Ethics without Ontology

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Due out in March from Harvard University Press is a new book by Hilary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology. From the description of this forthcoming book:
Reviewing what he deems the disastrous consequences of ontology's influence on analytic philosophy---in particular, the contortions it imposes upon debates about the objective of ethical judgments---Putnam proposes abandoning the very idea of ontology. He argues persuasively that the attempt to provide an ontological explanation of the objectivity of either mathematics or ethics is, in fact, an attempt to provide justifications that are extraneous to mathematics and ethics---and is thus deeply misguided.

~~ Paul

[Phil]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Due out in March from Harvard University Press is a new book by Hilary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology. From the description of this forthcoming book:


~~ Paul
Wonder if I can reserve a copy.

[hammegk]

He argues persuasively that the attempt to provide an ontological explanation of the objectivity of either mathematics or ethics is, in fact, an attempt to provide justifications that are extraneous to mathematics and ethics---and is thus deeply misguided.
Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.

[Phil]

Originally posted by hammegk

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.
Well I've rarely seen an ontological argument do anything other than stop a good discussion.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hammegk

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.

Is that " materialist ' or ' athiest ", or are they synomynous in your opinion?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose. Mostly I consider all the supposin' you do around here to be meaningless.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hgc
Mostly I consider all the supposin' you do around here to be meaningless.

Ain't supposin' a lot like wishn' ?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Ain't supposin' a lot like wishn' ? Maybe it is for you, you morally relativistic (by some crackpot definition) materialist/atheist I send my condolences because you don't live in fantasy land supposin' wishin' so-and-so.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Mostly I consider all the supposin' you do around here to be meaningless.
To you I suspect so. You should discuss physics 101 with Uppie; perhaps you would understand that.



To whom it may concern: Sorry about mispelnig atheist.

Also, wouldn't a materialist who is not an atheist be a (completely illogical) dualist?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk asked:
Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"?
Yes. What on Earth does it mean to ask what the fundamental existents are? Say we decide they are foo and bar. What does that mean? How can we prove it? Do those things "really exist"? Why not foo and snork and zag?

I supposed it might make some sense to ask what the attributes of the fundamental existents are, and then try to use Occam to reduce the number of existents and their attributes to the smallest number possible. But then how do you know that's right?

And really, why are we impressed with any argument of the form "Well, my experience just tells me that X is the fundamental thing."?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

..Why not foo and snork and zag?
Since the language game we are playing calls the choices mind, body, or both.


I supposed it might make some sense to ask what the attributes of the fundamental existents are, and then try to use Occam to reduce the number of existents and their attributes to the smallest number possible. But then how do you know that's right?

What did you say you will Occam out of mind-body-both?

Logic is what you use to determine what is best for your worldview.


And really, why are we impressed with any argument of the form "Well, my experience just tells me that X is the fundamental thing."?



I dunno; why do materialists keep saying it?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Due out in March from Harvard University Press is a new book by Hilary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology. From the description of this forthcoming book:


~~ Paul

Thanks for the tip on this thread ;)

I'll check that book out, it sounds interesting :)

I know I've read Putnam before, but when I went looking for what book it was, the book I had in mind turned out to be The Imperative of Responsibility by Hans Jonas!

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by hammegk

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"?

Meaningless? No way. That would be the error of the logical positivists.

It's not meaningless, it's just that (besides internal consistency) there is no way to assign truth values to any of it's statements.

I can't stop talking about it though :D

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by hammegk

Also, wouldn't a materialist who is not an atheist be a (completely illogical) dualist? Hmmmm a materialist who isn't an atheist.... that is a tough one.
Pantheist? I don't know, so you worship the universe, does that really count as a 'theism'? I don't think so.

Can't think of anyway to reconcile those two.I dunno; why do materialists keep saying it?

I laughed out loud at that :D

Adam

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by hammegk

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.

I agree with the last statement.

Ideas are definitely persuasive things though. They are certainly attractive, and I think something is up with that, but that is just a supsicion on my part.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Yes. What on Earth does it mean to ask what the fundamental existents are? Say we decide they are foo and bar. What does that mean? How can we prove it? Do those things "really exist"? Why not foo and snork and zag?

Well, just for starters...I've never heard anyone talk about foo or bar as fundamental existents. The existents under question are rather commonly held ideas and the like, theories that appear to be universal. Not sure about the foo and snork and zag.

And really, why are we impressed with any argument of the form "Well, my experience just tells me that X is the fundamental thing."?

~~ Paul

By itself that shouldn't impress anyone at all, there'd have to be a lot more to that. Unless the person saying it is rather impressive. Even then I don't think it would cut it.

-Elliot

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elliot said:
Well, just for starters...I've never heard anyone talk about foo or bar as fundamental existents. The existents under question are rather commonly held ideas and the like, theories that appear to be universal. Not sure about the foo and snork and zag.
Call 'em mind and material. Call 'em foo and snork. What difference does it make, when there is no way to demonstrate that those things are "fundamental existents"?

It's a typical philosophical word game, but one without any particular purpose at all, as far as I can tell.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
I dunno; why do materialists keep saying it?
Oh please, Hammy. Recall conversations with Interesting Ian and Titus Rivas.

"My introspection just tells me that mind is what is."

~~ Paul

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Oh please, Hammy. Recall conversations with Interesting Ian and Titus Rivas.

"My introspection just tells me that mind is what is."

~~ Paul

Or, picture Samuel Johnson kicking a rock and saying "Thus Berkeley is refuted" :D

Adam

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Call 'em mind and material. Call 'em foo and snork. What difference does it make, when there is no way to demonstrate that those things are "fundamental existents"?

It's a typical philosophical word game, but one without any particular purpose at all, as far as I can tell.

~~ Paul

It makes a big difference.

See, nobody talks about foo and snork. I don't know what you are on about with foo and snork.

Mind and material though...lots of people know what that is about.

In other words, some people can't follow ideas or discussions; they make no sense. That doesn't mean the topics are necessarily faulty (though they might be). If a person can't understand mind or material I am not going to fault the topics by default.

As for foo and snork, I don't know what that is about. That could just be me; if so, enlighten me.

I suspect the word game is the interjection of foo and snork.

-Elliot

[hammegk]

Originally posted by elliotfc


As for foo and snork, I don't know what that is about. That could just be me; if so, enlighten me.

I suspect the word game is the interjection of foo and snork.



Me too; it's the favorite game materialists use to avoid real questions.

Materialist -- someone who 1) thinks and 2) thinks the reality he "senses" is more real than the FACT he is thinking.

[UndercoverElephant]

Back to the topic. :)

I agree that ethics must be seperated from ontology. The reason for this is that I believe a fundamental ethical principle involves protecting peoples right to believe whatever they want to believe - this is the primary reason why church and state must be seperated too. Since any ontology inevitably clashes with the beliefs of some section of society, and since ethics are a set of rules which have to apply to everybody, regardless of what they may believe, then it is neccesary to make sure that ontology is not allowed to influence ethics.

Geoff.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elliot said:
See, nobody talks about foo and snork. I don't know what you are on about with foo and snork.

Mind and material though...lots of people know what that is about.

In other words, some people can't follow ideas or discussions; they make no sense. That doesn't mean the topics are necessarily faulty (though they might be). If a person can't understand mind or material I am not going to fault the topics by default.
Because you think you know what mind and material mean, you are assigning some kind of significance to asking whether they are the fundamental existents. But does that question really make any more sense than wondering whether the two fundamental existents are things whose attributes you can't define? If so, why?

Hammegk said:
Materialist -- someone who 1) thinks and 2) thinks the reality he "senses" is more real than the FACT he is thinking.
Fact?

"My introspection just tells me that thinking is a FACT."

For some reason, your sensation of thinking seems more real to you than your sensation of the apparent external world. You then assume that a materialist thinks the reverse. I don't think the reverse; I think they are equally real.

Regardless, you have no way of demonstrating that your thought is the fundamental existent.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

....You then assume that a materialist thinks the reverse. I don't think the reverse; I think they are equally real.[
A dualist, ok. How did you rationalize your way out of "Stimpy's Dilemma"? (If it effects or affects the physical, it IS physical.)




Regardless, you have no way of demonstrating that your thought is the fundamental existent.


Only by the logical consequences of the choice you make on mind vs matter. If you are content with the logic required to cross from non-life to life at the simple end, and how you explain qualia & HPC at the (human) end, so be it. Your choice. :)

Also back to the topic, shouldn't we decide if "ethics" are universal, or strictly a human invention, before we examine any potential ontological basis.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Because you think you know what mind and material mean, you are assigning some kind of significance to asking whether they are the fundamental existents.

Right, sort of. I have some ideas about those two words, as have billions of other people. To me it seems obvious that they are fundmental existents, but that's just me.

But does that question really make any more sense than wondering whether the two fundamental existents are things whose attributes you can't define? If so, why?

I'll just say that as for mind/material, it's a sort of dichotomy, that is a part of my understanding of the concepts. So it's easy to stick attributes into those two boxes.

For some reason, your sensation of thinking seems more real to you than your sensation of the apparent external world.

Sure, there's something to that. It's a personal appreciation I think. The key part of your sentence was "to you". The reason my sensation of thinking seems real to me is because it is my sensation of thinking.

You then assume that a materialist thinks the reverse. I don't think the reverse; I think they are equally real.

I make no assumptions about what you think, just respond to what you say? If you think material/mind are equally real, that's cool.

Regardless, you have no way of demonstrating that your thought is the fundamental existent.

Right. It's just my thought, and everybody has thoughts. It's something we have in common, and things in common are rarely appreciated on this forum.

-Elliot

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
A dualist, ok. How did you rationalize your way out of "Stimpy's Dilemma"? (If it effects or affects the physical, it IS physical.)
I'm not a dualist! I'm not a monist. I think ontology is incoherent. I have no idea how many fundamental existents there are, or even whether that question makes sense. I go with scientific epistemology: What can we investigate? We can investigate the "physical" (a word we've simply agreed means that which we can investigate).

Also back to the topic, shouldn't we decide if "ethics" are universal, or strictly a human invention, before we examine any potential ontological basis.
Hold on, it's my topic. I don't give a damn about ethics. I just thought it was interesting that the author rejects ontology. :D

Elliot said:
Right, sort of. I have some ideas about those two words, as have billions of other people. To me it seems obvious that they are fundmental existents, but that's just me.
Is math a fundamental existent? How about ideas? Is an animals mind a different sort of existent from our minds? Where does it end?

Right. It's just my thought, and everybody has thoughts. It's something we have in common, and things in common are rarely appreciated on this forum.
Hey man, I truly appreciate your thoughts. They make this topic interesting!

~~ Paul

[Keneke]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
Hmmmm a materialist who isn't an atheist.... that is a tough one.
Pantheist? I don't know, so you worship the universe, does that really count as a 'theism'? I don't think so.

Can't think of anyway to reconcile those two.
[/B]

An infinitely technologically advanced universe-creating being. He'd be a "god" in a metaphorical sense mostly, but close enough for government work.

That way, you wouldn't break your materialism POV, but still be a theist, kinda sorta.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Keneke


An infinitely technologically advanced universe-creating being.

Or per AC Clark, "magic". Sounds better than goddidit, huh?

Originally posted by Paul

I'm not a dualist! I'm not a monist.

Ambidextrous? Ambivalent? Or just can't make up your mind? :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am a furious green podiatrist. The foot is the fundamental existent.

~~ Paul