foundation of ethics?

[dpmartin]

I believe the foundation of ethics or moral integrity can be found in this...

If parent tells child, don’t touch that it is hot, what does child do?

If the child values the word of the parent more then the choice, the child is saved from the pain. but if the child values the choice to do so. And the judgement was there, before the choice is made. But the loving parent made the child aware of the danger.

If the child touches the hot, and cries in pain and blames the parent for it. What should the parent do?

Does the child resent the experience?

Does the child decide that from now on I will listen and do accordingly.

Or does the child insist on making his own choices from now on? And then the heart of the child sings the repeated song the choice is mine, mine, mine. Not wanting for satisfaction and contentment, wanting for freedom of choice at any cost because it’s mine.

[Aedes]

With all due respect, I don't think that your example is related to ethics at all. It's related to the communication dynamics between parent and child, including the emphasis placed by the parent, and the age and cognitive development of the child. Your example changes if the child is 2 years old versus 10 years old; or if the parental admonition is different. And since avoidance of acute physical pain is an essentially universal human priority, how is this an ethical recommendation by the parent?

A 2 year old is in a pre-operational stage of development. They may or may not listen to a parent when the parent says don't, but it has zero to do with the parental reason. It has more to do with whether the child's impulse to do something is outweighed or not by their impulse to listen to verbal and tonal cues from the parent. So serious tones of voice like "DON'T touch the knives!!" outweigh impulses more than not-so-serious commands like "Don't wipe your mouth on your sleeve." But if that 2-year old burns their hand after being told not to do something, that child will still immediately seek comfort in the parents.

A 7 year old is in a concrete operational stage of development. And a 14 year old is in an abstract operational stage of development. There is a continuity, however, it's not an on/off transition. So as time changes, a child's willingness to listen to a parent's instructions will vary based solely on their developmental stage, and this is irrespective of the respect they have for the parents. Similarly, a parent's style will change over time, based on how they learn to communicate effectively with their own child.

Ethics as an area of discussion doesn't have to do with "do" or "don't do" commands. It has to do with the process of decisionmaking. A parent and a context can push you in one direction or another, but as this area opens up to empirical study, it becomes clear that there's something even more innate and psychological than social and parental mores.

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Aedes

With all due respect, I don't think that your example is related to ethics at all. It's related to the communication dynamics between parent and child, including the emphasis placed by the parent, and the age and cognitive development of the child. Your example changes if the child is 2 years old versus 10 years old; or if the parental admonition is different. And since avoidance of acute physical pain is an essentially universal human priority, how is this an ethical recommendation by the parent?

This may not be related to ethics, but it is entirely relevant to morality. The cognitive development of language relating to repression of primal instincts (such as sensory exploration, via touch) is indeed a moral dilemma. The question exists 'is following language good, or should one follow primal instincts' - it is my opinion that language allows the expression of primal instincts in such a fashion as the primal instincts are repressed yet vented, like a volcano letting off steam in order not to create enough pressure to explode.

I take offence at the title of this thread; 'evil' is not equivalent to bad, evil might cause bad occurences, yet evil remains a force and bad a judgement. So pain is a bad thing, not an evil thing.

This brings me to an interesting point; are primal instincts innately evil? I think that consumption and desire are innately evil - one can draw an analogy between desire/consumption and fire: fire consumes all it can then dies, utterly selfish; in my opinion this is innate evil. Primal instincts teach us to explore all we can, consume what we want to and act in a way which contravenes ethically based societal values - just like fire.

[dpmartin]

Doobah47
if I may...

"I take offence at the title of this thread; 'evil' is not equivalent to bad, evil might cause bad occurences, yet evil remains a force and bad a judgement. So pain is a bad thing, not an evil thing."

On one hand I do not necessarily disagree but on the other hand the pain experienced is the result of what? If the child was content in the words of the parent, the pain would not have be experienced.

I don’t quit understand your perception of bad and evil.

If a tornado flattens your house and kills your loved ones is that bad and or evil?
But if a person blows up your house and kills your loved ones is that bad and or evil? And why since the result is the same?

Your comments on desire/consumption I do believe could be the result of the "the choice is mine" mind set in the USA. There are so many that do not understand the human duty concept.

If you were once in the service for example you would know that the choice is not your's to make. What you ware, how and when you will ware it, where you will live, so on and so forth. And these are not request for your cooperation, it is demanded and expected. You are the legal property of the US Gov. And at your superiors behest 24/7.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by dpmartin

And last I checked ethics is the science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty.

And last I checked morals are an individual ethical scheme and ethics are a collective ethical scheme. Duty is ethical when it's impelled by one's group, moral when impelled by one's self, and legal when impelled by one's laws.

And in this scenario though once again variables can be added what is the root of the decision made by the child?

It's the calculus between the child's impulse to do something versus their impulse not to do so. If a 2 year old child doesn't do something because their father beat them to unconsciousness the last time they heard his voice raised like that, then is that MORAL, or is it rote classical conditioning? That's psychology, my friend, not morality. You can train a horse the same way.

Originally Posted by Doobah47

This may not be related to ethics, but it is entirely relevant to morality.

I think it's related to moralization, but only peripherally related to morality. MORALIZATION has to do with judgements, which is all one learns when one is little. A kid doesn't understand right versus wrong in a moral sense -- a kid makes rote associations as per what a parent labels as right versus wrong. Ultimately, as the kid's thought processes become more abstract, then independent judgements about good and bad, employing foresight and considering multiple actions and consequences, MORALITY becomes part of the child's thought. And this is especially true when parents can have thoughtful conversations and reflections with children about issues that arise in life. But commands from a parent don't teach morals, they only teach judgements (which is fine for a 2 year old, but not sufficient for a teenager).

This brings me to an interesting point; are primal instincts innately evil? I think that consumption and desire are innately evil - one can draw an analogy between desire/consumption and fire: fire consumes all it can then dies, utterly selfish; in my opinion this is innate evil. Primal instincts teach us to explore all we can, consume what we want to and act in a way which contravenes ethically based societal values - just like fire.

I don't see it the same way. Empathy, caring for others, nurturing, rescuing, closeness, and love are all PRIMAL instincts. They are exhibited by many animals other than humans. Furthermore, EVIL is a judgement, not a quality. Things are evil because we judge them as such, not because it's an intrinsic quality of things or processes. And it has a lot to do with point of view.

[Doobah47]

Well I disagree there, saying that evil is a force, and bad a judgement - at the end of the day it's polemics, and 'evil=bad' seems to be the preferred polemic.

I did not say that humans were entirely innately evil, I said that they were driven by evil in some contexts (re consumption/desire). These anti-evil examples you demonstrate are relevant to humans and animals yes, but not to more basic forms of existence, such as plants or fire, and if evolution is to be believed we originate from a system of basic desire to consume and grow - something that humans demonstrate with philosophy; they consume ideas and propogate ideas, they consume and try to grow. I think essentially that the examples of the non-evil you have given do originate in evil, and that they are also a system that protects us from becoming either more evil or the victim of evil, so in any case they are relevant to evil in some way.

[dpmartin]

Aedes
I am not going to split hairs with you my friend, granted it can be looked upon in that. But if today’s philosophy in the arena of ethics is not about the science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty. And the honest look at human perception of what is good, what is bad, or evil, and why. Then you might as well break out the computer an let it tell you how to live in accordances to it’s calculations on what it good, and evil, or bad and hope your program don’t have a viruses in it.
I am try to content the possibility that if the choice is all ways mine and that it is perceive as the ultimate good for a society then would it not be a detriment to society? Please, this is not to be confused with the responsibility of freedom mention in the constitution.

**************
It seems it could get in to a long debate on this but essentially animals survive(stay alive, run from danger or stand and fight), eat when hungry, and propagate. The consumption/desire mentioned in animals, the pursuing of, usually discontinues when gratified, reaching contentment (for the lack of better words) until the need arises again. But that is not the whole case with man. Man must make decisions in accordance to what he is willing to place his confidence in, or rely upon what he perceives as a source of knowledge to decide what is good or evil or bad in the view of that knowledge in order to do something he has not done before hand.

Not to take a cheap shot at evolution, but honestly. If one believes that their source of life, or being, or consciousness, is a accidentally electrified (sorry I meant to say swamp) gas. Then to me, anyway, it would seem that the out look to being consciousness would be some what grim. Could it be possible that this would justify in one’s heart that this all you got, and you might as well get all you can? Would this not generate a society of individual self interest as priority one? Please understand, I am not questioning what you put your confidence in, I am trying understand your view in that confidence.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

I think essentially that the examples of the non-evil you have given do originate in evil.

You think that empathy originates in evil? You think that a mother's nurturing of her child originates in evil?

[Doobah47]

I think essentially that the examples of the non-evil you have given do originate in evil, and that they are also a system that protects us from becoming either more evil or the victim of evil, so in any case they are relevant to evil in some way.

Like I said, all primal instincts originate in evil in some way or other. I doubt that evil is always the attractive option for animals, so they have developed systems that allow them to subvert evil, which is probably the difference between animals and less complex life forms.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

Like I said, all primal instincts originate in evil in some way or other.

And like I asked, please explain to me how a mother nursing her infant -- which happens throughout mammals and is as primal an instinct as exists -- please explain how this originates in EVIL.