Trying to figure out ethics

[Hairnet]

I am trying to figure out ethics, if there are any. What I am about to say may seem obvious to some, but I am trying to be very careful.

I have come to one major conclusion that I want to discuss with others.

Ethics is applied metaphysics.

Decision making involving practical activity is usually divided from moral decision making. This is wrong because the only real difference between "how to best build a bridge", and how to "best live one's life", is the category of ideas involved.

A decision about whether or not to lie will refer to knowledge about the nature of lying, just a question on how to build a bridge will refer to ideas on the nature of gravity.

This makes actual amoralism only possible for people who

a) having a metaphysical framework that demans it (Stirner's mystical non-sense)

have no metaphysical ideas at all.

Is this true, need clarification, or correction?

[Eiuol]

I have come to one major conclusion that I want to discuss with others.

Ethics is applied metaphysics.

I'm kind of confused what you mean here. "Applied" metaphysics? I'm not sure what your question is.

[Grames]

Ethics is applied metaphysics.

I think I know what you mean, but I think you misidentified or skipped over the role of epistemology. After all, you did just explain yourself in terms of knowing things about bridges and lying, and knowing actually is studied by epistemology not metaphysics. But yes, there are things to know, that is surely metaphysical and not an unimportant point.

[VcatoV]

In some senses, like Grames identified-yes. All of ethics, no matter the philosophy of a person, is based upon metaphysics. Epistemology, of course, is the bridge between metaphysics and ethics-the lens by which one frames their perception (or lack of) concerning reality.

Ethics, in many ways, is like building a bridge. But ethics also involves something other than ideas: action. Thus ethics are not only dependent upon a person's ideas, but on how they act out those ideas.

[Hairnet]

I think I know what you mean, but I think you misidentified or skipped over the role of epistemology. After all, you did just explain yourself in terms of knowing things about bridges and lying, and knowing actually is studied by epistemology not metaphysics. But yes, there are things to know, that is surely metaphysical and not an unimportant point.

Well, to make my point clear, is that one necessarily has ethical views (even if only implicit) if one has any metaphysical opinions.

[JayR]

The Objectivist ethics is all about values. I like your statement about ethics as "applied metaphysics", and I think it has to do with the objectivity of our values (Rands huge breakthrough in the field). The key to understanding the objectivity of value is in its relational quality. By relational I mean certain facts of reality can be considered good, or bad only in their relation to man. Life promoting facts are to be considered good, life defeating, bad. This (Rands ethics) exposes the fact-value gap as illusory. This is a huge breakthrough, the traditional theories of value are wrong. The subjective theory holds that the good is an arbitrary social construct, and there is no right or wrong, thus erasing the only proper standard of value. (Whoever has the biggest gun wins). And the intrinsic says that value, or the good, is self evident, cutting value off from valuer thus destroying values realtional quality. The Objectivist approach is the only ethical theory that keeps value firmly rooted in reality, and thus objective. The reqirements for survival are set by reality, and identfying these requirements using logic, and holding life as the standard of value is a beautiful way to live. So to get back to your statement that:

Ethics is applied metaphysics

.

I think you nailed it.

j..

[A is A]

I am trying to figure out ethics, if there are any. What I am about to say may seem obvious to some, but I am trying to be very careful.

I have come to one major conclusion that I want to discuss with others.

Ethics is applied metaphysics.

Decision making involving practical activity is usually divided from moral decision making. This is wrong because the only real difference between "how to best build a bridge", and how to "best live one's life", is the category of ideas involved.

A decision about whether or not to lie will refer to knowledge about the nature of lying, just a question on how to build a bridge will refer to ideas on the nature of gravity.

This makes actual amoralism only possible for people who

a) having a metaphysical framework that demans it (Stirner's mystical non-sense)

have no metaphysical ideas at all.

Is this true, need clarification, or correction?

I wouldn't put it that way. If anything, it is applied epistemology with metaphysics serving as the fundamental base. Knowing how to act implies the requirement of knowing how you know what you know.

[JayR]

I wouldn't put it that way. If anything, it is applied epistemology with metaphysics serving as the fundamental base. Knowing how to act implies the requirement of knowing how you know what you know.

Obviously epistemology is crucial to ethics. The reason I like the idea of "applied metaphysics" is simply, if you accept objective reality as the base for your metaphysics, (your is, maybe), than objective reality dictates your moral path in life. (your ought) However, thats not to say objective reality doesnt determine our epistemology, politics, aesthetic choices, so in a way, Objectivism is applied metaphysics. (the rules of objective reality, discovered, and applied to our lives in the most beneficial ways, holding mans life as the standard of value, perhaps.)

j..

[A is A]

Obviously epistemology is crucial to ethics. The reason I like the idea of "applied metaphysics" is simply, if you accept objective reality as the base for your metaphysics, (your is, maybe), than objective reality dictates your moral path in life. (your ought) However, thats not to say objective reality doesnt determine our epistemology, politics, aesthetic choices, so in a way, Objectivism is applied metaphysics. (the rules of objective reality, discovered, and applied to our lives in the most beneficial ways, holding mans life as the standard of value, perhaps.)

j..

But the subject matter of "applied metaphysics" is not that extensive. Other than the laws of logic, what other principles are used explicitly? What rules of objective reality are you referring to? What ever metaphysical principles one accepts as being true, one cannot act against them. It is only in epistemology that volition truly comes into the fray and has major impact in determining and identifying the nature of man.

[JayR]

But the subject matter of "applied metaphysics" is not that extensive. Other than the laws of logic, what other principles are used explicitly? What rules of objective reality are you referring to? What ever metaphysical principles one accepts as being true, one cannot act against them. It is only in epistemology that volition truly comes into the fray and has major impact in determining and identifying the nature of man.

Laws of identity, causality, physics, and nature in general to be commanded must be obeyed, as Rand was fond of saying. Those are all metaphysical laws of reality, to be discovered by consciousness and applied to life. (or perhaps life applied to them) But, I think one can act against them, through evasion, irrational behavior etc. Acting against them wont change anything about reality (the ultimate arbiter), but will have negative effects on your life. That is the dierct connection I was implicitly making between metaphysics and ethics. However, since Objectivists know that consciousness is an active process of relating, not a passive state of awareness, I can certainly see the point your making about epistemology having primacy.

j..

[A is A]

Laws of identity, causality, physics, and nature in general to be commanded must be obeyed, as Rand was fond of saying. Those are all metaphysical laws of reality, to be discovered by consciousness and applied to life. (or perhaps life applied to them) But, I think one can act against them, through evasion, irrational behavior etc. Acting against them wont change anything about reality (the ultimate arbiter), but will have negative effects on your life. That is the dierct connection I was implicitly making between metaphysics and ethics. However, since Objectivists know that consciousness is an active process of relating, not a passive state of awareness, I can certainly see the point your making about epistemology having primacy.

j..

The laws of physics are scientific principles. I would not classify them as metaphysical laws. Nor do I think it is possible to act against them. One may think irrationally or illogically, but act, in reality, against the law of causality?

Edited May 19, 2010 by A is A

[JayR]

The laws of physics are scientific principles. I would not classify them as metaphysical laws. Nor do I think it is possible to act against them. One may think irrationally or illogically, but act, in reality, against the law of causality?

Through evasion, and ignoring the laws of cause and effect, I think one is acting against these laws. Remember, causality is the law of identity applied to action. Ignoring the law of identiy is an action that will have direct consequences on life, thats where ethics comes in. The disagreement over metaphysical laws vs. scientific principles may be a matter of semantics, but Im not sure.

j..

[DavidOdden]

The laws of physics are scientific principles. I would not classify them as metaphysical laws.

What are some examples of things that you would classify as "metaphysical laws" and not "scientific principles"?

[A is A]

Through evasion, and ignoring the laws of cause and effect, I think one is acting against these laws. Remember, causality is the law of identity applied to action. Ignoring the law of identiy is an action that will have direct consequences on life, thats where ethics comes in. The disagreement over metaphysical laws vs. scientific principles may be a matter of semantics, but Im not sure.

j..

Since man is an entity in reality and he has volition, such action (evasion) would have to be part of metaphysical reality. I can ignore gravity by stepping off a roof, but I cannot act to escape gravity or any other scientific or philosophic law addressing metaphysics.

[A is A]

What are some examples of things that you would classify as "metaphysical laws" and not "scientific principles"?

What is the subject matter of metaphysics and how is it different from physics or any other science that identifies truth?

When using the phrase "metaphysical laws" I was assuming the context of the previous poster and just continued using the phrase. Other than the Laws of Logic, I'm not sure what else would classify as a "metaphysical law". But I typically would not use the term 'metaphysical laws' to describe them or such principles as "existence exists". "Law," in my understanding, is an epistemological term designating a theory for which there is a great deal of evidence. The term typically addresses scientific disciplines or epistemological issues, such as when one says, 'the Laws of Logic cannot be denied without using them.' There is no "law of reason" or "law of rationality" or "law of liberty."

Edited May 19, 2010 by A is A

[JayR]

Since man is an entity in reality and he has volition, such action (evasion) would have to be part of metaphysical reality. I can ignore gravity by stepping off a roof, but I cannot act to escape gravity or any other scientific or philosophic law addressing metaphysics.

I didnt say you could act to escape these laws, I said acting against them (by evading them etc) will have direct consequences on your life. Improperly applying knowledge of metaphysical laws is immoral in the Objectivist sense. And by metaphysical laws I mean laws of nature that would exist whether or not were around to dicover them, not any scientific theory, or hypothesis that can be proven wrong.

j..

[DavidOdden]

"Law," in my understanding, is an epistemological term designating a theory for which there is a great deal of evidence.

Given that, you should not speak of "metaphysical law": you've defined "law" in such a way that it is by definition an epistemological product. The Law of Identity is not itself a fact that is out there, it too is an epistemological product. It is the recognition of a fundamental fact about 'existence'.

"Scientific principle" is a misnomer when speaking of an identification of fact. The laws of the universe which have been identified by physicists are not "scientific principles"; in fact, "scientific principle" refers to logical (normative) principle governing the acquisition of knowledge. The distinction that you seem to be drawing (between gravity and the law of identity) is, in fact, just the distinction between axiomatic and regular concepts.

[A is A]

Given that, you should not speak of "metaphysical law": you've defined "law" in such a way that it is by definition an epistemological product. The Law of Identity is not itself a fact that is out there, it too is an epistemological product. It is the recognition of a fundamental fact about 'existence'.

"Scientific principle" is a misnomer when speaking of an identification of fact. The laws of the universe which have been identified by physicists are not "scientific principles"; in fact, "scientific principle" refers to logical (normative) principle governing the acquisition of knowledge. The distinction that you seem to be drawing (between gravity and the law of identity) is, in fact, just the distinction between axiomatic and regular concepts.

I'm not quite sure I understand the issue here. I'm not sure how else "law" would be defined. Holding that the law of identity is not a fact does not mean it cannot be classified as a metaphysical law, if one want's to use that terminology. I think "metaphysically given" is more appropriate. The law of identity is a statement of the metaphysically given: a fact (thing, entity, action, attribute, etc.) is itself. Identity is the metaphysically given fact.

I agree that principles are not laws, but I fail to grasp your distinction in applying this to metaphysics vs. physics. There is the law of identity and the law of gravity. I was not attempting to make a distinction between these, except to say that the law of gravity was not a metaphysical law (or principle or fact). Perhaps the confusion results from my accepting the terminology and context of the poster I was responding to originally.

[JayR]

I'm not quite sure I understand the issue here. I'm not sure how else "law" would be defined. Holding that the law of identity is not a fact does not mean it cannot be classified as a metaphysical law, if one want's to use that terminology. I think "metaphysically given" is more appropriate. The law of identity is a statement of the metaphysically given: a fact (thing, entity, action, attribute, etc.) is itself. Identity is the metaphysically given fact.

I agree that principles are not laws, but I fail to grasp your distinction in applying this to metaphysics vs. physics. There is the law of identity and the law of gravity. I was not attempting to make a distinction between these, except to say that the law of gravity was not a metaphysical law (or principle or fact). Perhaps the confusion results from my accepting the terminology and context of the poster I was responding to originally.

The definition of "law" is not the issue here, and I dont speak for DavidOdden, but my definition of "metaphysical law" was given in my last post. Im not trying to formulate a new definition of the word "ethics", Ive simply been arguing that in the Objectivist sense "applied metaphysics" is an apt description for an egoistic ethical theory, due to the objective nature of value. To suggest that the confusion lies with your "accepting" my terminology is not an argument.

j..

[DavidOdden]

The law of identity is a statement of the metaphysically given: a fact (thing, entity, action, attribute, etc.) is itself.

And equally, physical laws -- gravity, conversation of charge, etc -- are statements of the metaphysically given. So it is wrong to object "The laws of physics are scientific principles. I would not classify them as metaphysical laws". Gravity, too, is the metaphysically given fact.

The most important issue is whether your words have a discernible meaning, or are you just responding unthinkingly to your environment. You should evaluate these various ideas, such as "law", "causality", and determine whether you think that "metaphysical law" or "physical law" refers to anything in reality. If you conclude that "metaphysical law" does not refer to anything, then no amount of "context" will change that fact. If "metaphysical" and "law" contradict each other, then you have no excuse for speaking in such terms. If on the other hand you think that "metaphysical law" refers to something distinct from "physical law", then you ought to be able to explain and exemplify the distinction. You can't have it both ways, so make a reasoned decision and act consistent with that decision.

IMO, reducing ethics to a sound bite "applied metaphysics" or "applied epistemology" is wrong. Since existence (and not consciousness) is in fact primary, everything would have to be "applied metaphysics" rather than "applied epistemology". And yet all areas of philosophy are kinds of knowledge, in which sense all philosophical issues are epistemological. It's clear to me that a non-integrated, compartmentalizing approach to the nature of ethics (or anything else) is just plain wrong.

[Plasmatic]

I agree with Davids last post. Philosophy is an integrated whole. The attempt to reduce to metaphysics severs indentity from the indentifier.Doing so is to steal the axiom of consiousness. Ethics pressupposses both metaphysics and epistemology.

[JayR]

Ethics pressupposses both metaphysics and epistemology.

I agree. I think the issue is simply the word "applied", the way I was using it presupposes knowledge (epistemology).

apply:

transitive verb use something: to make use of something to achieve a result.

To make use of your knowledge of metaphysical laws to further your life would be acting in accordance to an egoistic ethical theory. Any other ethical theory would include evasion of these laws to some extent. The dictionary I used for that definition also included "harness" as a synonym of "apply". It all comes back to "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed". As I said before, Im not suggesting "applied metaphysics" should be the new definition for the word ethics, I simply made a connection with that phrase, and the Objectivist ethics, or the objective theory of value in general.

j..