Steven said:
>Dear Pedro,
>
>I think we set our sights too low and we give up too soon if the best we
>can do is treat ethics as "the art of moral problem solving."
The
>conflict and horrors in the social orders of our species follows
>directly from such ambiguity. Earlier attempts may be incomplete or
>failed but the pursuit still has merit.
>
>I think it necessary, in terms of the "highest good," to pursue
a
>scientific foundation of ethics. One that may eventually provide the
>sound underpinning of a new global society able to navigate its
>diversity by reference to natural foundations.
SS: It is these foundations I was referring to in my hierarchical
representation.
>The arts too will benefit from and be expanded by such a foundation in
>my view.
>
>As to economics, I clearly prefer that ethics is not driven by
>economics. I believe that, in any case, the reverse is true.
SS: On this point, I agree, inasmuch as the formalism I'm using brings
economics in prior to ethics, as in:
{physical transactions {economics emerges with biology { ethics emerges
with human discourse}}}.
STAN
>
>With respect,
>Steven
>
>
>Pedro Marijuan wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> If ethics relates mostly to the quest for the "good" or for
the "good
>> reasons" of our social behavior, apparently it can be treated as
>> another discipline --really? An initial complication is about the
>> subject --good... "to whom"? It maybe one's personal
interests, or
>> his/her family, business, profession, country, species, Gaia... but
>> those goodnesses are usually in conflict, even in dramatic
>> contraposition. It is a frequent motif of dramas, movies, poetry,
etc.
>> (aren't we reminded "arts as technologies of ethics"?).
>>
>> And then the complications about the circumstances, say the
"boundary
>> conditions". Any simple economic story or commercial transaction
>> (e.g., remember that ugly provincial story about "the nail found
in
>> Zaragoza") may involve quite a number of situational changes and
>> ethical variants ---if we put scale into a whole social dimension of
>> multivariated networkings... it is just mind boggling. So I really
>> would not put much weigh on those hierarchical categorizations that
>> only take a minimalist snapshot upon a minimalist, almost nihilist
>> scenario. However, some points by Loet months ago on how complexity
>> may hide-in & show up along privileged axis might deserve
discussion
>> at this context.
>>
>> Could we accept ethics just as an Art of moral problem solving? Quite
>> many conceptual tools would enter therein, but the
"scientificity" of
>> the whole would not be needed. Even more, such scientificty would
look
>> suspicious to me. A few decades ago, a "scientific" guiding
of the
>> whole social evolution was taking place in a number of countries...
>> apparently paving the way to a new, conflict less Era!
>>
>> best regards
>>
>> Pedro
>>
>>
>>
>> At 22:56 06/05/2006, you wrote:
>>> Replying to Pedro's query below, we can have:
>>>
>>> {physical / chemical affordances {biological behaviors {cultural
norms
>>> {social guidance {personal past learnings {{{...{continuing
process of
>>> individuation}}}}...}}}}}. Some of us would place ethics
somewhere
>>> between
>>> social guidance and personal past learnings. An interesting
question in
>>> this scheme is 'where is transcendence?' The problem is that
there is
>>> added, with each integrative level, further constraints. At
present
>>> I am
>>> considering that, if we allocate the same energies at each level,
>>> then the
>>> remaining degrees of freedom in the higher levels will benefit
from
>>> having
>>> stronger embodiment than would have been possible in the lower
>>> levels. That
>>> is to say that, e.g., behaviors which could only be weakly
supported in,
>>> say, the biological level, become more possible to be manifested
in,
>>> say,
>>> the social level.
>>>
>>> STAN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >Dear FIS colleagues,
>>> >
>>> >The question recently raised by Luis, but also in a different
way by
>>> Karl,
>>> >Stan and others, is a tough one. How do our formal
"disciplinary"
>>> >approaches fare when confronting the "global"
reality of social
>>> life? My
>>> >point is that most of knowledge impinging on social life
matters is of
>>> >informal, implicit, practical, experiential nature. How can
one gain
>>> access
>>> >to cognitive "stocks" of such volatile nature? Only
by living, by
>>> >socializing, by a direct hands-on participation... Each new
>>> generation has
>>> >to find its own way, to co-create its own socialization path.
No
>>> moral or
>>> >ethical progress then!!! (contrarily to the advancement of
other
>>> areas of
>>> >knowledge). Obviously, learning machines or techno
environments cannot
>>> >substitute for a socialization process --a side note for
"prophets"
>>> of the
>>> >computational.
>>> >
>>> >By the way, in those nice categorizations by Stan --it isn't
logically
>>> >awkward that the subject tries to be both subject and
observer at
>>> the same
>>> >time? If it is so, the categorization process goes amok with
social
>>> >openness of relations and language open-endedness, I would
put. Karl's
>>> >logic is very strict, provided one remains strictly within
the same
>>> set of
>>> >reference. Anyhow, it is a very intriguing discussion.
>>> >
>>> >best
>>> >
>>> >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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed May 10 21:39:01 2006
