Re: Ethical: Valuism?
[ QUOTE ]
First of all an aside - I'm pretty sure as far as reproduction goes we'd be looking for genetic diversity right?
[/ QUOTE ] As far as I am concerned, yes. I would go so far as to say I'm looking for 7 billion "species" of one. But why must that be right?
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not sure your initial assertion that racism is rooted in valuism is correct.
[/ QUOTE ] I am hoping it isn't. But I'm not sure if I'm able to make that call. I do however think that racsim is rooted in the desire to increase the success rate of genes closer to your own. So yes, In my opinion it's rooted in valuism, but I hope there is a miscalculation somewhere along the line, that although it's rooted in valuism, it's not an important value to hold.
[ QUOTE ]
But as far as your main question goes, you answer it by determining the basis for ethics. If you view ethics as social contract, such that our ethical structures arise to the mutual benefit of all - then the kind of valuism you're talking about is necessarily a good thing, as it bolsters that which is beneficial for all. Even if you don't view ethics as arising thru social contract, valuism is at best neutral, it can never logically be bad where it's correctly applied.
[/ QUOTE ] I view ethics as the basis for survival. When I use the term survial I mean two general ideas rolled into one. Living and Quality of survival. All the terms that we use today(for instance Happiness) do not work correctly to replace Quality of survival. That is what is good for you survial is the correct action, what is good for your happiness(hate using that word) is the correct action. So if the kind of valuism I'm speaking of is a good thing, who I am to say what some one else must value?
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that we get things wrong and we misjudge situations. So where a rejection of stern judgement is a sign of humility it can be a good thing. If I KNEW the right thing to do I'd always think it right to impose it on others, it's the correct action by definition.
[/ QUOTE ] See I would disagree, If I knew the right thing to do, I would never impose it on others. If it's something I wanted them to do, I would try to convince them. If I really didn't care about them or what they do, I'd leave them alone. But I'd never impose.
[ QUOTE ]
so there's probably more ethical equity in keeping dialogue open in hopes or rectifying those mistakes where they arise vs shutting down conversation (which is what value based dictates tend to do), in contentious and grey ethical areas at least.
[/ QUOTE ] Could you expand on this a little more? How do value based dicates tend to shut down the conversation. If you mean dicates tend to shut down coversation, I would agree with you, but why value based?
|