans from performing actions which have been delcared "wrong", no matter how good the justification.

Example: If you are a Christian and you have to lie in order to save a persons's life, you can't. If Lying is intrinsically wrong, there can be absolutely no excuse for it.

I would delve deeper, but I see no need. This is the rebuttal, the checkmate for Deontology. If a lie can be used in a situation where it could save a life, why is it intrinsically wrong? The only counterpoint that could be made is the "we can make some exceptions" argument, which consequently exposes Deontology for what it is: A paradox.

Deontology is a belief system whose sole purpose is to systematically restrict the natural will of man by making up Arbitrary restrictions that all fall into the paradox category upon further examination.

Christianity is a purely Deontological religion that was made, Ironically, by the biggest Opportunists of them all- the writers of the bible.

Why is that a checkmate? Every individual is responsible for individual actions. If you tell the truth and a man dies by another man's hands, it is the other man who bears the entire responsibility for the death of the first. If you lie, you do not change the killing intent or prevent any evil, all you do is make yourself feel better. By your argument, teleological ethics is the most self-serving, masturbatory form of ethics one can have besides complete immorality. Not even I am willing to damn teleological ethics in such a way.

The point remains, however, that deontological ethics do what teleological ethics can never do: encourage individual responsibility for individual actions, and make every single man answerable for all of his actions. It is because of a deontological world-view that we have the progressive notion that a raped woman bears no guilt for the evil done.

How does deontology restrict free will (which is a very, very shaky concept to begin with) in any way? One need not have an Augustine anthropology to be a deontologist. In what way were the authors of the bible opportunists? What benefit did they gain, what Machiavellian plan did they follow by saving the religious accounts of their people by writing them down?

I will never understand why people assume there is some kind of nefarious plot behind Christianity - why is it so hard for the atheists to believe that people like Paul of Tarsus actually believed what he was preaching? Because they assume everyone is as sceptical and spiritually devoid as they are? What about our ancestors, all of whom had spiritual experiences and recounted them? Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy - or even a coincidence, that there has never been a human society anywhere on the earth that did not have a God or believe in a divine being? The "explaining things science now explains" only carries one so far, it does not negate religious experience altogether. And it's not a matter of power - we've seen several atheists or at the least irreligious men who have been just as obsessed with and just a successful at seizing and maintaining power over people. This universal scepticism, believe-nothing attitude is probably the most solipsistic thing I've ever seen in my life - in all the lifetimes of man I have read about or all the lifetimes of man I have yet to read about.

Oreka Bailoak
05-04-2011, 01:19 AM
Quote by Hess: Example: If you are a Christian and you have to lie in order to save a persons's life, you can't. If Lying is intrinsically wrong, there can be absolutely not excuse for it.

The hole is in your argument is a misunderstanding of the definition of Deontological. Your example was a command ethic (which is frequently used by many religions). But what you didn't realize is that while command ethics are Deontological not all Deontological moralists follow command ethics.


Deontological doesn't mean a specific rule that must always be followed (which if that were the case would obviously prove its impracticality, like your above example) but instead Deontological is about the intentions of an action. For instance, if you lie with the good intention of saving a life then that is a good decision by Deontologicalism because your intentions were good even though a small part of your action was bad. Remember Deontological is focused on the goodness of ones intentions.

As for Teleological morals hear this extreme example for a hole in teleological morals- One man is injured in the desert with nobody else around and a car drives up. The man in the car is late for work and can save the injured mans life but at the cost of missing an important business meeting and if he were to simply drive off leaving the injured man nobody would know he was there. Now the person in the car is following Teleological morals and happens to be indifferent about the life of the person because saving him would produce no value to himself and in reality cause him to miss his important meeting so he starts to leave and not help him hoping somebody behind him picks him up (which in his mind is the best option because his work colleges benefit with him showing up, he arrives on time, and he will never see the man again). Next imagine the injured man says he is a millionaire and will give him money to save him so the man turns his car around and saves him for the money. Now remember that Teleological is concerned only with the consequences of actions and has no concern for intentions. According to Teleological morals the man who saved his life was morally right because the end result was good- he made lots of money (remember Teleological doesn't care about intentions). But according to Deontological the mans intentions were wrong because he saved him only for the money and greed is not a good intention- according to Deontological he should have the morally good intrinsic concern for others and saved him regardless.

For Teleological an irrational intention can be good (excessive greed can be good even if the injured man was broke and dies because another utility- him making work on time- was higher).

But under Deontological the man in the car's irrational intention of no concern for human life makes him morally wrong.

One of the only examples for Teleological morality I can think of is when somebody has too much power over others (like a president) and must make so many decisions that not all intentions of each person can be looked into and the end results (consequences) must be the only thing focused on.

But for us ordinary rational people who 99% of the time deal with close personal situations (relationships, close friends and close coworkers, family, children) I strongly believe that Deontological ethics (but not a command ethic form of Deontological) can operate at a higher level than those operating mainly with all intentions blinded and only looking at the end results. (and if your job deals with lots of power and controlling lots of people then be teleological at work for the sake of time and deontological at home when reading your kids stories, talking to your wife, chilling with your boys watching sports... etc. and whatnot)

I'm just trying to point out that both versions of ethics have their fair share of holes.

Magister Eckhart
05-04-2011, 01:22 AM
The hole is in your argument is a misunderstanding of the definition of Deontological. Your example was a command ethic (which is frequently used by many religions). But what you didn't realize is that while command ethics are Deontological not all Deontological moralists follow command ethics.

I suppose I'm probably making the same mistake. Either way, I find Hess' attacks on deontology and Christianity to be more than a little inappropriate. There's a lot of value in Christianity if people would put aside the idiotic knee-jerk "not my parents religion" attitude they have about it and actually study the theology and reasoning behind the moral code.

Agrippa
05-07-2011, 10:08 AM
Why is that a checkmate? Every individual is responsible for individual actions. If you tell the truth and a man dies by another man's hands, it is the other man who bears the entire responsibility for the death of the first. If you lie, you do not change the killing intent or prevent any evil, all you do is make yourself feel better.

To stick to a "moral rule" which, if being applied, outcome would have catastrophic results in a given situation, can be only egoistic or simply dumb, in any case it is a sick form of Fanatism.

There can be no moral rule which forces people to do something which is against their own AND higher interests, but serves none, but only this memetic degenerated monstrosity and a distorted consciousness "working with it."


The point remains, however, that deontological ethics do what teleological ethics can never do: encourage individual responsibility for individual actions, and make every single man answerable for all of his actions.

Rather on the contrary, the deontological ethics encourage LESS individual responsibility, because people can just follow rules they don't understand, are not allowed or able to question and which results they don't have to care for.

They just have to follow the book of some fanciful writers or the ideas of some fanciful story tellers, which must not be justified by reality or the outcome, but are just there - for what?

In any case they just have to follow it, like dumb people and minor children if they can't think and decide for themselves.

So any deontological ethics must be, in the end, the ethic of the slave, a slave of memetic structures which he can't or is not allowed to question.

Now that's alright, for simple minded individuals which own decisions would be, as a rule, inferiour to that of those making the rules, the spiritual elite, but never for the spiritual elite, which has to make the rules fit for reality, for what the people and the group need in this world, to flourish.


It is because of a deontological world-view that we have the progressive notion that a raped woman bears no guilt for the evil done.

Might elaborate? Obviously if the woman being innocently attacked, without a provocation, the judgment is correct.

If the woman provoked on the other hand, she is obviously accessary for what happened.


How does deontology restrict free will (which is a very, very shaky concept to begin with) in any way?

Free will is uninteresting, it is a philosophical construct and exists or doesn't exist depending on your definition of it.


One need not have an Augustine anthropology to be a deontologist. In what way were the authors of the bible opportunists? What benefit did they gain, what Machiavellian plan did they follow by saving the religious accounts of their people by writing them down?

They made up a myth and guide for their people, formed a memetic background for the myths and rules of their people. This proved to be advantageous especially if it is about the justified superiority of their people.

Something Christianity destroyed for all other people - or Islam too - all people are equal, they have to be believers only.

While the old testament clearly points out who's superiour and has more rights, being "God's chosen children" - the own Israelite people!

Similar to what many other religions and myths produced, the legitimation of the own people if having to compete with others.

But such memetic "inventions" can also degenerate and get some kind of momentum, which might result in something which becomes disadvantageous for the carriers.

This is exactly where the deontological approach will fail, because the rules born out of the existing structures won't be easily questioned, especially if being religiously or pseudoreligiously "justified" - to the people carry on principles, memetic heritage, which is essentially nothing else but ballast and might tear them towards a dead end even - nobody asks WHY - whats the BENEFIT - for individuals or the collective, but the crap just being carried on because tradition told you so, it has an intrinsic value, more valuable than logical considerations for what would be a good decisions.

Here it definitely ends and if even the elite is bound to follow that degeneration, the whole population of carriers will be, sooner or later, doomed. Or at least, depending on the severity of the cultural defect, suffer from it UNNECESSARILY, because of stupid idea of "traditional values" and deontological ethics before anything else.


I will never understand why people assume there is some kind of nefarious plot behind Christianity - why is it so hard for the atheists to believe that people like Paul of Tarsus actually believed what he was preaching?

Memes can hijack people's brains - even to a degree where they only spread the message, while losing everything else.

Now that is alright if it serves good genes and memes in general, but it is very destructive if it weakens and people and increases the cultural "dead freight".

To give an example, a priest which had to live childless and only working for the new belief, lost his own bloodline, if he told his followers that blood and offspring doesn't matter, he hurt them too and if went on telling them that foreign people are equals and must be treated equally, so that they can spread their genes - as long as they are "believers" too, he might even ruin his people - so in the end, he probably, in a worst case scenario, sacrificed much of his life, just think about the limitations of his "job", his bloodline - if dying childless and probably even encouraging his relatives to do the same, his tribe and kin, even the whole group, for a "memetic infect".

Now isn't that great that from the three mosaic religions only Jews being superiour going after the religious dogmas, while Christians and Muslims are only "equals" - and Christians even against any blood rules, since offspring and fertility is no value and sexuality a sin or at least worthless...


Because they assume everyone is as sceptical and spiritually devoid as they are? What about our ancestors, all of whom had spiritual experiences and recounted them?

And what nonsense they did because of it, all the loss of energy and ressources, which could have brought to better use, because of their superstition.


Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy - or even a coincidence, that there has never been a human society anywhere on the earth that did not have a God or believe in a divine being?

I have no problem with a God, you can make up your god, why not?

I have a problem with the dogmas being derived from a potential god or gods, especially if they go against the natural order of things in this world and universe, against the reality of our biological existence and human life.

Religion should SERVE the people, the memetic carriers, not harm them!

If a religion or moral harms them, makes them weaker, gives them a worse life, unnecessary hardships, produces cultural ballast and doesn't help in the struggle for survival on a higher level and higher biological and cultural development, for a higher potential, it is no help at all...


The "explaining things science now explains" only carries one so far, it does not negate religious experience altogether.

The religious experience however can be present, but must bring you forward for what is NECESSARY AND ADVANTAGEOUS - for you, your kin, tribe, people, race, higher culture and species.

If it does that and you have even more motivation because you think God himself want's that, this is perfect!

But if you do nonsense and crap, harm yourself and people, the development of mankind and so on, it is a disease, it became a degeneration.

Just think about the protection of the own bloodlines, the own kin, Eugenic ideas and how to deal with the biological reality, since we are biological, lifeforms.

Christanity and Islam BOTH fail completely if being faced with this reality, which just proves that they are, at least in this respect, a failure and this failure needs to be "FIXED", for serving its carriers!


And it's not a matter of power - we've seen several atheists or at the least irreligious men who have been just as obsessed with and just a successful at seizing and maintaining power over people.

Power is not the question - crucial is what people are doing with their power over others. Some people will always exercise more power over others, that is the natural order of things.

There is only one problem, if the existing structures favour the power of people over others by individuals which are not fit for the job and don't serve the greater interests.

If people exert powers over others and are fit for the job, good leaders, a healthy and independent spiritual elite, that is perfect. But if social and economic structures might bring a degenerated pseudo-elite to power, even foreign and hostile elements probably, that again, needs "to be fixed".


This universal scepticism, believe-nothing attitude is probably the most solipsistic thing I've ever seen in my life - in all the lifetimes of man I have read about or all the lifetimes of man I have yet to read about.

And what has this to do with the teleological approach?

Obviously you have to accept a deontologial base in some respects, for example that it is good to survive and succeed on a higher level - biologically and culturally, in this world.

That is, to a certain degree, just the application of natural rules, but since humans can think many things, are therefore open to question natural orders or construct their own memetically determined world, it needs to be told humans, which might not get it on their own - and don't come to this conclusions necessarily - on their own, because our human consciousness is just made for functioning in a certain context, it doesn't care for reality or the truth behind.

As long as humans were able to survive that way, without looking behind the facade, the biological and cultural evolution was "satisfied", because the calculation was ok.

Yet that was never optimal and nature doesn't produce the best results, it just produces results which fit into what's there as good as possible.

Now that we reached a certain level, we have to go on and looking behind the facade, getting to know what's there and what we have to do for being less dependent and fitter for survival on a higher level in the future.

For that you need just some basic rules, the best being purely dependent on the situation you have to deal with.

And in the end, it will be the results which matter - because you can't buy anything from being a useless moral person, which actually even harmed it's people and mankind, but still feels great, just because of some sort of superstition which produced a "reality-free deontological ethic" - that's a failure.

Agrippa
05-07-2011, 10:30 AM
Deontological doesn't mean a specific rule that must always be followed (which if that were the case would obviously prove its impracticality, like your above example) but instead Deontological is about the intentions of an action. For instance, if you lie with the good intention of saving a life then that is a good decision by Deontologicalism because your intentions were good even though a small part of your action was bad. Remember Deontological is focused on the goodness of ones intentions.

That's why it is appropriate for judging individuals, but not for making up a system of rules and philosophy as such!

And the rules and philosophy as such must be always "updated and upgraded" by the spiritual elite to serve the carriers the most - not just individually and on the short run, but also collectively and on the long run - in a fair compromise between these two demands for any regulative structure, any rule system.


As for Teleological morals hear this extreme example for a hole in teleological morals- One man is injured in the desert with nobody else around and a car drives up. The man in the car is late for work and can save the injured mans life but at the cost of missing an important business meeting and if he were to simply drive off leaving the injured man nobody would know he was there. Now the person in the car is following Teleological morals and happens to be indifferent about the life of the person because saving him would produce no value to himself and in reality cause him to miss his important meeting so he starts to leave and not help him hoping somebody behind him picks him up (which in his mind is the best option because his work colleges benefit with him showing up, he arrives on time, and he will never see the man again). Next imagine the injured man says he is a millionaire and will give him money to save him so the man turns his car around and saves him for the money. Now remember that Teleological is concerned only with the consequences of actions and has no concern for intentions. According to Teleological morals the man who saved his life was morally right because the end result was good- he made lots of money (remember Teleological doesn't care about intentions). But according to Deontological the mans intentions were wrong because he saved him only for the money and greed is not a good intention- according to Deontological he should have the morally good intrinsic concern for others and saved him regardless.

I think that is a very bad example, because it reduces the teleological moral to individual, probably even just short term benefits, what is the absolute opposite of what I meant and most proponents of a teleological ethic had in mind.

You could argue in many ways, but let's start with this:
The man in the desert is probably closer kin, so by saving him, you save your own genes - even if he is "just another human", he is still kin, part of thee species and to let him suffer and dying, just like that, if it would be easy to help him and helping him has a low probability of causing harm to you and your kin or the whole group - you have to do it.
Also, the individual saved might be thankful and you might be seen as a saviour and hero, so even you yourself, very personally, might profit from helping this individual. And in a group which says that the results matter, if you lose time, all will understand it, because the time used for helping this other human was well invested and the result of saving a person is worth the effort, might be even rewarded...

Actually the deontological ethic could be used for this example: Always be punctual, there is no excuse for being late!

If a person would follow this "rule" like a robot, he would have to let this person die, because he has an absolute rule to follow and no space for improvisation - he has to evaluate, by himself, which rules have the priority in this case and what benefits giving the No. 1 priority to this or that would produce. Obviously the loss of a little bit of time vs. saving a person...


For Teleological an irrational intention can be good (excessive greed can be good even if the injured man was broke and dies because another utility- him making work on time- was higher).

Not really, like explained above.


But under Deontological the man in the car's irrational intention of no concern for human life makes him morally wrong.

Well, here we have a good example and the potential for a second interpretation:

Just imagine the guy in the desert was a brutal criminal, a foe of the group, he was put there to die after a reasonable verdict and now comes along this "good Samaritan", for which the only concern is to save lifes and value life, never letting one die, never killing an individual.

Yet this person deserves death and by saving this persons life, the saviour harms his people, because the convict will do bad again, after he has recovered.

So a reasonable approach would be, once again, to compare the priorities: Saving a human person is good - but only if the result for the group is good too and no harm being done. In this case, it is ethically good to let this person die, because this person was convicted and poses a threat to the people.

Otherwise I would help, but in this case, letting him die, is better.


But for us ordinary rational people who 99% of the time deal with close personal situations (relationships, close friends and close coworkers, family, children) I strongly believe that Deontological ethics (but not a command ethic form of Deontological) can operate at a higher level than those operating mainly with all intentions blinded and only looking at the end results. (and if your job deals with lots of power and controlling lots of people then be teleological at work for the sake of time and deontological at home when reading your kids stories, talking to your wife, chilling with your boys watching sports... etc. and whatnot)

I think the best approach is a deontological one for children and people unfit for making their own higher level decisions.

To give them a stable moral base - but point is, and that's to me what this debate is really about, which rules are right and ethical, moral and just?

Only those which results are good in the end - if you have rules and moral which harms the carriers, this is a degeneration.

That's the point and the spiritual elite, the leadership, should be able, willing and capable of "fixing it".

Then the common people have to follow, while still, even in their own private life, being raised for making MEANINGFUL DECISIONS, not like dumb robots, but intelligent beings, which can actually weigh things up and decide appropriately, with proportionality.

For example if you allow a father to slap his children, you usually don't mean he should beat them up or slap them on almost every occasion, but that he uses this mean only if it is necessary and seems appropriate.

Same for violence in general, neither politicians, soldiers nor private people should be always as peaceful as some Christians sects want it, but they shouldn't use force and violence careless, but only if it is absolutely necessary for saving their vital interests.

These and many other questions are always critical decisions, for which one can hardly make basic rules applicable for all situations, so people have always to weigh up what's appropriate.


I'm just trying to point out that both versions of ethics have their fair share of holes.

That's definitely right, but less so for the philosophical approach, if it is about the very foundations of an individuals and group ethic. This foundation must be based primarily on results and benefits for the individuals and group if accepting this approach, because otherwise, the whole "constructed ethic" is just a ballast.

Debaser11
05-07-2011, 10:46 AM
Why is that a checkmate? Every individual is responsible for individual actions. If you tell the truth and a man dies by another man's hands, it is the other man who bears the entire responsibility for the death of the first. If you lie, you do not change the killing intent or prevent any evil, all you do is make yourself feel better. By your argument, teleological ethics is the most self-serving, masturbatory form of ethics one can have besides complete immorality. Not even I am willing to damn teleological ethics in such a way.

The point remains, however, that deontological ethics do what teleological ethics can never do: encourage individual responsibility for individual actions, and make every single man answerable for all of his actions. It is because of a deontological world-view that we have the progressive notion that a raped woman bears no guilt for the evil done.

How does deontology restrict free will (which is a very, very shaky concept to begin with) in any way? One need not have an Augustine anthropology to be a deontologist. In what way were the authors of the bible opportunists? What benefit did they gain, what Machiavellian plan did they follow by saving the religious accounts of their people by writing them down?

I will never understand why people assume there is some kind of nefarious plot behind Christianity - why is it so hard for the atheists to believe that people like Paul of Tarsus actually believed what he was preaching? Because they assume everyone is as sceptical and spiritually devoid as they are? What about our ancestors, all of whom had spiritual experiences and recounted them? Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy - or even a coincidence, that there has never been a human society anywhere on the earth that did not have a God or believe in a divine being? The "explaining things science now explains" only carries one so far, it does not negate religious experience altogether. And it's not a matter of power - we've seen several atheists or at the least irreligious men who have been just as obsessed with and just a successful at seizing and maintaining power over people. This universal scepticism, believe-nothing attitude is probably the most solipsistic thing I've ever seen in my life - in all the lifetimes of man I have read about or all the lifetimes of man I have yet to read about.


This a thousand times over. Here! Here!

Go outside and look around you and see what a society looks like that shakes off deontological ethnics like a case of fleas. I do agree with Psychonaut that our society is largely mixed between the two inclinations and this boils down right to the individual level as well.

However, to not be aware of that "generational divide" that's out there today is to effectively be morally tone deaf. Try having a discussion with someone in their 20s and or even early 30s about a whole range of moral subjects. Explain to them something about doing "good for goodness's sake." It pretty much doesn't compute. Honestly. You might as well be speaking Martian. Do you think the children, yes children, on college campuses can even define "good"? What do you think they would say?

"Not being mean."
"Not hurting people and stuff."
"Do your best to make people happy."
"Trying your best to get along."
"Being kind."

Before I'm accused of a strawman, you guys know those above hypothetical answers all ring true. And that's scary. No concrete notion of the concept of good within such answers, even. Certainly not a holistic, encompassing view. And certainly nothing that has anything to do with the traditional Western view of the concept. I'm actually terrified at the prospect of our generation taking over in a couple of decades.

What's happened under the moral guidance of a bunch of materialistic baby boomers has been terrible; just imagine how life will be living in a society run by people who were actually raised by these baby boomers! Acid-laced, shallow optimism and willful ignorance is going to morph into hyper relativism and even pandemic nihilism. We're going from Strawberry Alarm Clock's "Incense 'n' Peppermints" nonsense to The Sex Pistols' "Pretty Vacant."

Of course, this is not to completely dismiss teleological ethics. But I think Kant did miss something in certain cases within his reasoning (like when he evaluated an act such as lying and concluded that lying is always wrong).

Moral scrutiny is a positive so long as it has not devolved into shallow rationalism and technicalities (which misses the point of morality altogether).

So while I lean towards intent, even intent alone is not enough if that means simply taking the line of "well, my heart was in the right place." Of course, one's heart couldn't really wouldn't be in the right place to begin with if they weren't trying to reason out the implications of their actions.

Agrippa
05-07-2011, 01:38 PM
@Debaser: What you describe has much more to do with the individualistic vs. collectivistic approaches.

Again, I'm not speaking about individual responsibilities and morals, but about the focus of the whole system, it is a systemic question.

Liberalism and Cultural Marxism, together with the helping hands of Hedomatism (Hedonistic Materialism) formed what you described and typically for that is a deontological approach in which all people HAVE TO BE considered equal, equal in rights and value, regardless of what they do, as long as they adapt to the basic requirements of this Liberalcapitalist-Individualist society at least.

What is it that they miss? The greater good - they don't care for the greater good and the end results, because everything has to be accepted for the individuals and it is "their life" and if another asshole doing something they don't like, emotionally wise, they have to tolerate it at least, because it is his life.

What kind of values and ethics do expect from such a society?

I think this has little to do with our original debate, it is mostly an individualistic vs. collectivistic problem, and like with deontological and teleological, you can bring it to unhealthy extremes in either way.

But obviously, if you think about it carefully, the teleological approach is definitely more akin to a collectivist priority, because the Pseudo-Individualism, with the consumer society construction kits and "life plans" is legitimated by the idea of the individual being too valuable and its independence too important for any other consideration.

That way the radical Individualism and Pseudo-Individualism of the young generation being a direct reason for the egoism and mental degeneration, the lack of compassion, idealism or higher values in general, because such an approach devaluates everything.

Why should you care for somebody else, if it is just about you and your individual decisions? For what?

There is no good reason, unless you see yourself as a part of a GREATER WHOLE, which is something the "plural society" naturally has to decrease in importance, because otherwise all those other "moral legitimations" for the Capitalism and deviant society would lack support from the philosophical and ethical perspective.

Care for other people just for the sake of it? Well, what's the logic behind if we are all individuals and it is just about fun and pseudo-individualistic concepts? There is no tomorrow, there is no community, there is no GEMEINSCHAFT. Only a corrupted, worthless, Liberalistic and Capitalistic GESELLSCHAFT, a meaningless social construct, which only right to exist comes from the fun and Hedonism, the protection and fostering of individuals - with all individuals being equal in the way they are and being evaluated, regardless of dumb, ugly, sick, foreign or autochthonous, deviant or mainstream, this or that.

This kind Liberal Individualism constructs, by itself, moral relativism - this is a necessity and it being justified, as I said before, in a strictly deontological manner: Because the individuals come always first, are equal in every respect, have to treated equal and only the Liberalcapitalist framework matters.

Whether someone is damaging other people does only matter, if it happens in a way, which is against our Liberal law, since there is no higher moral instance which could decide and interfere outside of the Liberal law. And the greater whole, group and longer term interests can never outweigh individual rights - which are absolute and "god given"...

Could go on like that, but I think I made my more point more than clear.

The current degenerated, corrupted and pseudo-individualistic society is based on a deontological logic and amoral behaviour of the egoistic subjects.

Debaser11
05-09-2011, 06:29 AM
@Debaser: What you describe has much more to do with the individualistic vs. collectivistic approaches.

Again, I'm not speaking about individual responsibilities and morals, but about the focus of the whole system, it is a systemic question.

Liberalism and Cultural Marxism, together with the helping hands of Hedomatism (Hedonistic Materialism) formed what you described and typically for that is a deontological approach in which all people HAVE TO BE considered equal, equal in rights and value, regardless of what they do, as long as they adapt to the basic requirements of this Liberalcapitalist-Individualist society at least.

This is an interesting point and I think it's a valid criticism of the weakness of deontological ethics. But I think the problem you're describing is actually the perversion of what can be called more traditional Western deontological ethics. (Nietzsche, if I understand him correctly, labeled such a phenomenon as being the "transvaluation of values." For example, characteristics that typify weakness become virtuous under the new paradigm and virtues that typify strength are now viewed as repugnant.)

Certainly you have to admit that "equality" (at least in the modern sense of the word) and all the baggage of fake virtues that come with such sentimentality have less to do with attempting to be good for goodness sake or attempting to be courageous because courage is in and of itself an honorable end; again, such motivations are supported by some notion of deontological ethics. Therefore, rather than weighting my criticism onto deontological ethics, my criticism would gravitate more toward the existential approach (which dominates modern philosophical thought in every respect) to deontological ethics.

I hope that makes sense.


What is it that they miss? The greater good - they don't care for the greater good and the end results, because everything has to be accepted for the individuals and it is "their life" and if another asshole doing something they don't like, emotionally wise, they have to tolerate it at least, because it is his life.

Right. The "their life" sentiment gets at the problem I was trying to express when (fake) virtues are allowed to take root through existential thought patterns and then funneled through a deontological thought tube, so to speak. We shouldn't conflate deontological ethics with existentialism (and I'm not saying you were). Again, I think the combination of the two presents a destructive cocktail.

And what inevitably ends up happening once this combination takes root is that the ethics themselves (fake or genuine) get discarded altogether in favor of "rationalism." I suppose you can even attribute rationalism as being a fake virtue today like the aforementioned "equality."

But I think existential thought is primarily the cultprit. This view may come from my own limitations in being able to understand philosophy and culture. But that's my position.


What kind of values and ethics do expect from such a society?

I think this has little to do with our original debate, it is mostly an individualistic vs. collectivistic problem, and like with deontological and teleological, you can bring it to unhealthy extremes in either way.

I whole-heartedly agree. Discarding either would seem to limit one's ability to morally reason at all or at least severly handicap one's reasoning. It would be like trying to perceive the world without one of your five senses.


But obviously, if you think about it carefully, the teleological approach is definitely more akin to a collectivist priority, because the Pseudo-Individualism, with the consumer society construction kits and "life plans" is legitimated by the idea of the individual being too valuable and its independence too important for any other consideration.

Again, I think it's existentialism that's more the issue (though deontological ethics does provide a doorway for that line of thinking in an existential context). Ayn Rand's philosophy (along with most libertarian thinking), in my opinion, is riddled with the weaknesses you seem to be attributing to deontological ethnics. And of course Objectivism is atheistic/existentialist. In fact, I feel like at least, culturally speaking (aside from economics), we are very Randian. We are very individualist in terms of "being our own person" but very collectivist in terms of helping the lowest common denominator in economic matters at the expense of the group holistically progressing toward any notion of good. Bit of a tangent... but anyways...


That way the radical Individualism and Pseudo-Individualism of the young generation being a direct reason for the egoism and mental degeneration, the lack of compassion, idealism or higher values in general, because such an approach devaluates everything.

Why should you care for somebody else, if it is just about you and your individual decisions? For what?

Absolutely not. But collectivism and deontological ethics are far from being oil and water.


There is no good reason, unless you see yourself as a part of a GREATER WHOLE, which is something the "plural society" naturally has to decrease in importance, because otherwise all those other "moral legitimations" for the Capitalism and deviant society would lack support from the philosophical and ethical perspective.

Certainly there are teleological justifications for things like traditional gender roles, deference to the elderly, segregation by race, etc. But without believing in the goodness behind the intent of one's own actions as well, I think society runs a huge risk of becoming very materialistic and debased even in a collectivist-minded paradigm.

Agrippa
05-09-2011, 08:09 AM
Since you mentioned Existentialism, another approach MUST be mentioned, namely Constructivism and radical Cultural Relativism. Constructivism is valuable as a philosophical or intellectual tool for questioning on a higher level, but if it becomes an ideology and being used and abused ideologically, things get nasty. The whole Cultural Marxism is to a large degree about DECONSTRUCTING structures and societal elements which they think are oppressive for individuals or an obstacle for their "new society".

The "funny thing" about those deconstructivist Cultural Marxists and Libertarians is, that they always question the tradition or anything which doesn't fit into their ideology and say it is just "a construct to exploit people and limit their individual freedom", while they never question, with the same arguments, their own new and untested, often already failed paradigms!

So this too is a whole hypocrisy, if you always speak about how relative everything is, that this and that is just "man made" and artificial, should be discarded etc., whereas for example the ideology of the equality of individuals or the MUST to make men and women exactly the same socially will never be questioned - though this could be done with the same Constructivist methods.

Yet this "tool" became really dangerous and being omnipresent in most debates of Cultural Marxists, since they always talk about how "man made" and "artificial" or "oppressive" everything more healthy and more group oriented is, while they never criticise the limitation of freedom in the soft totalitarianism they created - like a blind spot in their hypocritical and pseudo-religious ideology.

Constructivism in particular is more important in this and other ways that general Existentialist thoughts, in my opinion, though I have to agree that it was important in allowing certain extremes or again could be used and abused by various elements.

Debaser11
05-11-2011, 05:35 AM
We're getting a little off the beaten path here, but I enjoy this discussion and will try to bring some of the ideas we are stumbling upon back to the center of the OP's focus.


Since you mentioned Existentialism, another approach MUST be mentioned, namely Constructivism and radical Cultural Relativism. Constructivism is valuable as a philosophical or intellectual tool for questioning on a higher level, but if it becomes an ideology and being used and abused ideologically, things get nasty. The whole Cultural Marxism is to a large degree about DECONSTRUCTING structures and societal elements which they think are oppressive for individuals or an obstacle for their "new society".

I actually have no problem with critique. But Marxists effectively morph critique of the other (as opposed to their own ideas and aspirations, as you've already touched upon) into ideology. As I'm sure you're aware, this leads to Marxist advocates putting forth unbalanced arguments (whether they realize it or not); they also scarcely cite evidence for their claims while asking their political opponents for an endless supply of evidence (which they then try to deconstruct in often ridiculously humorous ways in order to effectively square a circle). This has lead many people (myself included) to label their ideology as being a "secular religion" at times.

There is a tough balance between avoiding suffocating structural hierarchies that result in unhealthy, unvirtuous societies (for example, cultural conservatives (especially Protestant Christians) seem to forget how prudishness is also a vice) while at the same time acknowledging that any society must have healthy structures based on our primordial natures in order for us to subsist. (This acknowledgment actually gives further credence toward the idea that completely neglecting teleological ethics can lead to grave miscalculations in our moral reasoning. In a certain sense, liberals/Marxists suffer from this deficiency as you've rightfully pointed out. Of course, cultural liberals view teleological considerations through the lense of "happiness" calculi (utilitarians) as opposed to the nature of being as whole and how that relates to how most people act in terms of perceived goodness. At least, that's how I understand it.)


The "funny thing" about those deconstructivist Cultural Marxists and Libertarians is, that they always question the tradition or anything which doesn't fit into their ideology and say it is just "a construct to exploit people and limit their individual freedom", while they never question, with the same arguments, their own new and untested, often already failed paradigms!

Yes. As far as I'm able to understand it, deconstruction (as postulated by Derrida) actually undermines any possibility for advocating its own legitimacy. If nothing can stand, and everything is just a fleeting text of a text of a text, then why should I take Derrida's word for it? To me, the whole notion of "deconstruction" is an attempt to use a fancy "school of thought" label in order to excuse a whole bait and switch tactic that is used to belligerently undermine the West, in most cases.


So this too is a whole hypocrisy, if you always speak about how relative everything is, that this and that is just "man made" and artificial, should be discarded etc., whereas for example the ideology of the equality of individuals or the MUST to make men and women exactly the same socially will never be questioned - though this could be done with the same Constructivist methods.

The list of what I consider to be fake virtues goes on and on-- "diversity," "change," "tolerance," "equality," "being accepting and loving of those who are different," "altruism" "modernity" itself. It's been a while since I've read any Kant, but that list has seemingly replaced the traditional duties associated with Western virtues I'm guessing Kant was advocating in his deontological ethics. So again, it's like a deontological thought pattern (where one's action is dictated by his sense of duty toward something) is being funneled away from the traditional Western sense of good (health, vigor, vitality, prudence) to a leftist's view of what happiness is. (Did I mention existentialism tends to annoy me by default? heh) The result seems to be, by my estimation, a radical reinterpretation/transmogrification of the categorical imperative, so to speak.

But I did mention to you that I wanted to re-evaluate my emphasis on deontological ethics in my original post in this thread. In a way, deontological ethics does create backward reasoning in regards to how one approaches the subject of ethics much like how a belief in perpetual white racism against blacks causes one to incorrectly come to the conclusion that more blacks are in prison despite their minority status simply because of white racism. The starting point, ubiquitous white racism, is usually false and mucks up the reasoning regarding the question at hand and causes people to ignore even the possibility that blacks are just more criminal by nature. So too does deontological ethics risk getting morality wrong by similarly starting at the wrong point. That's why, as I mentioned before, I found that Kant's views on lying, as it relates to the categorical imperative, didn't always completely jibe with my own moral reasoning.

My initial sentiment on the subject can be attributed to the fact that I do think it's true that a person is better if he is acting out of a sense of duty compared to acting out of a desire to make a bunch of money. So it's fair to say that when we shake off any notion of higher duties (which can be advocated in a very convincing way by deontological ethics) "like fleas," you get materialistic hedonism and all the rest of modern life's destructiveness. Deontological ethics shreds up shallow utilitarian liberals who so often appeal to the naturalistic fallacy.

But deontological ethics, upon further reflection, does run into a problem by virtue of its fixation and emphasis on action in relation to morality. And while thinking in such terms can be useful in certain contexts, the thinking may not be technically right when reasoning it out. Ethics isn't action in a lot of ways. But rather, actions are the matter of form that ethics can assume. The ethics are prior and in an extremely nebulous sense, detachable from the action. They don't emananate from the action itself. Hope that makes sense.

Anyways, the above ambivalence on this whole issue regarding which ethics is preferable has lead me to mention that, as far as I primitively understand these concepts, ignoring either one totally (even if you lean one way) is to walk with moral blinders on.



Yet this "tool" became really dangerous and being omnipresent in most debates of Cultural Marxists, since they always talk about how "man made" and "artificial" or "oppressive" everything more healthy and more group oriented is, while they never criticise the limitation of freedom in the soft totalitarianism they created - like a blind spot in their hypocritical and pseudo-religious ideology.

Constructivism in particular is more important in this and other ways that general Existentialist thoughts, in my opinion, though I have to agree that it was important in allowing certain extremes or again could be used and abused by various elements.

I think you are more or less technically correct. I think our perspectives are basically identical. In regards to how we each feel on "existentialism," I think here we've reached the point where the isolated variable concerning our seemingly differentiated viewpoints is more or less the limitation of the modern English tongue in terms of expressing these ideas. Certainly self-proclaimed existentialists themselves tend toward hypocrisy and adhere to their own unscrutinized structure themselves while also advocating that others do the same. This, I feel (though perhaps incorrectly), is implied in most cases when discussing existentialist ideas in a political context. Though I'll admit that guys like Kierkegaard are way over my head.