|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 11:07:12 GMT
It lists items in a series and says " or other undesirable consequences" Correct! In this case, the phrase is being used as a vague catch-all after specifics were given. If it was including the listed items as "undesirable consequences" it would have said "AND other undesirable consequences", not "or". Your question is not logical. Why would anyone desire any of those states/conditions? Such an assumption makes no sense! If the list that precedes "or other" wasn't a list of undesirable consequences, how would the word "other" make sense, especially in lieu of a comma after it? Re "your question is not logical," I have no idea how you'd be defining "logic," but it's certainly not anything like how I'd define it. Any arbitrary person could desire (or not) any arbitrary state. We have plenty of examples of people desiring unusual things.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 13:17:49 GMT
If the list that precedes "or other" wasn't a list of undesirable consequences, how would the word "other" make sense, especially in lieu of a comma after it? The "undesirable" adjective refers to the "other consequences", not the previously mentioned consequences that precede the words "or other". It would not be necessary to say that an impairment or an adverse effect is undesirable because that is a given. But even IF your interpretation was correct, this essentially invalidates your own argument that "undesirable" in the medical sense is "subjective". If the definition states that specific things are undesirable, then that is an objective statement. The dictionary tells us what is undesirable, so that would answer your question. This much is obvious! Be that as it may, according to the medical definition provided, certain specific states are defined as undesirable. So I'm not sure what your point is.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 13:27:15 GMT
If the list that precedes "or other" wasn't a list of undesirable consequences, how would the word "other" make sense, especially in lieu of a comma after it? The "undesirable" adjective refers to the "other consequences", not the previously mentioned consequences that precede the words "or other". It would not be necessary to say that an impairment or an adverse effect is undesirable because that is a given. But even IF your interpretation was correct, this essentially invalidates your own argument that "undesirable" in the medical sense is "subjective". If the definition states that specific things are undesirable, then that is an objective statement. The dictionary tells us what is undesirable, so that would answer your question. This much is obvious! Be that as it may, according to the medical definition provided, certain specific states are defined as undesirable. So I'm not sure what your point is. " If the definition states that specific things are undesirable, then that is an objective statement." How is it objective? You mean that it originates extramentally? "The dictionary tells us what is undesirable, so that would answer your question."--So it originates with the dictionary?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 14:14:06 GMT
"If the definition states that specific things are undesirable, then that is an objective statement." How is it objective? You mean that it originates extramentally? In this specific case, yes. No. The objective usage (where specific conditions are defined as medically undesirable) begin with the unified consensus of experts involved in defining the parameters of medical ethics. The subjective usage (i.e. "or other undesirable conditions") originates within the mind of the individual. Remember, the definitions provided examples of undesirable conditions including (but not limited to) what was specifically defined. So it's not an either/or argument! "Desirable" may be both objective AND subjective depending on the context of how it is used. In this case, the medical definition provides an objective usage, while simultaneously allowing for subjective interpretations of desirability.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 14:29:33 GMT
"If the definition states that specific things are undesirable, then that is an objective statement." How is it objective? You mean that it originates extramentally? In this specific case, yes. No. The objective usage (where specific conditions are defined as medically undesirable) begin with the unified consensus of experts involved in defining the parameters of medical ethics. The subjective usage (i.e. "or other undesirable conditions") originates within the mind of the individual. Remember, the definitions provided examples of undesirable conditions including (but not limited to) what was specifically defined. So it's not an either/or argument! "Desirable" may be both objective AND subjective depending on the context of how it is used. In this case, the medical definition provides an objective usage, while simultaneously allowing for subjective interpretations of desirability. "In this specific case" -- so where does it originate? You know that objective/subjective has nothing to do with agreement or consensus, right?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 15:35:38 GMT
In this specific case, yes. No. The objective usage (where specific conditions are defined as medically undesirable) begin with the unified consensus of experts involved in defining the parameters of medical ethics. The subjective usage (i.e. "or other undesirable conditions") originates within the mind of the individual. Remember, the definitions provided examples of undesirable conditions including (but not limited to) what was specifically defined. So it's not an either/or argument! "Desirable" may be both objective AND subjective depending on the context of how it is used. In this case, the medical definition provides an objective usage, while simultaneously allowing for subjective interpretations of desirability. "In this specific case" -- so where does it originate? You know that objective/subjective has nothing to do with agreement or consensus, right? Actually in many cases it does. The law for example is determined by consensus and agreement among congress (based on the will of the majority). And that is what makes it objective! The fact that not everyone agrees with the law and has their own opinion about what it should be does not make it subjective. It still applies to everyone who happens to fall under its jurisdiction (whether they agree with it or not). Similarly, medical ethics are objective in the fact that they are based on the Hippocratic Oath, a promise agreed to by all board certified doctors to adhere to certain principles of medicine. Those principles therefore become objectively applied and binding for anyone who has taken the oath. They don't just get to decide that something is "ethical" on their own after they have taken the oath. That would be subjective ethics at that point. In any case, I don't know where you are going with this. What point are you trying to establish regarding routine circumcision, because I feel like we are getting off point?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 16:10:28 GMT
"In this specific case" -- so where does it originate? You know that objective/subjective has nothing to do with agreement or consensus, right? Actually in many cases it does. No, it doesn't. That doesn't make it objective. I didn't say that nothing can be determined by consensus. I said that whether something is objective or subjective has nothing to do with agreement or consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 16:14:05 GMT
In any case, I don't know where you are going with this. What point are you trying to establish regarding routine circumcision, because I feel like we are getting off point? I'm trying to teach you something about ethics, the idea of ethical progress, etc. The only way you'd learn is by going over these points so that we focus on one thing at a time. It's just a matter of whether you'll follow along enough for me to be able to teach you what I'm trying to teach you.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 16:54:39 GMT
In any case, I don't know where you are going with this. What point are you trying to establish regarding routine circumcision, because I feel like we are getting off point? I'm trying to teach you something about ethics, the idea of ethical progress, etc. The only way you'd learn is by going over these points so that we focus on one thing at a time. It's just a matter of whether you'll follow along enough for me to be able to teach you what I'm trying to teach you. "Teaching me" implies that you know more about said subject (ethics/morality) than I do (an assumption so far based on nothing but a difference of opinion). If morals and ethics are subjective, then in truth you cannot make such a claim at all. The fact of the matter is ethical progress is based on progressive societal knowledge and education. And I can point to any number of examples that demonstrates this to be true. The reason why unethical behavior was tolerated in the past has largely to do with the fact that most people were ignorant, and didn't know what they were doing. As we learn more, we tend to grow more in terms of what we view as ethical behavior. Ethics have always progressed from less moral to more moral as far as most people would judge it. And since laws and ethics are determined by the majority, those morals can be said to exist in the minds of the vast majority (making distinctions about subjectivity irrelevant). In fact, the more I think about it the more I realize that this entire debate should be boil down to what is REASONABLE rather than what is ethical. Because if something is in fact ethical, then someone advocating that position should easily be able to reason that out. Only when an ethical argument becomes unreasonable should it be invalidated as subjective (IMO).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 16:59:08 GMT
I'm trying to teach you something about ethics, the idea of ethical progress, etc. The only way you'd learn is by going over these points so that we focus on one thing at a time. It's just a matter of whether you'll follow along enough for me to be able to teach you what I'm trying to teach you. "Teaching me" implies that you know more about said subject (ethics/morality) than I do (an assumption so far based on nothing but a difference of opinion). If morals and ethics are subjective, then in truth you cannot make such a claim at all. I'm not trying to teach you ethical stances per se, but metaethics. You're conflating metaethical facts and ethical stances above. And yeah, I definitely know more about it than you do. (Which is partially evidenced by that conflation. You wouldn't make that mistake if you had even an undergraduate degree in philosophy)
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 24, 2017 17:20:48 GMT
I'm trying to teach you something about ethics, the idea of ethical progress, etc. The only way you'd learn is by going over these points so that we focus on one thing at a time. It's just a matter of whether you'll follow along enough for me to be able to teach you what I'm trying to teach you. "Teaching me" implies that you know more about said subject (ethics/morality) than I do (an assumption so far based on nothing but a difference of opinion). If morals and ethics are subjective, then in truth you cannot make such a claim at all. The fact of the matter is ethical progress is based on progressive societal knowledge and education. And I can point to any number of examples that demonstrates this to be true. The reason why unethical behavior was tolerated in the past has largely to do with the fact that most people were ignorant, and didn't know what they were doing. As we learn more, we tend to grow more in terms of what we view as ethical behavior. Ethics have always progressed from less moral to more moral as far as most people would judge it. And since laws and ethics are determined by the majority, those morals can be said to exist in the minds of the vast majority (making distinctions about subjectivity irrelevant). In fact, the more I think about it the more I realize that this entire debate should be boil down to what is REASONABLE rather than what is ethical. Because if something is in fact ethical, then someone advocating that position should easily be able to reason that out. Only when an ethical argument becomes unreasonable should it be invalidated as subjective (IMO). "Based on nothing but differences of opinion" How is that not something we should base our opinions on? You think you know more about the earth then flat earthers don't you? Well that is Incorrect, that is only based on a difference of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 18:12:50 GMT
You think you know more about the earth then flat earthers don't you? Well that is Incorrect, that is only based on a difference of opinion. No it isn't. That the earth is round is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. A fact that has been discovered and proved by scientists through observable evidence for centuries. Opinion becomes irrelevant in the face of contradicting facts.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 24, 2017 18:43:20 GMT
You think you know more about the earth then flat earthers don't you? Well that is Incorrect, that is only based on a difference of opinion. No it isn't. That the earth is round is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. And ethics isn't?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 19:55:57 GMT
No it isn't. That the earth is round is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. And ethics isn't? Well there is a simple test that can address that question -- Is routine neonatal circumcision of males in the absence of medical necessity "ethical", yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 20:33:57 GMT
Well there is a simple test that can address that question -- Is routine neonatal circumcision of males in the absence of medical necessity "ethical", yes or no? No. How would me answering this question address anything? Many people would disagree with you, there is no objectively correct answer. In answering you are addressing the claim that there is objectivity in ethics, there is not. There is no ethical stance that is objectively correct, much like there is no such thing as objective morality.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 20:38:36 GMT
No. How would me answering this question address anything? Many people would disagree with you, there is no objectively correct answer. In answering you are addressing the claim that there is objectivity in ethics, there is not. There is no ethical stance that is objectively correct, much like there is no such thing as objective morality. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 20:42:07 GMT
Many people would disagree with you, there is no objectively correct answer. In answering you are addressing the claim that there is objectivity in ethics, there is not. There is no ethical stance that is objectively correct, much like there is no such thing as objective morality. Then why have laws in the first place? Laws are different in that they are imposed onto everyone subject to them for the purpose of establishing good order in society. Laws are established by the state, not the individual. Laws may be based on morality and ethics, however they exist independently of them, and on occasions conflict with them.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 20:43:12 GMT
Many people would disagree with you, there is no objectively correct answer. In answering you are addressing the claim that there is objectivity in ethics, there is not. There is no ethical stance that is objectively correct, much like there is no such thing as objective morality. Then why have laws in the first place? The same reason we have oranges, to fulfill the requirements for a non-sequitur.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 24, 2017 20:44:15 GMT
Then why have laws in the first place? Laws are different in that they are imposed onto everyone subject to them for the purpose of establishing good order in society. Laws are established by the state, not the individual. Laws may be based on morality and ethics, however they exist independently of them, and on occasions conflict with them. Laws are made in order to avoid unethical outcomes. Why make murder illegal if it being unethical is subjective?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 20:49:16 GMT
Laws are different in that they are imposed onto everyone subject to them for the purpose of establishing good order in society. Laws are established by the state, not the individual. Laws may be based on morality and ethics, however they exist independently of them, and on occasions conflict with them. Laws are made in order to avoid unethical outcomes. Why make murder illegal if it being unethical is subjective? Murder is subjective. What you are talking about is the law around killing, and it varies depending on the circumstances. You can kill in war if you kill accidentally it's manslaughter If you kill on pupose it's murder. Laws reflect societies current understanding of ethics, otherwise it would be perfectly fine to keep slaves.
|
|