Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 01, 2006 04:11 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 01, 2006 04:11 PM
DiaBlogue<A>: Systemic Failure
I appreciate Alan's attempt at "Getting
Back on Track," as I do agree we seem to have lost our way. I remain
concerned that Alan doesn't seem able to articulate a coherent ontological
position as an alternative to Christianity -- as I would consider that essential
for a fair comparison -- but perhaps that is just because my physicist-inspired
definitions of "universe" and "divinity" were thoroughly
confusing.
Given all that, I think our best bet is to proceed directly into ethics, as that might help highlight the "real" ontological issues. [Read more] for my attempt to articulate a Systems Theory approach to ethical problems.
Given all that, I think our best bet is to proceed directly into ethics, as that might help highlight the "real" ontological issues. [Read more] for my attempt to articulate a Systems Theory approach to ethical problems.
In this first post on ethics, I am actually *not*
trying to define a Christian position on ethics. Rather, I am trying to define
what I mean by the word ethics, to ensure that we're at least disagreeing about
the same thing!
To do that, though, I'm going to take a step back and skirt some of the ontological questions by reframing them from an epistemic perspective.
I believe:
A. There exist Formal, Physical, and Social Systems
That is, they are ontologically real in and of themselves, not something we humans "project" onto reality. Consequently, it is possible to make statements about these systems that are "really" true or false (i.e., not merely "imaginary beliefs")
B. These systems can be explore and understood rationally
To do that, though, I'm going to take a step back and skirt some of the ontological questions by reframing them from an epistemic perspective.
I believe:
A. There exist Formal, Physical, and Social Systems
That is, they are ontologically real in and of themselves, not something we humans "project" onto reality. Consequently, it is possible to make statements about these systems that are "really" true or false (i.e., not merely "imaginary beliefs")
B. These systems can be explore and understood rationally
a. Formal systems, through pure
Reason
b. Physical Systems, through a combination of
Reason and Observation
c. Social Systems, through Reason, Observation,
and Introspection
That doesn't necessarily mean Reason, Observation, and Introspection are all equally important, just that they are a valid sources of information in this context.
Still with me, Alan?
In this context, I define "ethics" as theories about how to optimally structure Social Systems, relatively to whatever purpose or metric(s) those theories define.
Thus, our respective challenge is not to defend the existence of such systems, but both to define our criteria for a successful ethics, and defend why our particular framework is optimal for achieving that.
Fair enough? And are you comfortable that this is both necessary and sufficient to answer the ethical questions you are concerned with?
That doesn't necessarily mean Reason, Observation, and Introspection are all equally important, just that they are a valid sources of information in this context.
Still with me, Alan?
In this context, I define "ethics" as theories about how to optimally structure Social Systems, relatively to whatever purpose or metric(s) those theories define.
Thus, our respective challenge is not to defend the existence of such systems, but both to define our criteria for a successful ethics, and defend why our particular framework is optimal for achieving that.
Fair enough? And are you comfortable that this is both necessary and sufficient to answer the ethical questions you are concerned with?
Posted: Fri - April 21, 2006 at 05:31 PM