The ethics of idealism

4 Replies, 415 Views

The ethics of idealism

Asher Walden


Quote:Research suggests that there is a neurological foundation to the experience of social connectivity, and that it is the same as the foundation of consciousness itself: synchronistic alignment appears not only within an individual brain in correlation with experience, but also between people taking part in joint tasks. This can form the basis for an objective ethics, argues Dr. Walden.



Quote:...Assuming that we accept the truth of the mind-only doctrine, what are the specifically ethical implications? Many proponents of non-dual and Idealist philosophy—especially those who have come to the view through some kind of personal transformative experience—feel that it has profound normative impacts.1 There is a renewed and intense call for love, unity and community. But can we derive an ought from an is? Is there a necessary rational connection between metaphysical unity and social unity? If so, then the new metaphysics can truly serve as a bridge between the empirical sciences and the humanities.2 A universalist and humanistic spirituality may be possible.

Now, the philosophical tradition encompasses a number of competing theories about what morality is. Given that we all agree that things like murder and theft are unethical, why is it that we characterize them so? Is there some objective fact or quality about these actions that makes them bad? If the focus is on personality factors rather than behaviors, what is the ultimate difference between virtue and vice? Is it just a matter of what traits we—or other members of our culture—like or don’t like in others and ourselves? Or what benefits us pragmatically, or what benefits the species in an evolutionary context? And so on. Well, it turns out that analytic idealism suggests its own free-standing moral theory, one that stands alongside the traditional ones such as utilitarianism and Kantian deontology. In this essay, I would like to lay out in broad strokes what I believe that moral theory might look like.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'

- Bertrand Russell


Typical non-dualist drivel. Cooperation cannot exist without discrete selves.
(2021-09-20, 11:50 AM)Raimo Wrote: Typical non-dualist drivel. Cooperation cannot exist without discrete selves.

Well the author is referencing a bunch of people who don't exactly have the same views. It's not clear Jung was an Idealist let alone an Absolute Idealist.

Josiah Royce was [intiitially] something of an Absolute Idealist but actually rejected the metaphysics because of its erasure of individual persons. IIRC he was still an Idealist but also believed in the reality of individuals.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'

- Bertrand Russell


(This post was last modified: 2021-09-20, 11:36 PM by Sciborg_S_Patel.)
[-] The following 2 users Like Sciborg_S_Patel's post:
  • Raimo, Valmar
(2021-09-20, 11:50 AM)Raimo Wrote: Typical non-dualist drivel. Cooperation cannot exist without discrete selves.

Just some thoughts on reading this post…

Is calling an article ‘drivel’ respectful of the opinions of its author? Can such ‘opinions’ really be separated from either author’s ego? 

If Asher Walden were here on the forum, could it not be argued that it might be understandable if he reacted to the above post ‘emotionally’, if for example he might describe its author by an insulting name? (If only in his head)

If the post had more evidence to back up their position it surely would be better than two dogmatic statements ? 

How might you apportion blame to either party of any ‘ill feeling’?
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
(This post was last modified: 2021-09-21, 08:43 AM by Stan Woolley.)
(2021-09-21, 08:38 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: Just some thoughts on reading this post…

Is calling an article ‘drivel’ respectful of the opinions of its author?

Perhaps it isn't respectful, but sometimes it is justified. It depends on the context. If, for example, some materialist criticizes psychical research, his critique may be valid. However, if his article shows his ignorance of the subject matter, then in my opinion it would be justified to call that article drivel even if it might hurt his feelings.

Quote:If Asher Walden were here on the forum, could it not be argued that it might be understandable if he reacted to the above post ‘emotionally’, if for example he might describe its author by an insulting name? (If only in his head)

It might be understandable. Nevertheless, how he might react to criticism is unimportant. What I stated earlier is more important than Walden's possible reaction. Cooperation cannot exist without discrete selves.

Quote:If the post had more evidence to back up their position it surely would be better than two dogmatic statements ?

You are right. Usually I would agree with you on this matter, but in this instance I thought that short answer would be sufficient. If I understood Walden's article correctly, his main point was cooperative consciousness. My critique was aimed at that concept.
[-] The following 2 users Like Raimo's post:
  • tim, Stan Woolley

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)