Probably not, but no one is forcing me to meet any demands either. There is nothing forcing me to even be in business, I could take an entry level position to pay the bills and live the rest of my life without hiring anyone if I choose to. 

 

I'm not in business to provide jobs. I'm in business to make money, creating jobs just happens to sometimes be an appropriate step to take to reach said goal. If you can't afford my products,  you have two options- you can go make more money (produce more yourself) or you can live without it and I will lose your business. If I lose too much business I will be faced with the option of lowering my prices (and profits), closing down entirely, or producing something different, this is a decision that I have to make pretty much every year. Where is the problem? 

If you want more money, do a job that is more valuable/in demand in the market and you will have more and therefore be able to purchase more. If you don't care that much about purchasing more, your choice, I will find other customers. If you want more money there are certain actions you could take to get more, you are not taking those actions and you have declared on here that you have no interest in taking those actions.

Should I force you to take them because it would be better for me?

Or am I supposed to give you money for doing nothing just so you can indirectly give it back to me by purchasing the products created from my efforts?

I choose neither. I am perfectly content with you deciding not to add to the economy as much as you are probably capable of. You can add as much or as little to the economy as you desire, and the economy will grow or shrink depending on the cumulative actions of everyone involved. I don't think it is necessary for the economy to always grow in perpetuity. You can go off and build a new restaurant chain that becomes the biggest thing since McDonalds and be a multi-millionaire adding a ton to the economy, or you can stay where you are adding a minute amount. I don't care. Your choice. Like I said in my initial response to the OP, you set your goals however humble or grandiose they are and the measure of your personal success is how you meet those goals.

I don't care what goals you choose, if a persons goals happen to align with my goals to create an opportunity that is beneficial to both of us we can have dinner which might lead to lawyers, contracts and hopefully profits. If not, congrats on your successes and have a good life. There are more than enough people out there I don't have to insist that your goals be consistent with mine to find plenty of opportunity. 

If you don't want to move up and you don't do the actions required to move up you can't be surprised when you don't. And I don't care. You can go as far or not as far as you desire to attempt to achieve. That is your personal decision.

 

Your job is worth whatever you are paid. The reality is that in a dishwashing job you will perform a small service for a limited number of people, so your income will never be high. People simply are not willing to pay a lot of money for the service and it is a job which is easy to fill by a demographic that is willing to work for low wages and currently has an extremely high unemployment rate, all of which adds up to low wages. If you want to make more money either you need to find a way to provide the same service to more people or do something that people are willing to pay more money for. 

Obviously, there is some variance because market information is never perfect. Perhaps your boss is paying less than he is willing to pay, so you are getting paid a little less than your job is actually worth to your boss. Or maybe there is another restaurant that would be willing to pay you a little more for the same job. But as long as you are willing to do the job for your current wage, that is what your labor is worth. (Note I am talking about the monetary value of your labor, not your moral value as a human, not the same thing although you conflate the two in your post)

This is just as moronic as saying whatever god says is ethical, maybe more so, since at least the theists making that claim think god is loving and all knowing and shit.

If the majority feels it's ok to exterminate the jews, that makes it ok then? If the majority of people are religious and they get the idea that they should burn atheists at the stake, that's ok? This has to be the laziest, most poorly thought out ethical standard I've ever come across, especially from an atheist.

I never said anything about "human" ethics, ethics is ethics, period. The ethical treatment of humans in particular is a mere subdivision.

I've already answered this many times, the standard is sentient welfare. As for measuring it, the fact we can't do any kind of precise measurements doesn't mean there is nothing to measure. I can say with absolute certainty that stubbing my toe is better than getting my ribcage smashed by a sledgehammer, yet I can't give you any kind of exact numeric value to indicate how much each of those sucks.

Yet earlier you said whatever the majority says, goes. Make up your mind, either the retarded majority (or insane majority for that matter) makes up the rules, or there's a standard not dependent on the opinion of idiots.

What we try to discover via ethical thought is the best way to play the game and maximize welfare for all players involved. Just because there's no one around anymore to make these strategies doesn't mean the purpose of them, the welfare, goes away. So to answer your question of whether ethical behaviour would cease to exist, if you define that as making decisions while having a concept of ethics, then yes, but that's not the important question. What's important is whether meaningful or efficient behaviour continues, and it obviously does as animals have a welfare too.

We don't invent value in our heads, we just recognize it. Your argument is no different from saying trigonometry would cease to exist if humans weren't around anymore to think about it. We didn't invent trigonometry, we discovered it, just like we discovered that sentient creatures have a welfare to consider.

You won't even touch half the stuff I write so I don't know why I bother.

Yes, many of which are completely fucking retarded, because idiots (religious people especially) have an utterly moronic definition of what ethical behaviour is. Don't swear, don't have premarital sex, oppress gays, and the list goes on and on. There are countless things people consider immoral for absolutely no rational reason whatsoever, so pulling the majority card on the most important topic there is is idiotic.

Yeah, the majority has the absolutely retarded ideas of what's right and wrong that their DNA and their society imprinted into their silly little heads, which they accept with very little thought.

Well you define ethical as doing whatever the majority does so for the majority to fail that standard is pretty goddamn hard.

Yeah, it's not like we have tons of crime or hugely different ideas on politics or wage wars all the time and shit...

Right, so if you have to choose between a pinprick and a broken arm, it's not objectively better to receive the pinprick?

I don't recall any such things so maybe you should point to what you mean when you make these kinda claims.

No, I asked you a fucking question about whether the majority gets to decide whether that's ethical, which you failed to answer, unsurprisingly I might add. So you got the balls to answer it this time? If the majority says we should exterminate the jews, does that make it ethical?

I've stated it many times already, sentient welfare = value. I really don't know why this is a hard concept for people to get. If you think about what has value to you in your life, it's all about your sentient experience. We value food because hunger sucks, we value sex cos it feels good, we value not being in pain because it really sucks, anything I could possibly name that has value to a person has value because it affects their sentience in some way.

As for the objective/subjective shit, if you can't agree that the feeling of an orgasm is objectively better than the feeling of having a knife in your eye, you're too stupid for words. What you people keep mixing up is what feels good to people and that feeling itself. There are experiences for all sentient beings that are objectively better than other experiences, the only thing that changes somewhat is how those experiences are triggered (like whether having sex with someone of the same gender feels better to you).

If I say risotto is the best food in the world, that statement is entirely subjective. The fact that risotto is my favorite food is not subjective however, it's an objective truth about me. Therefore, assuming feeding me my favorite food is all that matters in a particular scenario, you are doing an objectively good thing if you choose to feed me risotto rather than anything else.

So if no mind perceives some horror like an antilope being ripped to pieces, it loses all its meaning somehow? This really isn't that hard, we don't invent, or maybe a better word is create, the value in our head, we merely recognize it and try to categorize it in relation to other stuff.

Maybe you are, I have evidence.

  Class envy ?  Jealousy ?  

 

 I'm certainly envious of Beyond Saving but I feel that he came by his good fortune through honest and honorable means so I feel no desire to begrudge him.  He is simply using his talents to improve his position in life.  I see nothing sinister in that.

 

That's partly because going through long posts and addressing every tiny and often inconsequential detail is painful. Further, there's really only one thing we are arguing over - whether ethical behaviour/human morality is entirely objective or subjective to the human species and additionally subjective or relative between in-groups and individuals. Now, Manageri, I enjoy this discussion and it's a pivotal one but your choice of language and your tone suggests you either don't enjoy an argument or you spit the dummy every time some one fails to agree with you. 

 

I agree that many people, particularly religious people, mistake cultural and societal mores for actual moral behaviour and that this leads to moral inconsistency. This is something I've argued on these boards for years. Nevertheless, humans generally share ethical behaviours. We pay taxes for the good of the whole, we don't murder our children, we look after the elderly, we share with our neighbours, we help each other when disaster strikes. The core characteristics of stable in-group human societies are generally supportive of group welfare and could readily be described as being highly ethical.

 

 

We disagree here obviously but this point is at the heart of our contention. I think the majority of people behave ethically without having read a thing about ethics. We put the welfare of others above our own, or equal with our own regularly and we even risk or sacrifice our lives for the sake of strangers. Sure there are people in the world that behave badly but most people behave well and I argue it's this group of positive social behaviours that we label as being ethical.

 

 

Yet again, I do not argue that what the majority arbitrarily decides is ethical is actually ethical. Instead I argue the majority exhibit positive social behaviours that we label ethical. 

 

I won't argue with you that there are failures in humanity. I think these can be attributed in part to the intensity of in-group biases - I would argue that small group ethical behaviours can cause friction in larger groups. Outsiders are seen as threatening those we care most about and we react defensively.

 

 

 

I argue that human ethics exist for us here on this planet. I would argue that extrapolating human ethics as a universal law is a hypothesis without support. 

 

You claimed that if the majority said it was right to undertake genocide, my argument essentially supported that majority rule would decree genocide was ethical. But my point has always been that the majority of humans are generally ethical and what the majority of humans consider to be ethical - I often enshrine these shared social ethics as being the UN's International Articles of Human Rights - is ethical. Obviously, the majority of people do not consider murder to be ethical, rape to be ethical, genocide to be ethical. 

 

No, I argued the majority act ethically most the time. The Holocaust is considered the pinnacle of human moral failure for that very reason. 

 

I would not disagree that sentient welfare has ethical value. I simply argue that this value is applied by humans to those behaviours they interpret as being of greatest social value. We elevate those things that best serve stable societies that support procreation. This statement makes my point sound superficial but if you look around the world at the comparative peace and the huge numbers of people on the planet you can see the connection. Ethical behaviour, in my opinion, involves individual sacrifice to whole group selfishness. Think of all our heroes, one man prepared to die to save the world. I'd die to save the world without thinking twice. So would you. 

 

I don't see animals eating each other as being unethical. They need to eat and they parasitise one another. We do it, too. But I agree there's moral inconsistency in failing to extend ethical behaviour to all life. Trouble is, we need to eat to survive. Plants or animals, it's a competition. That's why I use the label human ethics. They are generally anthropocentric. I think we'd probably agree this is inconsistent.

 

 

 

We don't have to agree. And don't go through and reply one at a time. Just pick one or two points. It's too torturous otherwise. Our disagreement in part seems to relate to the ambiguity of language anyway. 

 

 

 

Ok, I'll start off without quoting and then see if there's specific points I need to adress that way. You're basically saying the majority doesn't decide what's ethical, yet they tend to act ethically. Well the only thing of real importance is deciding what is ethical. Whether the majority acts ethically or not is entirely irrelevant. So tell me, what exactly is the core axiom of your ethical system if not sentient welfare? You keep bringing up society but the only reason society has any value to us is because it generally enchances our welfare as a whole, or do you think living in any kind of organized manner would be good if it made us miserable?

Unlike you, I'd say the majority of humans fail utterly at acting ethically. You say killing 6 million jews was the pinnacle of human moral failure while literally BILLIONS of creatures just as capable of suffering go through the torture chambers known as factory farms and slaughterhouses every year. We don't even need to look at how we treat animals either (though you really fucking should), just look at stuff like how rich assholes would rather buy their 7th yacht than donate a fraction of that money to save people dying of thirst or hunger in africa. Our species is an ethical failure of epic proportions.

I thought I explained this. The important thing isn't whether the lion chewing the gazelle's ass is acting ethically, the important thing is that the gazelle's suffering has value, and if you could get the lion it's meal without imposing that horror on the gazelle then that would obviously be an objectively better way to do it.

As for us eating animals, that's entirely unnecessary for our survival so imposing great suffering on an animal just so you can have a meal you like better than the alternative is pretty much the very definition of being an asshole. Would you cut your neighbour's lips off so you can have a chicken sandwich? No? Then justify how the routine procedure of slicing a part of a chick's beak off in factory farms is worth that sandwich, please (which btw they do so the chickens don't peck the shit out of each other due to the extremely stressful conditions, sounds like fun eh?)

Which tautological subjective system are you referring to?

is it base 10? then yes, 1+1=2

if you mean base 2, then no, 1+1=10 (1 and 0, or 1, 2 and 1, 0) there are no absolute truths silly willy

Edit:

While the above is a "shoot from the hip" example of why you are wrong.  It purposely overlooks the pink elephant in the room, namely that a dichotomy of true/false can only be "decided" on by an observer.  Meaning that truth, is a conclusion a given observer arrived at by using a subjective standard.  In other words truth is an opinion. 

I'm getting drunk now, so my coherency/eloquence will decrease in a function gradually approaching 0 (but never quite meking it)  

I'm quickly approaching that point where I'm not sure if I'm witty, or just think I'm witty.  The difference is that I will sober up in the morning, you my friend, will have to live like this for the rest of your life.

I will say one more thing on this, and then I will leave you in your ignorance.  You have a juvenile understanding of epistemology, ethics, logic and pretty much every other aspect of philosophy that I can tell.  You keep claiming an idiocy without being able to prove it, or understanding what your line of reasoning leads to.  Perhaps I look retarded for trying to reason with someone of your intellect, for that I apologize, never again will I attempt to sink that lowly.  

Have a good life and remember, there are no absolute truths.  

How about this and I’m no moral philosopher as Manageri’s ethics seem to me to be screaming out of the pages he writes on here (although I don’t know why he bothers), that we at least accept our own moral ambiguity be accountable for our own shit or just plain wake up! 

The guy isn’t asking for a threshold of moral responsibility nor a threshold of self-consciousness but only a threshold of sentience, so he doesn’t cause offence – right? How many books on ethics do you need to read to spot that? 
 

No, the concept of an absolute truth is incoherent.  There are ABSOLUTELY no absolute truths from the definition of "absolute" and "truth".  There are absolutely no married bachelors.  In other words, if it's a truth, it is not an absolute.

Wish I could, though I think some of them are justified. I just have a really hard time not getting emotional about extremely important subjects.

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. If there are rational reasons to think that holding values such as life is generally better than death or telling the truth is generally better than lying, then those are already covered under the simpler standard of welfare. If promoting life and honesty promote welfare then there's no need to list those things as separate ethical axioms. All you need to do is make the argument why favoring life and honesty promotes overall welfare.

Exactly, you understand that everything is subservient to welfare, even life itself. The standard itself isn't complicated, the hard part is applying it in complicated ethical equations.

Well, when the other party is maintaining a calm and pretty much reasonable tone, it doesn't reflect well on the blustering and angry one.

I'm assuming you are using the term welfare to mean quality of life, freedom, human rights etc.?

If you use the word welfare to mean the general well-being of a person, than generally it takes a high-ground to many other issues, but I would hesistate to start throwing out any absolutes.

 

Here is a good video series in-progress that shows some of the ways secular morality can function, and the ways religious morality does not.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0EFCB22DFCD4F2E7&feature=plcp

 

 

this but I simply argue ethics/morality/welfare depends on a context that is supplied at least in part by an observer's point of view. 

 

A person making a judgement has to depend on his subjective interpretation of the situation. This doesn't mean there aren't objective facts involved, it just means the person making the decision doesn't have complete knowledge of them. If I ask you to pick up one of two cubes based on which you think is lighter, one cube appearing to be made out of gold and the other of wood, the fact the golden cube was actually hollow and hence lighter doesn't mean the weight of gold in relation to wood is subjective.

 Manageri,

  I would ask you to consider the following thoughts. 1. The concept of ethics is a construct defined and understandable to humans only - animals do not have ethics, they have instinct (atruism perhaps, but this is based on instinct and genetic make-up a la Selfish gene principles). Therefore ethics are fundamentally group-centric, where in general terms the group in this case is 'humans' 2. Some isolated group-centric ethical codes are more specific than merely human. Take the example of cannibalistic tribes - Humans in other tribes were caught and eaten in order to provide nourishment to the cannibal tribe. Now, while reprehensible to our western way of thinking, the ethics of that cannibal tribe are consistent. The group survives and flourishes by incorporating the practise of cannibalism this is subjectively ethical to that group. 3. This is also true of slavery. As long as the slaves are considered a separate group to those making them slaves, they can be seen as a resource that can be used in order to strengthen the enslaving group.  What this boils down to is that there can be no objective measure of ethics that is independent of the Human construct we happen to find ourselves in - your defined ethics are not objective, if you were part of a cannibal tribe, then the ethical imperative not to kill (or harm sentient beings) is not part of the code.  You can define your moral code to include not harming animals, but this is 'no true Scotsman fallacy' with regard to the ethics generally.   PS I'm a vegetarian and personally abhor animal cruelty; so I'm somewhat playing Devil's advocate here - But my perspective is that the ethical code is subjective within the paradigm of Humanism.  

 

Not for the animal that would be getting eaten by the tiger in its next meal... so this is subjective. 

 

Unfortunately you are pulling your ethical rules out of your arse - My point is that ethics are defined by the group living by them. This has changed with time as humanity advances - hundreds of years ago, on a polynesian island, cannibalism was an ethically sound practise.. within that group's paradigm. That same group would have laughed at the concept of not killing an animal for ethical reasons (as some groups today still do). YOUR group of vegans have a set of ethics at odds with that cannibal tribe's, but objectively, as long as both groups survive and prosper because of their ethical code, then it is valid.. OBJECTIVELY.

Your beliefs in your ethics are very strong, which is commendable, but their strength blinds you to objectivism, which is what has led some members here to compare it to a theist viewpoint.

 

Oh, and when I mentioned slavery, I said nothing of black/white.. I was actually thinking of ancient slavery where it was common practise and the rest of the world didn't look down on it as barbarous.