Pondering ‘ethics’.

• Ethics anyone?

WIKI:
– Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
– Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:[1]
1. Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
2. Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
3. Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action.

The question has to be to what extent does a consideration of ethics as a category move to inscribe how people actually occur?

Am I ethical in a way that can be quantified such that I exist “un-ethically”?

Ethics in this way answers to a already-occurring normative arena, one in which the behavior of people may be discerned, but also one in which, at some point, invalidates itself due to the mode by which it operates as a category to be considered.
We are no longer talking about what is common human. A common humanity exists for the purpose of maintaining the problem(s) of the human being, further, for the purpose of maintains a particular power structure, which means, a particular resource-base we call, in general, “reality”. For our question here, behavior is not an element. Rather, behavior re-inscribes the mode of inquiry of ethics redundantly back into the validity of the query itself, without ever answering the question of what ethics is actually addressing.

I submit that the object of ethics is ultimately a real element, but never functions to solve the problem it poses inherently for itself. It is an exercise of creating excess, which is, for another word, capital. Capital functions to supply a real and functional manner to serve some people, while giving most people the teleological justification for their (personally cognized) faulty being; that is, a manner to be able to understand that their faulty being is the best possible given the current condition (always-problem).
The point here is that never do I consider these deep philosophical questions as I am going about my day. In fact, they are so useless to me that they are best categorized as an extraneous luxury. Only in the particular moment of consideration philosophical ethics do I suppose that I am pondering deep human conditions. But in fact, there is nothing about the consideration of ethics which goes into my living of life except in as much as I might think that it does. No one is ‘ethical’ due to philosophical conclusions that may come about through the logical pondering of learned people, or even myself. I do. It contemplate logical conclusions to various options; the options are already located within my ability to cognate outcomes. Choice thus is already a aspect of a parameter that I enact toward a particular outcome even while the part that is choosing either identifies with the choice, or stands back as an interested observer; the philosophical consideration of ethics is thus a move to confine and control, over a mere neutral consideration, what is going to happen or already occurring. What is already occurring is assumed in the question of ethics, and this assumption is based in a particular manner of coming upon the world and human activity.

Yet the fact remains that there are people who do indeed consider the study of ethics to be a great importance; so it is. Hence, we have suddenly come up a division in the category of human being. One that supposes as it proposes to be speaking of how individual people occur in the world, and one that understands that the formal study of ethics is merely an exercise in critical thinking, of utter transcendental and speculative basis, having no relevance to what a person actually does in the world, that is, except as they are invested in identity capital; we should understand, then, that this does not negate nor imply that we should divest ourselves from such identity, but only that we should recognize that the institution of capital sees the human being as a total commodity. The point is that there is something going on that this Capitalistic reality will not recognize and thus it work s to negate it.
The practical application of such theoretical ethical pondering thus speaks to a particular center of power; for, the question would ultimately arise of how it is that I might behave outside of such (capitalistic/identity) philosophical concerns. The answer is that the philosophical concern proposes and asserts its power by the automatic assumption of a common human sort, by which I am thereby merely living in a fantasy. The stalemate involved in this confrontation , then, thus is won only through the implied assertion of power, since there is no rational argument that can be made which would be able to decide which fantasy is ‘actually’ a delusion. Or, more precisely, only within a establishment of what is proper to argument may we rationally come up with a basis by which we may determine what is fantasy. Then, due to this fact, we inevitably must admit that what is fantastical in this latter regard is at least equally true and only been deemed improper to what is occurring for the maintenance of the category we know as ‘real’. Indeed; the ‘ethical’ argument would not be able to admit that this is a rational and valid argument, that indeed it functions truthfully regardless of the ethical ramifications.

For example: What is ‘good’?

It is nothing.

There is no idea of ‘goodness’ that informs my decision until I have a quandary about it. But philosophy does nothing to give me an answer unless I already feel that I am ‘attached’ to that resource as indeed a way to choose. Then, it may have something to do with ‘my’ ethics, but definitely not someone who couldn’t care less about what all the philosophers say. The philosophers thus really say nothing about what that person is doing, as I do not either. But psychology may have something to say.

It is more psychological than philosophical, because at no time do I even feel a need to contemplate such philosophical flow charts.

and what about culture? Still nothing. Because I can stand back and see this group says this. And that group says that. I have no ethics but that which brings ‘ethical groups’ together. I have no ‘good’ until someone asks me, and the I discuss with them what could be correct for the situation.

*

Buy this time is the essay, I am sure there will be a number of responses brewing. From “this guy is not a scholar/has not read the authors” to “is he really making an argument against ethics?”

My answer is

1) whether or not a person has read the authors/material is not the issue. I grant everything any author has to say about ethics as either applicable to reality or not, and to various degrees true and false of real estimations.

2) No. I am not making an argument against ethics, that is, that we are not ethical creatures.

I am pointing out how such a category ‘ethics’ is only applicable within a certain horizon that we call ‘reality’, but that once the general philosophical issues are sorted out for what they are, over what they argue, then we are able to understand that ‘ethics’ as a philosophical category that is still considered and proposed upon, the authors and the material, has ‘drawn unto itself’ what it proper, but has thereby left and open sore that is merely denies.

We might begin to understand traditional philosophical material less with reference to what they argue, and more concerning what they are doing, what they are as universal objects themselves over the ideas of a central human thinker. We might be able to then begin to formulate a description of humanity that falls outside of the Modern Inspired Agent of Transcendence, to be able to use that agent for different ends despite the intension that allows him into his real faith. His intention will necessarily fall in line to a teleology that is not recognizable to her ontological foundations.

 

Damn. That is balls trippy.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s