RE: Release

Create a
Free Account

As the Collar Turns:

Collarchat.com - BDSM Forum

Home Login Search

RE: Release

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> RE: Release

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Release - 9/6/2008 2:05:06 PM

MastiffofAr

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/31/2006
From: Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Guys---

The points you raise here aren't different from basic ethics period.

Just saying.

Tim

I think the differnce Marcus is espousing is that even though the ethics might be the same, you earn them yourself instead of just accepting them because (a god, a parent, society, etc.) says you should.

IWYW,
M

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 141

RE: Release - 9/6/2008 6:10:57 PM

MarcusofAr

Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The points you raise here aren't different from basic ethics period.

There are three definitions relevent to the above statement.

Ethics–plural noun

1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

3. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Cheryl was using the name for a specific branch of definition #3 (philosophical approach to ethics) to refer to matters more relevent to definition #2 (moral principles). I stepped in to clarify.

Mastiff just explained how his own ethics (definition #2) altered in relation to his understanding of the Gorean concept of personal honor, when he first began to externalize Gorean Philosophy.

"Basic ethics" isn't a universal list of dos and don'ts. It's also important where those dos and don'ts come from, and why. Hence the various branches of ethics study-- axiological ethics, deontological ethics, etc.

Granted, most people don't bother to understand how it works, or where their ethics come from. Not unless they wish to examine them.

Like driving a car. Most people don't bother to learn how to manufacture one or even to repair one, or where all the parts are made.

They just get in and drive.

Norman suggests we might look under the hood every now and then. Especially if the car doesn't seem to be working correctly.

He wrote his college thesis on Natural Ethics, as a matter of fact.

I wish you well,

_Marcus_

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 142

RE: Release - 9/7/2008 8:25:07 AM

Luther6

Posts: 244
Joined: 4/25/2007
Status: offline

Tal Marcus:
I do believe that virtue ethics is central to Gorean morality, as well as feel that there is ample support in the Gor books for such a position. As a primary example, I believe that in Marauders of Gor, where there is a discussion of Gorean morality, the master morality described is intended to be a form of virtue ethics.

You talk in post #116 about Aristotlian Virtue Ethics almost as if it is the only option, which is far from the case. Though many modern virtue ethics theories have some basis in Aristotle, they also have made changes to his beliefs as well, such theories often called Neo-Aristotlian. Plus, there are some virtue ethics theories that are radically different from Aristotle. So you cannot simply dismiss all virtue ethic theories based solely on alleged flaws in the original Aristotlian model. You must also address all of the modern versions, with their changes, of virtue ethics theory. If anything, I feel that Gorean virtue ethics owes more to Nietzsche than Aristotle.

You quote Hursthouse on a definition of ethical naturalism, who I believe to be Rosalind Hursthouse. If so, she actually is an advocate for a neo-Aristotlian virtue ethics based on ethical naturalism. She finds no problem with combining the two. Her views would thus support the belief that Gorean morality can be a form of virtue ethics connected with ethical naturalism.

I am unaware of any current theory of virtue ethics that claims there exist ideal virtuous individuals. I believe all freely admit that becoming completely virtuous is an ideal that one can strive to attain but which will never occur. They admit to the imperfection of man. So, such modern virtue ethics theories do not contain the Aristotilian flaw you indicate.

Norman's dissertation centered on an examination of the "alleged Naturalistic Fallacy, and, in particular , to examine the logic of the Open Question Argument." He wanted this to be an initial step to "demonstrate the feasbility of an acceptable axiological naturalism,..." He defined "axiological naturalism" as "a philosophical interpretationof axiological predicates which maintains that their meaning or their ecriteria of application can be satisfactorily stated in empirical terminolog7y, and that the sentence in which such predicates occur may be synthetic statements." He continues to define "ethical naturalism," as he uses the term in his paper, as "an axiological naturalism limited to a consideration of ethical predicates." Thus, Norman is dealing more with meta-ethical theory rather than normative ethics. Hurtshouse's definition dealt more with normative ethics.

I wish you well,
Luther

_____________________________

“The Goreans have very different notions of morality from those of Earth.”
(Marauders of Gor, p.7)

(in reply to MarcusofAr)

Profile

Post #: 143

RE: Release - 9/7/2008 12:24:02 PM

MarcusofAr

Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline

Tal, Luther!

Hmmm. Interesting.

And I mean that in a good way.

I may have leapt into what I perceived to be a breach, based on my knee-jerk reaction to Aristotle's overly simplistic and (IMO) incredibly unfounded definition of Virtue Ethics, when in actuality modern post-Kantian and Nietzchean redefinitions of that concept are more applicable than I suspected.

I don't believe that Aristotle's Virtue Ethics are central to Gorean philosophy, because in my opinion, Natural Ethics are the force which generates what I call "Gorean Proto-Ethics." In that model, Natural Ethics come first, and are the "natural" base upon which all culturally-polluted ethics systems must come into being.

Ergo, Natural Ethics are central to Gorean Philosophy.

But by using Natural Ethics to generate a Neo-Aristotlian "Virtue Ethics" model, as Hursthouse does, side-steps that distinction and overwrites the incomplete model of Aristotle and his Greek peers-- the end result being that it ALL becomes "Virtue Ethics."

The weakness of the Aristotlian model, as I mentioned, is in its inability to generate scientifically-based "virtues" based on action. "To do" rather than to "be." Natural Ethics, as described by Norman, discounts theological interpretations and intuitionistic predicates. It refuses to rely upon diety or intuition to generate its supposed "virtues."

My argument, as I said, is that Natural Ethics come FIRST according to the Gorean ethical theory. First Natural Ethics, and only THEN Virtue Ethics.

But combine them and call the whole thing "Virtue Ethics," and they become two parts of the same thing-- ala' Hursthouse, again.

If that's your definition, and if we discard the flawed Aristotlian base-model in exchange for the new one, then I must concede your point.

As Norman says:

"...the ulterior motive of our paper is to give some aid, comfort, and presentability to certain practices common to the humanities. In particular, I am concerned with the feasibility of objective ethical predication in historiography; without impressing an inappropriate precision on these disciplines. I think that a case might eventually be made that they need not be considered chaotic or irreducibly subjective, or unscientific-- in spite of the fact that their subject matter involves the treatment of those things that matter most to men."

--pg. 1, Lange, In Defense of Ethical Naturalism: An Examination of Certain Aspects of the Naturalistic Fallacy, with Particular Attention to the Logic of the Open Question Argument. Princeton University, Ph.D, 1963

Ergo, he intended to explain how human beings might have derived their moral principles and ethical systems in an objective, scientific manner, without having to rely upon divine explanations or intuitive gut feelings. With such an explanation in place, one could empirically study how humans classify good vs. bad according to a scientific--i.e. biological-- model.

I know Norman's thesis was based in semantic definitions of systems of ethical virtues-- but even at that early date, the seeds of his later explanation of a natural, scientifically-derived Gorean Morality was already beginning to take root.

Good points, all. Take the Aristotlian fallacies out of the equation and the entire landscape alters.

I wish you well!

_Marcus_

(in reply to Luther6)

Profile

Post #: 144

RE: Release - 9/7/2008 2:06:26 PM

Luther6

Posts: 244
Joined: 4/25/2007
Status: offline

Tal Marcus:
That is my definition, a melding of ethical naturalism and virtue ethics, and I agree with you that the original Aristotilian model is flawed. Luckily we don't have to rely just on Artistotle and can look to the many other philosophers who have redefined and enhanced virtue ethics theory. And like Hurtshouse, some have shown how ethical naturalism can make a good fit with virtue ethics, which I believe is reflected in Gorean morality.

I wish you well,
Luther

_____________________________

“The Goreans have very different notions of morality from those of Earth.”
(Marauders of Gor, p.7)

(in reply to MarcusofAr)

Profile

Post #: 145

RE: Release - 9/7/2008 7:25:28 PM

Nemesys

Posts: 148
Joined: 9/3/2005
Status: offline

Tal Marcus and Luther,

You guys are enough of a challenge one at a time, but when you toss this topic back and forth you make my head spin.

However...

What I seem to be able to distill from this conversation is that the Norman-istic ethical framework is based upon individual personal actions as the ultimate determinate of what is "right" or "wrong"... or, that what people do determines what they are. This sounds like Thomas Aquinas when he speaks of the "good" preceding the "right" in the Summa Theologiae, minus the attribution to God for the cause of it.

Taking that one step further, I presume that when we speak of these actions, we are predicating those actions as a result of specific decisons to take those actions. A tree in the forest that falls naturally on my head is not "wrong", but one that is deliberately dropped on my head as the result of the decision of another person to do so may well be... from my perspective, anyway.

Yet further, you admit to Virtue Ethics possibly having a role in Gorean ethical metaphysics, but a secondary, auxillary one to Natural Ethics.

Okay. Jung makes the case (as exemplified in MBTI theory) that while people can make decisons either way at need, they have inborn preferences to make decisions based primarily upon their Thinking or their Feelings.  While the population is split about 50/50 on T's and F's, 65% of males are "T"'s, and similarly for "F"'s in females.

If I'm with you so far, it leads me to my question. Do you think when Norman/Lange speaks of scientifically-derived morality in his biological model, is he then leaving open the possibility that for most women, Natural Ethics is a tough sell since their predisposition is not to embrace models derived from logic alone... or might he admit that for women, at least the "F"'s, Virtue Ethics may have the dominant role, and Natural Ethics the supporting one?

Can ethical metaphyics have different operational dynamics for those who are "hardwired" with different decision-making predispositions?

Or would he contend that most men and women are hardwired ethically equally?    That's something that I have difficulty hearing him say.

Or is he saying that it doesn't matter, since men are "naturally" more naturally ethical according to his framework?

I wish all well.   - N

< Message edited by Nemesys -- 9/7/2008 7:27:50 PM >

_____________________________

"The knife is no less a knife because it makes no sound." -Tarl Cabot

http://goreanunity.org

(in reply to Luther6)

Profile

Post #: 146

RE: Release - 9/8/2008 5:51:57 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 16536
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Science, however, is not some strange invention existing outside of nature, but inductions based on observing nature, observations which are then tested before forming theory--the lawes that seem to work consistently.

Natureal ethics is not so different--not an abstract intellectual concoction, but based on our own natures, individually and as a society.

Tim

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 9/8/2008 5:52:51 AM >

_____________________________

Yes, I still update my blog--thanks to all who asked!
http://writingtrue.blogspot.com
Gorean FAQ Threads

(in reply to Nemesys)

Profile

Post #: 147

RE: Release - 9/8/2008 6:23:10 AM

Naturallurker

Posts: 117
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline

"[To] ask no more of the world than we already know is there—the ordinary features of things on the basis of which we make decisions about them, like or dislike them, fear them and avoid them, desire them and seek them out. It asks no more than this: a natural world, and patterns of reaction to it."
Simon Blackburn

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 148

RE: Release - 9/8/2008 9:50:37 AM

MarcusofAr

Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemesys

Can ethical metaphyics have different operational dynamics for those who are "hardwired" with different decision-making predispositions?

Well, we know as a matter of scientific record that male and female brains function differently in relation to external stimulus. So why wouldn't that also be true of how they make their internal ethical decisions?

They might reach the same ethical conclusions via the same system, for instance, but base them upon different criteria.

One individual prefers salty foods, while another prefers sweet foods. Their judgements, based upon that personal preference, might differ. But they would rely upon the same cognitive process to render such judgements-- and they might equally agree that a frozen Margarita tastes "Good." Just for different reasons.

When one understands the principle that males and females each possess different biologically inborn sexual reproductive and survival strategies, then one sees that the way the two sexes determine their ethical values would substantially differ in areas where sexual selection and survival imperatives trump other contributing factors.

So, yes-- it seems obvious Norman took that concept as granted when he wrote the Gor books. Men and women think differently and have different emotional responses to certain stimuli, and may rule differently about what is ethically "Right" in some cases because of it.

I see no area where this would be more apparent than in the area of the Gorean concept of honor. As Norman makes clear in the books, there are many situations where males render judgements about what is honorable behavior in response to a certain situation, based in their own (perhaps less emotional or even foolishly hyper-rational) ethical judgement. Decisions which females, who are present, cannot understand.

"Why won't you flee?" asks the terrified slave girl.
"You do not understand," says the male, and stays-- perhaps needlessly-- to fight.

Women often see this sort of behavior as illogical and foolish. Perhaps because they base their ethical judgements on survival imperatives which do not match those of their complementary sex. To the female, combat is a threat to the continued survival of the human race and an impediment to her reproductive strategy. Her potential sons and daughters must survive at all cost!

Males are hardwired to compete with other males and eliminate the potential genetic offspring of other males. And to compete for the affection of females by protecting them from external threats-- even to the point of willingly going to their own doom in order to do so. Sometimes that compulsion seems to defy logic, when measured against the female's own hardwired compulsions.

Women can behave honorably, and often do, as is obvious. But not always for the same reasons. In fact, some of the reasons why men behave as they do are almost completely incomprehensible to the inquiring female mind. The male concept of honor may be one of the most difficult ethical mechanisms for females to understand, because there are no hard or fast rules which govern it. One cannot learn it by studying it from the outside-- one must experience its compulsions on a firsthand basis, and males and women are biologically programmed to do so in different ways.

The male walks into a circle of enemies, from which there is almost certainly no escape, because he smells glory.

His female watches from the safety of nearby escape, stunned at the stupid impracticality of such a grossly foolish action on the part of the male-- but deeply impressed by it, on the sexual plane. Because on some level she understands that he is doing it "for her." Which, on the same subconscious level, he absolutely is.

These are deep truths.

Yes, there's ample evidence that males and females, while they both rely upon the same system for determining ethics, do so in different ways.

I wish you well,

_Marcus_

(in reply to Nemesys)

Profile

Post #: 149

RE: Release - 9/8/2008 5:50:02 PM

Nemesys

Posts: 148
Joined: 9/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcusofAr

I see no area where this would be more apparent than in the area of the Gorean concept of honor.

I was thinking - and hoping - that honor would be the example you would apply first to the question I had posed.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I'll have to chew on that a little bit.

I wish you well, N

_____________________________

"The knife is no less a knife because it makes no sound." -Tarl Cabot

http://goreanunity.org

(in reply to MarcusofAr)

Profile

Post #: 150