NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a little convention that most people disagree with. I have a very different defintion of morality than is commonly accepted.

Now, before I say what it is, I want to say that I don't want anyone to quote a dictionary. I could do that myself. Besides, half of real debating is defining things. The dictionary is an assiantant for writters, but it would be improper to use it in debating.

Anyway, my defintion of ethics is this: A code of behavoiral rules on applys to that is based on logic stemming from a single statement of altruism. This allows for my defintion of morality, which is an archic ethical code that has been handed down for generations. This usually implys that the logic or perhaps even the underling altruistic statement is lost.

What do you think?

Anyway, my defintion of ethics is this: A code of behavoiral rules on applys to that is based on logic stemming from a single statement of altruism.Substitute selfishness for altruism and you have objectivism. Sort of. I don't think you'll get very far with logic for just one premise (although the rules of logic are themselves premises of sorts).

What do you think?Applying logic to ethics is a good idea. But consistency is overrated. My ethical system is inconsistent, and that's not likely to change (and I don't feel like doing a lot of a posteri pleading to try and pretend otherwise). Don't make the mistake that Ayn Rand makes in thinking there is just one way to derive an ethical system from a premise. It also depends on exactly what sort of derivations you are willing to accept as logical (and there is a lot of room for fudging things here).

Basically, if you want to try and derive a logical ethical system go right ahead; I think it is a useful thing to do. But "logical" is not nearly as strong as discriptor as you might except. If you want to redefine ethics, frankly I don't see the point.

Substitute selfishness for altruism and you have objectivism. Sort of. I don't think you'll get very far with logic for just one premise (although the rules of logic are themselves premises of sorts).

Applying logic to ethics is a good idea. But consistency is overrated. My ethical system is inconsistent, and that's not likely to change (and I don't feel like doing a lot of a posteri pleading to try and pretend otherwise). Don't make the mistake that Ayn Rand makes in thinking there is just one way to derive an ethical system from a premise. It also depends on exactly what sort of derivations you are willing to accept as logical (and there is a lot of room for fudging things here).

Basically, if you want to try and derive a logical ethical system go right ahead; I think it is a useful thing to do. But "logical" is not nearly as strong as discriptor as you might except. If you want to redefine ethics, frankly I don't see the point.

Maybe logic wasn't the right word, but a sensical code.

Ahh i love these threads were only your answer is correct because morality is how you judge your actions

I have a little convention that most people disagree with. I have a very different defintion of morality than is commonly accepted.

Now, before I say what it is, I want to say that I don't want anyone to quote a dictionary. I could do that myself. Besides, half of real debating is defining things. The dictionary is an assiantant for writters, but it would be improper to use it in debating.

Anyway, my defintion of ethics is this: A code of behavoiral rules on applys to that is based on logic stemming from a single statement of altruism. This allows for my defintion of morality, which is an archic ethical code that has been handed down for generations. This usually implys that the logic or perhaps even the underling altruistic statement is lost.

What do you think?

It's a mechanism for the regulation of human behavior, IMO.

Ahh i love these threads were only your answer is correct because morality is how you judge your actions

Wait, what? How are you saying my debating tecnique is wrong?

I have a little convention that most people disagree with. I have a very different defintion of morality than is commonly accepted.

Now, before I say what it is, I want to say that I don't want anyone to quote a dictionary. I could do that myself. Besides, half of real debating is defining things. The dictionary is an assiantant for writters, but it would be improper to use it in debating.

Anyway, my defintion of ethics is this: A code of behavoiral rules on applys to that is based on logic stemming from a single statement of altruism. This allows for my defintion of morality, which is an archic ethical code that has been handed down for generations. This usually implys that the logic or perhaps even the underling altruistic statement is lost.

What do you think?

I think I'm a loser for being awake at 2:35AM on a Saturday evening, and:

a) Not drunk of my ass
b) Not with a hot girl on my bed

...but instead on an online political-simulation game's forum.


Oh wait... you mean about your definition of morality. Right.

I have two precepts of morals, which are largely the same: they are used by society to dictate behaviour, and they are used by the self to determine behaviour. I'm not sure all morals are based on altruism, though perhaps they would be in an ideal world.

Maybe logic wasn't the right word, but a sensical code.Yeah, ok, makes sense. People often put a lot more faith in "logic" than I feel is warranted, that's what I was warning about. (I couldn't tell if you were one of them). But despite its limits, logic/reason/consideration/sense is IMO still quiet useful.