Ethical First Principles

[Kimpatsu]

Greetings, all.
I have a question for you: What do you consider would be a good ethical first principle? I would like to nominate the following:
1. Live half for yourself and half for others
2. Primum non nocere
How about the rest of you?

[YODA]

Greetings, all.
I have a question for you: What do you consider would be a good ethical first principle? I would like to nominate the following:
1. Live half for yourself and half for others
2. Primum non nocere
How about the rest of you?
LOL!

Translate No2 for the thick English only speaking people and I may have a think about it :D

[Kimpatsu]

LOL!
Translate No2 for the thick English only speaking people and I may have a think about it :D
"First do no harm"; the basis of the Hippocratic oath.

[YODA]

"First do no harm"; the basis of the Hippocratic oath.
I knew that :D

Sounds like an excellent choice too!

[Kimpatsu]

I knew that :D
Sounds like an excellent choice too!
Do you have any of your own, Yoda? ("May the Force be with you" doesn't qualify! ;) )
I notice there's another MAPper who uses the signature block, "Si vis pacem, para bellum". That's a goody, too.

[YODA]

"If you wish for peace, prepare for war!" - Indeed!

How about...

"Either a thing is or it is not, there is no third possibility."

Tertium non datur?

[Kimpatsu]

How about...
"Either a thing is or it is not, there is no third possibility."
Tertium non datur?
That's more of a philosophical observation rather than an ethical first principle. Anyway, quantum indeterminacy (the "Heisenberg principle") means that the statement is wrong. Remember Schroedinger's cat... ;)

[aikiwolfie]

How about, "If you wish for peace, stop selling guns to your enemeys".

[Kimpatsu]

How about, "If you wish for peace, stop selling guns to your enemeys".
Not really broad enough for an ethical first principle, though, is it? Do you have anyone specific in mind?
:woo:

[Capt Ann]

"Omnia ergo quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite eis haec est enim lex et prophetae"

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"


I know, it's been used before, so take off two points for originality. Still, if I'm going to quote someone, I'll go with "the Master".

[Kimpatsu]

"Omnia ergo quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite eis haec est enim lex et prophetae"
"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"
I know, it's been used before, so take off two points for originality. Still, if I'm going to quote someone, I'll go with "the Master".
Not much of a master; this is the same SOB who told us to hate our parents. The concept of the Golden Rule, as "do unto others" is known, is also extant in other philosophies and cultures, including those that predate Xpianity.
Still, it's not a bad ethical first principle, although it's been reduced to a cliche in modern times.

[Colin Linz]

I quite like the “Live half for yourself and half for others”; it has a nice balance to it.

[Kimpatsu]

I quite like the “Live half for yourself and half for others”; it has a nice balance to it.
Doesn't it just, Colin-san; "Nakaba wa jiko no shiawase wo; nakaba wa hito no shiawase wo".

[Colin Linz]

Oh, now I know where read that one.

[Kimpatsu]

Oh, now I know where read that one.
Sarky b'stard. :D

[Vanir]

If the pedant would be forgiven, your ethics sound suspiciously like morals. Nothing wrong with morals, they were intended to be representative of encountered experiences, which may be related to guidence.
Ethics are more of an outlook. Being ethical for a doctor would be to observe the hipocratic oath, for example.
The morals of any martial artist are clear. To be ethical would be to observe them. That is my moral, fortunately not won by hard experience but one I had set out from the start.

I do suspect many of you are the same.

[Kimpatsu]

If the pedant would be forgiven, your ethics sound suspiciously like morals. Nothing wrong with morals, they were intended to be representative of encountered experiences, which may be related to guidence.
Ethics are more of an outlook. Being ethical for a doctor would be to observe the hipocratic oath, for example.
The morals of any martial artist are clear. To be ethical would be to observe them. That is my moral, fortunately not won by hard experience but one I had set out from the start.

I do suspect many of you are the same.
Vanir, to whom are you addressing your comments?
(Hint: Using the Quote function helps.)
TIA,

[Aegis]

How about "Don't let the *******s drag you down"? Not exactly ethical, but still a useful phrase...

Ok, our club used to have one which is basically an interpretation of one already mentioned: "Don't ever start a fight, but always make sure you're the one who ends it". The the particular instructor often added "And make off with his watch afterwards" to that, thus ruining any chance of getting the complete phrase into a discussion on ethics ;)

[Kimpatsu]

How about "Don't let the *******s drag you down"? Not exactly ethical, but still a useful phrase...
Use the Latin to disguise the "bad" words: Illigitime non carborundum.
Remember: Quid quid latine dictum sit altum viditur. (Anything said in Latin sounds profound. ;) )
Best,

[Aegis]

I only did GCSE Latin and I tried to forget it as soon as possible. However, I see your point and may well start making up some great phrases in Latin. Or I could use one of my multi-purpose Latin phrase books at home...

[Kimpatsu]

I only did GCSE Latin and I tried to forget it as soon as possible. However, I see your point and may well start making up some great phrases in Latin. Or I could use one of my multi-purpose Latin phrase books at home...
I did compulsory Latin for six years; I still remember it all. Now, how sad is that?

[Aegis]

I did Latin for 5 years and remember almost none of it. I guess 6 is the magic number in this case :)

[Kimpatsu]

I did Latin for 5 years and remember almost none of it. I guess 6 is the magic number in this case :)
Nah; I'm just a sad old f***. ;)

[Aegis]

Well I'll take your word for it, I'm sure you "know thyself" (can't remember exactly where I've heard that, but I think it's quite common as advice...)

[Kimpatsu]

Well I'll take your word for it, I'm sure you "know thyself" (can't remember exactly where I've heard that, but I think it's quite common as advice...)
Alexander Pope, if memory serves. (Oh, all right, I know bloody well it was Pope.)
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Yours culturally,

[Jack]

Perform that which is skillful(good)
Avoid performing that which is unskillful(bad)
and purify the mind

Dogen, I think.

[Capt Ann]

Not much of a master; this is the same SOB who told us to hate our parents. ............ including those that predate Xpianity.

K--

I have read many of your posts on several threads, and you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Christianity (did some Nun beat you up as a child??). This use of profanity and intentionally inflamatory language to refer to the Savior who loved me so much He died for me, however, is 'over the edge'.

In all truth, I probably find this type of post more offensive than He finds it (since He also loved you so much He suffered and died for you). In fact, He endured brutality and death to offer you the choice to love Him or curse Him. It appears you have chosen the latter, which is your prerogative.

You are entitled to your opinions; however, I would request that you not resort to such gratuitous derogatory remarks towards my Lord and Savior.

[Kimpatsu]

K--
I have read many of your posts on several threads, and you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Christianity (did some Nun beat you up as a child??). This use of profanity and intentionally inflamatory language to refer to the Savior who loved me so much He died for me, however, is 'over the edge'.
Given that no one did any such thing, this paragraph is worthless.
Jesus never existed; if he had, Pontius Pilate, who forwarded many records to Rome, would surely have written about the guy who could walk on water and raise the dead in his own backyard. The absence of evidence is evidence in itself.
You're arguing the idea that your religion shouldn't be challenged. Well, diddums. I'm going to challenge every and all absurd claim that you make yusing science. If you can't refute them, then science wins. (Of course!)
As to "beaten by a nun", it's a vexed question. If I say I only attended secular schools, you immediately pounce and say, my rational atheism is because I was denied the love of god (always YOUR god, of course!) as a child; if I say I went ot Catholic school, you pounce and declare this a backlash. It's a no-win situation, where the real loser is the truth. So, I think I'll keep you guessing...
In all truth, I probably find this type of post more offensive than He finds it (since He also loved you so much He suffered and died for you). In fact, He endured brutality and death to offer you the choice to love Him or curse Him. It appears you have chosen the latter, which is your prerogative.
As "He" never existed, you can make up what "He" would think all you like. It doesn't affect the truth at all. He never offered me anything; how could he; he doesn't exist.
And quite honestly, I find this kind of logical fallacy--argument from adverse consequences--offensive, as it is contrary to logic, science, and reason, which are the only way to know anything about this multiverse in which we live.
You are entitled to your opinions; however, I would request that you not resort to such gratuitous derogatory remarks towards my Lord and Savior.
Again, I say: diddums. There is no such thing as your lord and saviour. If he exists, let him come into my room and speak to me now...
Nope; still waiting. Guess he(s incapable of a simple manifestation.
Next time you want to argue with me, use reason, not logical fallacies such as arguments from ignorance. The ghost of Einstein would not be pleased.

[Kimpatsu]

Well I'll take your word for it, I'm sure you "know thyself" (can't remember exactly where I've heard that, but I think it's quite common as advice...)
Alexander Pope; the same man who coined the aphorism, "A little learning is a dangerous thing".
HTH.

[YODA]

Given that no one did any such thing, this paragraph is worthless.

No Kimpatsu - you are wrong. Your post caused offence - that much is plain.

Either you...

1. Meant it to cause offence in which case it classifies you as a TROLL and places you in contravention of the rules of this site.
2. Did not mean it to cause offence - in which case I feel you owe Capt Ann an appology.

Which is it?

[Andy Murray]

I have a question for you: What do you consider would be a good ethical first principle?

From an old boss;

"Shut up, and get on with it!"

[Kimpatsu]

No Kimpatsu - you are wrong. Your post caused offence - that much is plain.
Either you...
1. Meant it to cause offence in which case it classifies you as a TROLL and places you in contravention of the rules of this site.
2. Did not mean it to cause offence - in which case I feel you owe Capt Ann an appology.

Which is it?
No, neither. As I said before, I will not apologise for telling the truth. Why is religion guaranteed kid gloves?
This neither makes me a troll-which is defined as someone who determined to cause offence for offence's sake--nor do I owe Capt. Ann an apology for their being wrong. Why should I apologise to someone who is factually incorrect? If I disabuse someone of the fantasy of Santa Claus, is that disrespectful?
Methinks thou dost not know enough science, sir.

[Kimpatsu]

From an old boss;
"Shut up, and get on with it!"
That's not an ethical first principle, because it's not universal; the boss is exempt. First principles engender no exceptions, not even for the boss.

[Andy Murray]

That's not an ethical first principle, because it's not universal; the boss is exempt. First principles engender no exceptions, not even for the boss.

Maybe........but it's good advice. :p

[Kimpatsu]

Maybe........but it's good advice. :p
True, but advice is not an ethical first principle, any more than a generic forum is a Shorinji Kempo forum... ;) :D

[YODA]

No, neither. As I said before, I will not apologise for telling the truth. Why is religion guaranteed kid gloves?
Religion isn't the issue here. If you will not appologise for offending someone -truth or not - then you are not the man I'd hoped you where. You can still be right - and appologise if your being right caused offence.


Why should I apologise to someone who is factually incorrect?
Because someone who is factually incorrect is still entitled to be treated with respect and courtesy.

[Tatsumaru]

hmmmmmm.....after reading all these profound sayings and proverbs only one rule for life springs to mind for me:

Carpe Breste :D :D :D

[Kimpatsu]

Religion isn't the issue here. If you will not appologise for offending someone -truth or not - then you are not the man I'd hoped you where. You can still be right - and appologise if your being right caused offence.
Because someone who is factually incorrect is still entitled to be treated with respect and courtesy.
No, they are entitled to be tolerated, not respected. In a democracy, I tolerate the existence of the BNP, but I don't respoect them. See the difference?
The trouble with religionists is that they beleive no one should challenge their ideas; that to do so is automatically "disrespectful" for even daring to question them. Well, as Richard Dawkins said, "if that's the sum of your argument, I will not respect you". Give me a proper argument, with logical steps and a conclusion, and I'll give you a fair hearing; but don't think that because your belief is a religious one, you are automatically entitled to respect.

[Andy Murray]

No, they are entitled to be tolerated, not respected. In a democracy, I tolerate the existence of the BNP, but I don't respoect them. See the difference?


The worst you could do, is give them the benefit of the doubt, whilst always considering whether or not they are also 'tolerating' you!

Note, while I say this, that I don't see your opinions as originating from a soap box higher than that of your neighbour!

[Kimpatsu]

The worst you could do, is give them the benefit of the doubt, whilst always considering whether or not they are also 'tolerating' you!

Note, while I say this, that I don't see your opinions as originating from a soap box higher than that of your neighbour!
Yes, tolerate me is what they should do. As to my soap box, it's not the height, it's the validity of the arguments that matter, don't you think?

[Andy Murray]

As to my soap box, it's not the height, it's the validity of the arguments that matter, don't you think?

Like Hyde Park corner.

If you are convincing, then people will listen.

You could always stop your lecture halfway through and hope someone will follow your gourd or sandal?

[Kimpatsu]

Like Hyde Park corner.
If you are convincing, then people will listen.
You could always stop your lecture halfway through and hope someone will follow your gourd or sandal?
I'm not the messiah.
In what way has the science not been convincing? And yet, Way of the Dragon (Phil) and Capt. Ann summarily reject the arguments, because said arguments disprove their religious tenets. And I'm supposed to respect that? If people don't understand the science, that's one thing; I'll try to explain using other terms, but to reject it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions is asinine. If science and religion don't agree, it's the religion that's wrong.

[Andy Murray]

I'm not the messiah.
In what way has the science not been convincing? And yet, Way of the Dragon (Phil) and Capt. Ann summarily reject the arguments, because said arguments disprove their religious tenets. And I'm supposed to respect that? If people don't understand the science, that's one thing; I'll try to explain using other terms, but to reject it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions is asinine. If science and religion don't agree, it's the religion that's wrong.

As Englebert Humperdik said;

Use plain speech.

Make sense!

or Shut the hell up!

p.s. with knobs on!

[Kimpatsu]

As Englebert Humperdik said;
Use plain speech.
Make sense!
or Shut the hell up!
p.s. with knobs on!
Plain speech, but no plainer, surely? (Paraphrased from Einstein, "Every explanation should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".) Complex notions require complex language to express them. And everything I've said makes sense, from shu-ha-ri to Cantgotu environments. That's because I don't post to dedicated forums for arts about which I know nothing.

[Omicron]

Why should I apologise to someone who is factually incorrect?
To be nice? To show your respect for someone else, regardless of whether or not their beliefs are the same as yours?
I don't accept religion any more than you do, Kimpatsu, but that's my perrogative, just as people who DO accept religion have a right to do so. I think it's wrong to deny someone basic human courtesy based soley on their factual correctness...THAT is being assinine.

[Kimpatsu]

To be nice? To show your respect for someone else, regardless of whether or not their beliefs are the same as yours?
I don't accept religion any more than you do, Kimpatsu, but that's my perrogative, just as people who DO accept religion have a right to do so. I think it's wrong to deny someone basic human courtesy based soley on their factual correctness...THAT is being assinine.
You miss my point, Omicron; they're demanding to be treated with respect just because of the beleifs they hold. This is akin to me demanding respect because I'm a Liverpool FC supporter. If I support Liverpool and you support Manchester United, we're entitled to discuss our disagreements, and why we support one team and not the other. Yet, when it comes to religion, we're not supposed to examine them at all! If somebody says something assinine like, "the world was created in six days", they want me to reply, "I respect that!"
Well, I don't. If they want me to respect their beliefs, then those beliefs must have intrinsic value. And being religious in nature doesn't make them so.

[Omicron]

You miss my point, too.
I'm not saying that people's beliefs deserve respect. I'm saying that the people who hold them do. If someone says "the world was created in six days", that doesn't wave any rights that person has to being treated with respect and courtesy. Hence, if that person is offended, they still deserve an apology.

[Jody Butt]

Greetings, all.
I have a question for you: What do you consider would be a good ethical first principle? I would like to nominate the following:
1. Live half for yourself and half for others
2. Primum non nocere
How about the rest of you?

Do not harm/offend others.

[Kimpatsu]

You miss my point, too.
I'm not saying that people's beliefs deserve respect. I'm saying that the people who hold them do. If someone says "the world was created in six days", that doesn't wave any rights that person has to being treated with respect and courtesy. Hence, if that person is offended, they still deserve an apology.
No they don't; they want me to apologise for wounding their religious sensibilities. Well, they don't get it. I have zero tolerance for the absurd.

[Omicron]

So you're saying that people who have religious beliefs, and therefore views that are different from your own, don't deserve the same amount of respect as people who believe the same as you do?

[Kimpatsu]

So you're saying that people who have religious beliefs, and therefore views that are different from your own, don't deserve the same amount of respect as people who believe the same as you do?
No, I'm sayingthat absurd beliefs do not deserve respect.
It seems to me that people are misidentifying my criticism of the belief as a criticism of the person. As Carl Sagan wrote, however, "avoid having your position so close to your person that when your position falls, your ego falls with it".

[YODA]

You miss my point, Omicron; they're demanding to be treated with respect just because of the beleifs they hold.
Wrong. It was I that asked you to appologise for offending Capt Ann - and I share your view on religion and god.

It's a pity your people skills do not match your debating skills.

[YODA]

No, I'm sayingthat absurd beliefs do not deserve respect.
It seems to me that people are misidentifying my criticism of the belief as a criticism of the person. As Carl Sagan wrote, however, "avoid having your position so close to your person that when your position falls, your ego falls with it".
But it was a person you offended - not a belief.

[killbill]

Do unto others as they would do unto you. But do it first.

[Kimpatsu]

Wrong. It was I that asked you to appologise for offending Capt Ann - and I share your view on religion and god.
Captain Ann was offended because of a preveived insult to theirreligion; they are saying that the very act of questioning their religion offends them. Well, I'm certainly not going to apologise for that.
It's a pity your people skills do not match your debating skills.
Yes, I admit at times I'm like a character out of a Molière play, but try to understand my level of frustration at wilful ignorance; I know exactly how Alceste felt. If you feel I'm being a misanthrope, holler.

[Kimpatsu]

Do unto others as they would do unto you. But do it first.
I was going to give you a million dollars, but you go first...

[killbill]

don't be so literal you silly person.

[Kimpatsu]

don't be so literal you silly person.
I thought that it was mildly funny, actually... :D

[killbill]

awwww, looks like:http://img34.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Ivan76/?action=view&current=served.jpg

[Capt Ann]

Captain Ann was offended because of a preveived insult to theirreligion;
No, Capt Ann was offended that you referred to my Savior as a sorry XXX (and I'm surprised the expletive made it through sensoring). While you may be very self-impressed with your debating skills, I find your ad hominem attacks and verbal bating to have all the finesse (and sincerity) of a "Your Mamma" bust. If you care to discuss......well,...DISCUSS.

they are saying that the very act of questioning their religion offends them. Well, I'm certainly not going to apologise for that.Questions are always welcome. Sincere questions are encouraged. Verbal bating is tolerated. Verbal bashing merits an apology.

[Kimpatsu]

No, Capt Ann was offended that you referred to my Savior as a sorry XXX (and I'm surprised the expletive made it through sensoring). While you may be very self-impressed with your debating skills, I find your ad hominem attacks and verbal bating to have all the finesse (and sincerity) of a "Your Mamma" bust. If you care to discuss......well,...DISCUSS.
What saviour? Do you mean Biotex, the saviour of whites in your wash?

[Andy Murray]

What saviour? Do you mean Biotex, the saviour of whites in your wash?

Naturally, noone can force an apology from you, but you could at least seek not to make things worse by trivialising a members objections to your posts.

One more strike, and I'll take action.
You'll have a room all to yourself!

[Omicron]

No, I'm sayingthat absurd beliefs do not deserve respect.
It seems to me that people are misidentifying my criticism of the belief as a criticism of the person. As Carl Sagan wrote, however, "avoid having your position so close to your person that when your position falls, your ego falls with it".
I realize that you are criticizing beliefs. The thing that you fail to realize is that by doing so you are offending the people that hold them. There's no arguing this, Kimpatsu. Capt Ann has admitted that you offened her, and yet you continue to try to justify why you did it.
Face it, most people's egos are close to their beliefs, and when someone like you assaults them with no apology, they can't help but be offended. Now, I'm not saying that any type of intellectual debate should be abandoned so that we don't hurt each other's feelings, but you have to understand that when it comes down to the issue of personal belief systems, everyone deserves to be tolerated and appreciated for the choices they make.
You can try to rationalize it any way that you want, but fundamentally what you are saying is that Capt Ann, and others with religious beliefs, do not deserve to be treated with courtesy based solely upon those beliefs. That attitude is no better than that of the Christian Church's intolerance for science in the middle ages, or the apartheid governement in South Africa.

[Tatsumaru]

To say that you disagree with somebodys beliefs and then try to point out where you see an inconsistency or a fallible argument seems perfectly reasonable, but kimpatsu seems concerned only with verbally attacking theists worldwide. I should point out that i cannot see why anybody would believe that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists with so little evidence, however i would not say that their views are automatically wrong, or that they themselves are stupid for holding them. The problem is not that you disagree with their beliefs or religion, but rather that you have offended somebody personally by being purposely insulting/abusive. You could liken it to me calling einstein a massive w***er because i believe that eventually we may be able to go faster than the speed of light, for example. I may disagree with his arguments but there is no reason for me to insult him for them.

[YODA]

Tatsumaru / Omicron - Excellent posts. However, I think it may be yet another case of...

while(horsedead=1)
{
flog;
}

[Omicron]

Tatsumaru / Omicron - Excellent posts. However, I think it may be yet another case of...

while(horsedead=1)
{
flog;
}

Yea, I guess you're right Yoda. I just felt the need to get some ranting off my chest :)

[YODA]

Yea, I guess you're right Yoda. I just felt the need to get some ranting off my chest :)
We have a special thread for that you know :D

[Omicron]

We all know that Kimpatsu doesn't believe in reading other threads though, so I wasn't sure if he'd hear me :D

[Andy Murray]

OK, let's not add insult to injury.

Tony's got his time in the bin, but I hope he comes out with a better understanding of MAP ethics, and we'll all alow him the opportunity to make a fresh start!

[Omicron]

Sorry Andy...that was a bit tasteless on my part.
I hope that he has learned his lesson! I'm still interested in reading that essay he was writing.

Just a curious aside: how long does time in the sin bin last?

[Andy Murray]

Just a curious aside: how long does time in the sin bin last?

There's only one way to find out!

[Omicron]

Oh! Oh I see.....well....in that case...never mind! In fact, forget I ever asked at all!

*slowly retreats backward without making eye contact*

[Andy Murray]

Let's put it this way;

It doesn't involve 'une boteil du stella artois'

[oneninja]

Serve only one master,do not provoke others,and discretion is the better part of valor.

[killbill]

everyone deserves to be tolerated and appreciated for the choices they make.


i disagree, for example do neo-nazis deserve respect? If i saw one id kick his ass myself. But then again, I don't believe in freedom of expresion. So feel free to ignore me.

[killbill]

side note:
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes"
you'd be suprised how many problems can be solved by fermented potato juice.

[Tatsumaru]

However killbill, i think you can see that you need an additional "juice- loosener" (It's Super Quiet!). Once again we see that it is a mistake to think that you can solve any major problems with just potatoes :D

[Knight_Errant]

They're not ethical first principles! it isn't fair, they're cheating :mad:

[Mo Lung]

Just imagine if everyone in the world held true to the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ethic.

Crowley wasn't far off either, "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" and "Love is the law, love under will". (Make sure you know what Crowley was about before you jump on this).

[tai-gip]

pick someone you truly truly respect and think about how you are around them and how you interact with them .... now try and be the same to everyone ... obviously you may have people you think are hmmmm (naughty word) but still treat them this way :)

[killbill]

all good communists can live off just vodka and bread crusts :D

[aikiMac]

Naturally I defer to the Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and to the Second Greatest Commandment ("love your neighbor as yourself"). I've been trying to think of something a bit more unique. I think I have it:

Do not initiate force against a non-aggressor.

It's not an original thought. It's a Libertarian principle. But I like it.