Why do we need ethics?

I can see Nicolas X shiver as he reads the title of this posting!

So far, this conversation has been very productive for me.

I'm quite pleased with my formulation of logical positivism, and I'm writing up a more formal description of my ideas that I will share with you. I feel that rejecting LP will require one to reject some very fundamental things (e.g., objective reality, logic, etc.).

Similarly, I was hoping that I might come up with some ethical system that relies on a principle so fundamental, that denying the ethical system would be absurd.

Instead, I have come to have a better understanding of ethical questions and why they may not matter (in the classical sense) at all. This is not to say that one's decisions do not matter. I just feel that ideas about "good" and "bad" are biological illusions.

The Idealists, et al

First, to your philosophers. In particular, Bradley and Royce are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Nicolas, I know that we disagree on this, but I don't see any contradictions in the scientific world at all. Not one. So when these philosophers say that thought (or ultimate intellect) unifies the world so that the contradictions disappear, I'm not even convinced of their motivation, let alone their argument.

Here is an excerpt of a summary about what Royce had to say about thought:

According to the correspondence theory of knowledge an idea (or judgment) is true if it correctly represents its object; error obtains when an idea does not correctly represent its object. It is indisputable that finite minds do sometimes entertain erroneous ideas. Royce pointed out that in such a case the mind must contain an (erroneous) idea and its (false) object, while simultaneously intending, or "pointing toward," the idea's true object. If the mind is able to intend the true object then that object is somehow available to the mind.

Of course, this is very silly. The first error here is that it is not obvious that the mind understands what it is intending, so the argument fails before science even reaches it. Today, we can discount this entire class of argument purely on scientific grounds. The brain is a large neural network learning about its surroundings. We are certain of the physical basis for our intelligence (we are biological machines). The brain doesn't have foreknowledge physical reality through "intention". It learns about physical reality through our five senses.

Beyond these mistakes, the idealists did what we have been doing up until now. They tried to reverse engineer "good" to find out what first principles would imply the "good". They were handicapped by their lack of scientific insight.

However, maybe we too have been wrong about this. Perhaps it is a mistake to assume that defining "good" is a philosophical question at all.

Ethics

What exactly are ethics? Ethical behavior is behavior that is "good". Suppose for now, I accept that this is meaningful. What is the point?

This blog approaches the question of ethics as if its answer has something to do with how people will behave, e.g., "if only the Unabomber had not been exposed to LP...". I don't think this is reasonable.

First of all, about 90+% of the planet's population doesn't study philosophy. To the extent that they encounter philosophical ideas, those ideas are dictated to them by religious leaders. These leaders are not going to be influenced by the likes of us. They are either deeply delusional or would find our approach to philosophy unprofitable (financially and as a source of political power).

Secondly, even if we were to convince people to learn and understand our philosophy, they would still not behave completely ethically. Again, we come back to game theory and psychology. We can say what kinds of behavior are good, but if an individual can gain from deviating from socially good behavior, they will. The vast majority of people never make a decision based on ethics. They make decisions based on habit, empathy, risk and personal gain.

I do not accept that the traditional "good" has a clear definition stemming from reason alone. "Good" is basically a region of the brain that is activated by thoughts and experiences that produce pleasure and avoid pain. For example, we might find it "good" to forego a pleasure to avoid some future pain (e.g., deciding to study before partying, or deciding not to sleep with the boss's wife). The concept of the "good" depends on our life experiences, our environment, and our DNA. It is no more fundamental than any other trained organ of the body. One might say that our sense of goodness is similar to our sense of smell. Ethics, as a fundamental study of what is good, is no more sensible that a fundamental study of what smells bad.

So, in my view, we can see that any system that rigidly defines "good", is comparable to a system that rigidly defines what smells nice. I may find smoked kippers delicious, but others find them repellent. To say that I am a social deviant because I like Kipper Snacks would be absurd. I am a social deviant for completely different reasons! :)

So what is good? That which will lead to optimum survivability of Earthly intelligence? A chemical means to keep us happy all the time? Who is to say which is more "good"?

We can study what laws will make society stable, prosperous, and accomodating to individual pleasure and self-actualization. We can call this "ethics" if we want, but it is based on a goal framed in a scientific way, not on an absolute idea of the "good".

doctor(logic)