Ethics of consciousness: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Ethics of consciousness » Ethics of consciousness

Ethics of consciousness
Is consciousness the only thing that can cause the possibility of ethics?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ethics of consciousness

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 166

Posted 10/15/09 - 01:01 PM:	#41
reincarnated wrote: it does NOT show that it is impossible in principle for a machine to possess understanding. Straw man. I am not claiming that there IS a machine that can act exactly like the human mind and have an understanding also. What I am claiming is that we know of no reason why a machine could not in principle possess understanding. Searle's thought experiment fails to provide such a reason. If you know of such a reason I am all ears. You are thinking of the possibility of a Strong AI project that can is concerning the possibility of artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence. I've been saying the human mind has certain abilities that the computer does not have an dcould not acquire. In most cases, this is always adangerous stragety, because as soon as someone says that there is a certain sort of task tht computers cannnot do, the temptation is very strong to design a program that performs that task., and this has often happened. But the Chinese Room argument (which I haven't presented very well to my fault) adopts a totally different stragety. It assumes complete success on the part of artifical intelligence in simulating human cognition and assumes that AI researches can design a program that passes the TUring test for understanding Chinese or anything else. All the same, as far as human cognition is concerned, such achievements are simply irrelevant, and for good reasons. The computer operates by manipulating symbols and its processes are defined purely syntactically. The human brain does much of the same ways exceept the human mind has more than just interpreting sybols, it attaches intentional meaning to the symbols. The thing is about computers that they are observer relative. Except for cases where a person is actually computing in his own mind there are no insic or orignial computations in nature. When I add two plus two to get four, that computation is not observer relative. I am doing that regardless of what anybody thinks. But when I punch: "2+2=" on my calculater and it says "4", it knows nothing of computation, arithmetic, or symbols because it knows nothing about anything. Intrinsically it ia complex electronic circuit that we use to compute with. Now you may no be saying that so far there is no computer that can have understandings and that your point is that maybe that there can be possibly one in the future, but I'm saying the sense in which computation is in the machine is the sense in which information is in a book. It is there alright, but it is observer relative and not intrinsic.For this reason reason you can not discover that the brain is like a extremely highly advanced digital computer and therefore you may create another computer like one, because computation is not discovered in nature, it is assigned to it. So the question, is the brain a digital computer is ill defined. And the question asking if the brain is intrinsically a digital computer is that the answer is nothing is intrinsically a digital computer except for conscious agents thinking about computations. If you ask if you can assign a computational interpretation to the brain, the answers is that we can assign a computational interpretation to anything. The defintion of a computer is "a machine that manipulates data according to a set of instructions" and symbol manipulation is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for meaning. If you are speaking of a theoretical machine that can do more than that, we are not refering to computers anymore and something no person has ever thought of. I do not disagree with this. But so what? From what we know, it is possible unless you can prove otherwise. You can be the pessimist, I am the optimist. This is not about looking foward to these that might technologically be possible in the future but about trusting in what's logical to believe in from what we know so far. I could believe that time traveling will be possible in 30 years because techonological advancements are exponentially growing, but from what we know so far about problems associating with it, its unlikely to happen. And if its unlikely to happen, there is no reason to assume it is theoretically possible. You think I wouldn't like the fact if we were able to create conscious, human-like agent computers? Its not the point of considering the possibility of it being in to existent, its because its not plausible and I don't find a reason to believe it'll ever happen. Why do you want to make a machine act exactly like a human? That's not the objective. You were the one who introduced the idea of a robot society much like our human society to explain ethics so that was originally your objective. Maybe it couldn't - but why would we be restricted to considering machines less complex than the human brain? If your saying we can design computers that can act and have some of the same/or similar properties of the human mind, that is implying the vice versa, that the brain can be reduced to similar functions of a computer. And right now, the advancement of computer technology is extremely miniscule to the human brain. From what we know now, the limitations of machines should be considered less complex than the brain even as we advance much further. Edited by Dragohunter on 10/15/09 - 01:44 PM
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/16/09 - 04:23 AM:	#42
Dragohunter wrote: You are thinking of the possibility of a Strong AI project that can is concerning the possibility of artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence. Actually I thought the thread was about consciousness? Dragohunter wrote: The human brain does much of the same ways exceept the human mind has more than just interpreting sybols, it attaches intentional meaning to the symbols. What do you mean by "meaning" in this context? To my mind, a "meaning" is simply a set of labels that we attach to or associate with something - and these labels may be constituted from a combination of experiential as well as conceptual information. If I say "Paris in the springtime" to you, then presumably you can derive a "meaning" from this phrase (for example you recognise that Paris is the capital of France, you recognise that springtime is a season of the year when flowers bloom and trees blossom, perhaps you conjure up mental images of the Eiffel tower, The Champs Elysee, the river Seine, Notre Dame cathedral, you imagine smelling freshly brewed coffee and warm croissants, you imagine hearing French spoken, etc etc). Why could a machine not do all of this and more? What, exactly, is there about your understanding of "meaning" which you think a machine could not also replicate? Dragohunter wrote: Its not the point of considering the possibility of it being in to existent, its because its not plausible and I don't find a reason to believe it'll ever happen. I still don't understand why you think its not plausible. I haven't seen a convincing argument which reaches such a conclusion. Dragohunter wrote: You were the one who introduced the idea of a robot society much like our human society to explain ethics so that was originally your objective. Not at all - the question is whether consciousness is an essential pre-requisite for ethics. I am arguing it is not by showing how a society of non-conscious robots might develop ethics - it is not necessary for the robots to be similar to humans in order to do this. Dragohunter wrote: If your saying we can design computers that can act and have some of the same/or similar properties of the human mind, that is implying the vice versa, that the brain can be reduced to similar functions of a computer. And right now, the advancement of computer technology is extremely miniscule to the human brain. From what we know now, the limitations of machines should be considered less complex than the brain even as we advance much further. Are you saying that it is impossible that we would ever have a machine as complex as the human brain? If so, why do you think this?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

treemanshope
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 268

Posted 10/16/09 - 05:08 AM:	#43
swstephe wrote: Like my signature says, ethics is based on values, which are derived on consequences and emotional content. I think it is possible for the evolution of an ethical system even from mathematics, (look at game theory applied to ethics, for example). All that would be required of living beings is basic emotional reactions, in the broadest sense. Even the cooperating and competition of single-celled organisms. The logic of Ethics could never be much use in a biological world until the invention of language and the separation of subjects from predicates. Until 100,000 perhaps at most 1,000,000 years there was no ethics, still organisms got along alright. The logic of the biological world is not concerned with subjects and classes but of predicates. That which dies is equal to that which dies.
The words of peace are just words, it is man that gives them flesh. Bring peace into the material world. Or, bring something else. treemanshope.

the logos
you win

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 436

Posted 10/16/09 - 06:17 AM:	#44
reincarnated wrote: Yes, I agree words should be carefully chosen, and I believe that I did choose mine carefully. The problem, I suggest is in interpretation. You seem to interpret "recognition" as implying consciousness; I do not. Now that we have clarified this distinction I believe we can move on. Why must we give it a different name if the process is similar? Doing so would simply preserve the illusion that there is something uniquely special about human recognition which could never be carried out by a machine. When birds take to the air we say they "fly". When man-made machines take to the air, we also say they "fly". We do not insist that aeroplanes "cannot fly because the word fly is reserved for organic entities". Are we also to avoid talking of walking robots, or talking robots, because walking and talking are special words reserved for organic entities? Recognition, as pointed out by swstephe, is not used to describe human consciousness - much pattern recognition in animals (including humans) arguably takes place non-consciously. It seems that selection of words becomes more and more important when we are referring to something that is becoming less and less observable. And then finally you get to a place where words won't do and you have to move into mathematics and then you get to a place where math doesn't help either since it is a purely human invention just like all symbology (imo). In your examples, you refer to processes plainly observable and therefore unequivocal in their symbolic descriptions. Flying, walking, talking...all are activities that are hard to be misconstrued, easily observable. Not the case with recognition. Recognition is a subjective process that takes place in a mind unknown to anyone that may happen to be present; it is an abstraction. I think that when dealing with the more abstract matters, they become less and less communicable and therefore more apt to be misunderstood. And the issue is compounded if we use umbrella terms to describe what is happening with an abstraction. Whether or not recognition is used to describe computer processes, my argument is that it shouldn't be. The definition of cognition (from dictionary.com): the act or process of knowing; perception. This definition describes something strictly occurring in sentient beings that have minds, specifically ones that are too smart for their own good (human beings). Computers don't know anything, nor do they perceive anything. This is an idea of science fiction (one thing I always found interesting about older sci fi movies is that the time aspect of the setting is usually something like 2000-20010; we have impressive tech. today, but nothing at all like what you see in those movies) and although some science fi has become sci fact, the majority of it remains in those books. Edited by the logos on 10/16/09 - 08:51 AM
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". Bertrand Russell Man has forgotten how to die because he does not know how to live. (Rousseau)

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 166

Posted 10/16/09 - 09:30 AM:	#45
reincarnated wrote: Actually I thought the thread was about consciousness? Well I was saying how I think a machine can not imitate or have consciousness, no matter how "intelligently" it behaves. You rebuked this idea and the Chinese Room Argument so I was merely giving a side explanation that defends the Chinese Room argument. To my mind, a "meaning" is simply a set of labels that we attach to or associate with something - and these labels may be constituted from a combination of experiential as well as conceptual information. If I say "Paris in the springtime" to you, then presumably you can derive a "meaning" from this phrase (for example you recognise that Paris is the capital of France, you recognise that springtime is a season of the year when flowers bloom and trees blossom, perhaps you conjure up mental images of the Eiffel tower, The Champs Elysee, the river Seine, Notre Dame cathedral, you imagine smelling freshly brewed coffee and warm croissants, you imagine hearing French spoken, etc etc). Why could a machine not do all of this and more? What, exactly, is there about your understanding of "meaning" which you think a machine could not also replicate? Computers (the present iea/defintion of computer) merely means a machine that manipulates data and syntax as I have discussed before. Intentionality is spoke of as a of how the mind perceives the world and how ideas can be "about" something in the world. There are just physical objects, and don't really mean anything. It is only in the mind that there is meaning (unless you agree with extensionality but I have my own arguments against it). [I already adopted Searle's thoughts on intentionality but that is irrelevant to this case so its to be ignored] Computers are able to ability to store and execute lists of instructions capable of performing the many tasks, but they don't have any intentional meanings to the data that it executes like the human mind. If it was as easy to describe intentionality (adding meaning to physical objects) simply with computational functionalism or any computational theory of the mind, I am quite skeptical of why philosophers have used this analogy before to explain such a phenomenon. Its not very hard to explain how computers add meaning to the physical world since we have made them. I don't disagree with your defintion of meaning, just how its possible to add meanings to the world. Axioms (A1) Programs are formal (syntactic). (A2) Minds have mental contents (semantics). (A3) Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. (A4) Brains cause minds. to the conclusion: (C1) Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds. from which we are supposed to “immediately derive, trivially” the conclusion: (C2) Any other system capable of causing minds would have to have causal powers (at least) equivalent to those of brains. whence we are supposed to derive the further conclusions: (C3) Any artifact that produced mental phenomena, any artificial brain, would have to be able to duplicate the specific causal powers of brains, and it could not do that just by running a formal program. (C4) The way that human brains actually produce mental phenomena cannot be solely by virtue of running a computer program. I still don't understand why you think its not plausible. I haven't seen a convincing argument which reaches such a conclusion. If so I won't say anything more about the subject. But my belief that we'll never make a computer that matches the human mind like the fact that I highly doubt (to the point of being sure of) the fact that we invent technology for us to allow to reach 99.999% the speed of light (with all the molecules of the body intact). Its theoretically possible, but not plausible. Not at all - the question is whether consciousness is an essential pre-requisite for ethics. I am arguing it is not by showing how a society of non-conscious robots might develop ethics - it is not necessary for the robots to be similar to humans in order to do this. So far the only thing we have seen able to function and develop ethics are humans. You are relying on an incomplete analogy if you are imply non-conscious robots might develop ethics without being similar to humans because we have not observed or proved theoretically possible to have such a society. Edited by Dragohunter on 10/16/09 - 04:45 PM
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/17/09 - 08:34 AM:	#46
the logos wrote: Whether or not recognition is used to describe computer processes, my argument is that it shouldn't be. The definition of cognition (from dictionary.com): the act or process of knowing; perception. This definition describes something strictly occurring in sentient beings that have minds, specifically ones that are too smart for their own good (human beings). I understand completely what you are saying. Unfortunately, whilst it is tempting to try and force words to mean certain things according to how those words have been developed (recognise and cognition both evolved from the latin "cognitio"), in practice words do NOT necessarily take their meanings from their roots - rather they take their meanings from the way they are used in language. And (like it or not) recognition is now generally used in the English language to refer to machine recognition as well as human recognition. Perhaps you do not agree with this, but it happens to be the way that language works in practice.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/17/09 - 09:38 AM:	#47
Dragohunter wrote: It is only in the mind that there is meaning (unless you agree with extensionality but I have my own arguments against it). Sorry, but you still have not explained what you mean by "meaning". Could you please explain? Until we understand and agree exactly what you mean by "meaning" I am not sure it makes much sense to continue discussing "meaning"? Dragohunter wrote: Computers are able to ability to store and execute lists of instructions capable of performing the many tasks, but they don't have any intentional meanings to the data that it executes like the human mind. Again, I cannot respond to this until you please explain exactly what it is you mean by "meaning". Dragohunter wrote: I don't disagree with your defintion of meaning, just how its possible to add meanings to the world. Could you explain how you "add meanings to the world"? Dragohunter wrote: Axioms (A1) Programs are formal (syntactic). (A2) Minds have mental contents (semantics). (A3) Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. (A4) Brains cause minds. Programs are formal, yes, but where is it said that all formal systems are necessarily only “syntactic” (as opposed to also being semantic)? Is this a "rule" stipulated by Searle? Can you explain why it should be the case that all programs must be only syntactic and not semantic? According to Searle, formal systems CANNOT represent any semantics at all. But this is where he is wrong. How do you think semantics is handled in the human brain? Simply by manipulating, and making associations between, and representing, information. Ultimately what else IS semantics but the manipulation of symbols (information)? This is what computers also do. The rest of your argument hinges on the above. Dragohunter wrote: But my belief that we'll never make a computer that matches the human mind like the fact that I highly doubt (to the point of being sure of) the fact that we invent technology for us to allow to reach 99.999% the speed of light (with all the molecules of the body intact). Its theoretically possible, but not plausible. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But it seems to me that your opinion lacks justification. Dragohunter wrote: So far the only thing we have seen able to function and develop ethics are humans. You are relying on an incomplete analogy if you are imply non-conscious robots might develop ethics without being similar to humans because we have not observed or proved theoretically possible to have such a society. I am not relying on an analogy at all - I am relying on logic and reasoning. I have shown theoretically how a society of non-conscious robots might develop a value system. Can you point out any faults with my argument? 110 years ago we had never seen humans undertake powered flight; 60 years ago the only thing able to play chess was a human; 40 years ago machines were unable to recognise a human face; and your conclusion that only humans can develop ethics is based on the simple fact that to date only humans have been able to develop ethics? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? Edited by reincarnated on 10/17/09 - 09:52 AM
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 166

Posted 10/17/09 - 09:40 AM:	#48
treemanshope wrote: The logic of Ethics could never be much use in a biological world until the invention of language and the separation of subjects from predicates. Until 100,000 perhaps at most 1,000,000 years there was no ethics, still organisms got along alright. The logic of the biological world is not concerned with subjects and classes but of predicates. That which dies is equal to that which dies. I'm not sure ethics started as a type of logic humans have used. reincarnated wrote: I understand completely what you are saying. Unfortunately, whilst it is tempting to try and force words to mean certain things according to how those words have been developed (recognise and cognition both evolved from the latin "cognitio"), in practice words do NOT necessarily take their meanings from their roots - rather they take their meanings from the way they are used in language. And (like it or not) recognition is now generally used in the English language to refer to machine recognition as well as human recognition. Perhaps you do not agree with this, but it happens to be the way that language works in practice. I agree with your defintion of language but I think you're basing it on a misunderstanding. I can refer to water as a color less odor less liquid and not H20 (supposedly I was ignorant of chemistry) and another person may also refer to the word water as both my description but concentrating on its chemical composition and how it relates at the molecular level. The meaning of a word does not go beyond its usage but it the usage of the word can still be mistaken to the object its refering to. Aristotle's usage of world water, fire, air, and earth is still referring to water, fire, air, and earth that we refer to today but his understanding to the words it was referring was mistaken because his conception of it was wrong. Likewise the word perception in philosophy is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information. Just because people use the word to refer to computers and machines does not mean their ideas are right. Edited by Dragohunter on 10/18/09 - 05:52 PM
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 166

Posted 10/17/09 - 10:31 AM:	#49
reincarnated wrote: Sorry, but you still have not explained what you mean by "meaning". Could you please explain? Until we understand and agree exactly what you mean by "meaning" I am not sure it makes much sense to continue discussing "meaning"? The intentional "aboutness" the mind describes in relation to the world. Could you explain how you "add meanings to the world"? I would have to go into the case of intentionality and explaining it is irrelevant to this duscussion. Programs are formal, yes, but where is it said that all formal systems are necessarily only “syntactic” (as opposed to also being semantic)? Is this a "rule" stipulated by Searle? Can you explain why it should be the case that all programs must be only syntactic and not semantic? This implies a simple misusage of language. Identifying a computer program is that it is syntatical based on algorithms. I'm not trying to say that computer programs lack something else, but programs are instructions for processing units to execute; I never knew them to be anything else. According to Searle, formal systems CANNOT represent any semantics at all. But this is where he is wrong. How do you think semantics is handled in the human brain? Simply by manipulating, and making associations between, and representing, information. Ultimately what else IS semantics but the manipulation of symbols (information)? This is what computers also do. Searle's philosophy doesn't imply that semantics aren't handled by the human brain at all or in a different way, but there is more to the human mind that distinguishes it from being causually reduced to computational functionalism like machines. The point is that a computer that can perfectly immitate the functions of a human brain still lack properties that are ontological irreducible. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But it seems to me that your opinion lacks justification. I have no argument to prove that there aren't invisible pink unicorns roaming around the world. I simply find it implausible and unlikely by my understanding, so my opinion is useless because it lacks justification? I have indeed shown theoretically how a society of non-conscious robots might develop a value system. Can you point out any faults with my argument? You have agreed that value implies a perspective and this discussion is based on the disagreement that robots can't have a perspective, understanding, or meaning. 110 years ago we had never seen humans undertake powered flight; 60 years ago the only thing able to play chess was a human; 40 years ago machines were unable to recognise a human face; and your conclusion that only humans can develop ethics is based on the simple fact that to date only humans have been able to develop ethics? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? What I am saying below is for clarification, not for the purpose of saying that this proves my argument. I understand your point but that relies on a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. My intention was not to imply that it is impossible to imagine something possible because it has been limited in the past, but that you shouldn't confuse or mix ideas that are not possibilties based on empirical observations. But again this analogy too is incomplete. Not only humans have been the only entities been able to develop ethics (near intelligent species such as chimpanzees and gorillas have been unable to develop ethics), but only a small percentage of some of the most knowledgable or intelligent humans have been able to form the basis of ethics today. If gorillas, whose genetic information only differs from humans 2% are not able to function to develop ethics, why should we imagine that developing computers to be able to form their own ethics (whose complexity is far behind an earthworm's brain)? I'm just implying its unlikely to produce anything that can produce ethics unless we create something similar or complex as the human mind. You are talking about robots which is something that already has started to develop so we are not talking about anything in particular completely different in the future because even more advanced computers will still have some similar basis of computer functions as today. My argument is still valid because only something similar to the human mind can develop ethics because only properties shown to be in the human mind can produce ethics, like hydrogen having 1 proton. The argument is not based on the fact that since hydrogen so far is the only element that has 1 proton and therefore hydrogen can be the only element to have 1 proton. That is a rather mistaken way to view the discussion. Rather having 1 proton is part of the identification of hydrogen such that anything that isn't drastically similar as a hydrogen can't have only 1 proton. The properties of a human mind identifies a human mind, and nothing else that hasn't been observed similar can have the same properties of the human mind. Edited by Dragohunter on 10/28/09 - 07:26 PM
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

bjolly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 115

Posted 10/19/09 - 11:41 PM:	#50
Sorry for the very delayed response, I hadn't noticed this response of yours. parameter wrote: bjolly wrote: Without consciousness there could be no freewill. How does this follow? Freewill, as it relates to ethics, is the ability to make choices not bound by causal determinism. In order to freely will a decision, one must have some level of conscious intent. If there were no conscious intent, then it would be decided by the forces of causality. Unconscious objects, such as a rock, can not have freewill, and have a destiny which is by default determined. Would you disagree with this assertion? parameter wrote: bjolly wrote: Without freewill there could be no responsibility. How does this follow? (first we'll need to agree just what we mean when we talk of "responsiblity" and "free will")* In this part, I am referring to moral responsibility, as opposed to the type of responsibility that simply tells us the subject who was the source of action x. It becomes apparent to me that I have to make a distinction between being morally right and other forms of truth or correctness that we deal with empirically. This is where the importance of my definition of freewill (above) and its relation to responsibility come in. Moral responsibility, such as in most all justice systems, is a system of punishment and/or reward, based on the assumption that you could have chosen other actions. It is more closely related to the good/evil dichotomy than a true/false dichotomy, and it deals with the quality of the perpetrator's character and decisions. Would you agree that when one calls another "morally responsible" for an action, that the assumption is that they could have chosen otherwise (via freewill)? I guess I don't really see your confusion as to how this statement would follow. These seem to be the definitions necessary for the traditional notion of morality (good/evil etc.). I have never heard of a person accusing a computer of being immoral. parameter wrote: bjolly wrote: Without responsibility there could be no ethics. How does this follow? (bear in mind that ethics is the study of questions of morality)* Ethics can also simply refer to 'moral principles'. But yes, maybe morality would have been a better choice of words. As much as I disagree with the current approach to morality (good/evil, punishment etc..) as opposed to a system based on what creates the most harmonious outcome, the current model is rooted in metaphysical concepts of "right" and "wrong" behaviors. These concepts of moral righteousness assume that the perpetrator is responsible for the action, otherwise we wouldn't associate those decisions with one's character and quality. I hope this clarifies thing, I'm not quite sure what was unclear in my reasoning, but I did my best to expand. Perhaps a better way to clarify my logic would be to ask you, do these not follow, and if so, why?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.