Dear Pedro and all,
ethics as a scientific discipline is viable at all times. It has been so for
thousands of years in our tradition. I see no reason why we should/could
stop reflecting on morals. This would mean a re-action that would block (or
intend to block) the process of giving ourselves reasons for our actions.
The foundation of ethics is itself not the same as the foundations of
morals, if we compare ethics with physics (and morals with nature) then the
foundations of ethics corresponds to the foundations of physics (which is
not a physical but a philosophical matter).
Regarding Maturana and Varela: As you probably know, Varela published a very
remarkable book on ethics "Un know-how per l'etica" (Roma 1992) in which he
describes how morality (!) is "enacted" in bodily reactions, i.e. as bodily
"know how".
This is similar to what Aristotle says about "habits" ("hexis"). Varela's
book is a reflection on morality, i.e. it is a book on ethics but ethics is
not itself a foundation of moral action (at
least not directly). The question of the sources (or "forces") for moral
action
is a deep and very controversial (ethical) question not only in Western
thought (think about the difference between Rousseau and Hobbes concerning
human nature).
kind regards
Rafael
Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM) University of Applied Sciences, Wolframstr. 32,
70191 Stuttgart, Germany
Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: rafael@capurro.de; capurro@hdm-stuttgart.de
Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182
Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: www.capurro.de
Homepage ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de
Homepage IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pedro Marijuan" <marijuan@unizar.es>
To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:53 PM
Subject: [Fis] social opacity
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> I have the impression that a serious attempt to establish informational
> foundations for ethics is not viable, at the time being. Although we can
> produce discourses about different threads involved ---traditional
> philosophic, evolutionary, postmodern, politico-economic, technologic,
> theoretical science, etc.-- finally we have to deal with real people
> living their own lives, and this "vitalism" does not accept
reduction
> within any disciplinary grid. In ethics, like in the arts, we can make
> provisional constructs and keep them afloat as long as they are useful.
>
> However, "morals", taking them in the sense of basic-guidelines
coming out
> from our human nature, appear as very permanent bodies, susceptible of
> being put into codes, which traditionally have been elaborated by
> religions. This means that religions are highly relevant for the debate
of
> ethics: they handle the transcendent aspect of our lives.
>
> In my opinion, the info foundations of ethics imply a similar problem to
> establishing the concepts of meaning, value, and fitness at the cellular
> realm ---and in the recent discussion we couldn't. It is a pity that
> Maturana and Varela's autopoietic views have not been updated, as I think
> that the stumbling block that presumably we confront ("social
opacity")
> implies revisiting some of their tenets.
>
> best regards
>
> Pedro
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Apr 7 18:57:45 2006
