• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What ethics a 'Skeptic' has

DavoMan

Critical Thinker
D
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
424
None. I am tired of threads with variants of this argument, so I am going to put it into large letters for everyone to read:

Being a 'Skeptic' isn't like being a 'thing'. It's an approach to an argument and has no ethics attributed to it.

If I'm wrong, then I really screwed up with the big letters thing. But I think I'm correct. :p
 
/me objectifies DavoMan

Uh yeah.. shake those ethics.. shake em baby, shake em.

ooh yeah..
 
DavoMan,

I guess that being a 'sceptic' is a bit like being human (in fact they are the same!) and humans are ethical in some things, but not in others.

Patsy.
 
songstress said:
DavoMan,

I guess that being a 'sceptic' is a bit like being human (in fact they are the same!) and humans are ethical in some things, but not in others.

Patsy.
Click to expand...

Say what?

Being a skeptic (or sceptic) has absolutely nothing to do with ethics whatsoever - Davo's 100% correct, in my opinion.

Skepticism (not cynicism!) is a specific, fact-based methodology (which includes critical thinking and logic) that is used to determine the truth about a statement or claim. Failing that, it can be used to assess the likelyhood of truth concerning a statement or claim.

"Being human" is utterly irrelevant; any self-aware intelligence capable of learning a methodology can be a skeptic if it chooses.
 
songstress said:
Hi jmercer,

So you are saying that sceptical people are not human beings?

Patsy.
Click to expand...

I am saying that skepticism has nothing to do with humanity. The fact that humans employ it is irrelevant; it's a methodology that exists outside of the user.

If ERISFRIOA, a three-legged carnivorous nocturnal and intelligent alien from Planet X used a knife and fork to eat - would that make them human?
 
Agreed. Skepticism is the methodology for finding the truth.

I see ethics as a methodology for living peaceably with the various other beings in this universe.

Unfortunately, lots of quacks and woos out there aren't interested in living peaceably, and are willing to commit great harm to believers for their own personal gain. That's why I'm here: Teaching skepticism is one way to prevent that harm.
 
Ethics

Hi jmercer,

I think that DavoMan mentioned 'ethics' not 'methodologies.' Ethics apply to every stream of human life. Some humans may be sceptical about certian things, but unethical in others - for example, a sceptical person will conclude that there is no afterlife, but might willingly take up a gun and go out shooting people. That's what I take to mean by 'ethics.'

So, a human brain (and therefore a human being) employs ethics every day of his/her life, not necessarily because he/she may or may not be a sceptical person, but deciding what is the right and wrong way to behave.


Patsy.
 
Dear BronzeDog,

So you are saying that it is only the 'woos' (or whatever you like to call them) who are capable of harming others, and sceptical people are not as morally bankrupt? That sceptical people can't hurt or kill others?

That's a pretty hard guilt trip to lay on people, that is. I'd revise that if I were you.

Patsy.
 
Re: Ethics

songstress said:
(snip)
Some humans may be sceptical about certian things, but unethical in others
(snip)
Click to expand...



I nominate the quoted post for non sequitur of the day :D
 
Re: Ethics

songstress said:
for example, a sceptical person will conclude that there is no afterlife, but might willingly take up a gun and go out shooting people. That's what I take to mean by 'ethics.'
Click to expand...
That is a strange example in several different ways.

But not least for the implication that it is only belief in an afterlife that stops most people from committing the most heinous crimes.

And people call sceptics cynical...
 
songstress said:
Dear BronzeDog,

So you are saying that it is only the 'woos' (or whatever you like to call them) who are capable of harming others, and sceptical people are not as morally bankrupt? That sceptical people can't hurt or kill others?

That's a pretty hard guilt trip to lay on people, that is. I'd revise that if I were you.

Patsy.
Click to expand...
Fallacies: Straw Man x2. I never claimed that woos are the only unethical people out there. I never claimed skeptics aren't capable of being unethical.
 
Hi Ashles,

Yes, it definitely is a strange example, but then DavoMan raised a very strange topic subject!

In truth, I don't know what the heck he's talking about, I'm just responding as I interpret the subject to be.

If that makes any sense? Probably not!

Patsy.
 
songstress said:
I am glad to hear that, BronzeDog.

Now, what do you think DavoMan means by this topic?

Patsy.
Click to expand...
It's fairly clear isn't it? Being sceptical does not involve ethics or morality or any sense or subjective right and wrong. It is way of analysing information to try and find out what is objectively true.

It has nothing to do with whether any particvular human actions or activities are right or wrong.

For example we probably all think it is wrong to dump untreated toxic waste in the ocean.
But if someone claimed that dumping untreated sewage in the ocean will one day kill all the fish in that ocean then we can apply scepticism to the claim. The validity of the statement is not connected with what we think of the issue.
In reality perhaps it will not have any effect, or perhaps it will kill a certain type of fish, or have unexpected benefits... We don't know.

But trying to find out the truth about something does not in any way endorse any opinions about that issue.
 
The basic claim, which I have seen numerous times, is that since skeptics are supposedly non-religious (I also see the claim directed at atheists), and since morals and ethics are based on religious standards, skeptics have no motivation for being moral or ethical.

So, we could make a syllogism:

Morals come from religion.

Skeptics are not religious.

Skeptics are not moral.

..Where religion means an organized theistic religion that regulates behavior through reward and/or punishment, typically in a hypothetical afterlife.

So what is wrong with this? ... The major premise, Morals come from religion, is false. In fact it is probably the other way around. Anyhow we can show that moral culturally precedes religion. Past and present primitive societies lack religion (on the defined level), but do have morals and ethics. So it is fair to conclude that morals are a human trait rather than a religious institution. Thus even if we accept the minor premise (which may not be universally right), the conclusion is invalid.

Hans
 
Ashles said:
It's fairly clear isn't it? Being sceptical does not involve ethics or morality or any sense or subjective right and wrong. It is way of analysing information to try and find out what is objectively true.

It has nothing to do with whether any particvular human actions or activities are right or wrong.

For example we probably all think it is wrong to dump untreated toxic waste in the ocean.
But if someone claimed that dumping untreated sewage in the ocean will one day kill all the fish in that ocean then we can apply scepticism to the claim. The validity of the statement is not connected with what we think of the issue.
In reality perhaps it will not have any effect, or perhaps it will kill a certain type of fish, or have unexpected benefits... We don't know.

But trying to find out the truth about something does not in any way endorse any opinions about that issue.
Click to expand...
That pretty much covers it.

Examples that comes to mind:

Unethical skeptic does some research on a quack treatment and finds no verifiable evidence that it works. But it's very profitable, so he becomes a practitioner, feeling no obligation except to his greed.

Ethical skeptic does some research on a quack treatment and finds no verifiable evidence that it works. Being ethical, he feels obligated to point this out to potential believers so that they won't waste their time, money, and health on it.

It's because of their skepticism that they can reasonably (and tenatively) conclude the treatment doesn't work. How they act on that knowledge is the ethics question.
 
Re: Ethics

songstress said:
I think that DavoMan mentioned 'ethics' not 'methodologies.'
Click to expand...
Yes, he mentioned ethics by saying that ethics are in no way attributable to being a skeptic. He also implied 'methodologies' by stating that skepticism is an "approach to an argument."

Originally posted by songstress
...for example, a sceptical person will conclude that there is no afterlife,...
Click to expand...
This why you are not understanding the topic. Skeptics do not "conclude that there is no..." Skeptics say "I have seen no evidence for 'X' and therefore am not convinced of its existence." Until you comprehend the disinction between these you won't get any further.

DavoMan is right on target with his statement. It's similar to what must be said about science. Many people mistakenly believe that "science" is a body of knowledge, which it is not--it is a process. Skepticism is not a belief system or a philosophy--it is the act of critical thinking. It is saying, "Is this what it seems to be? How can I be sure this is what it is purported to be?" And going from there.


I see what Bronzedog is saying about how one acts on the knowledge. If there are any ethics in involved in skepticism, then it is about wanting to know the truth, refraining from spreading falsehoods, and pointing out when others being deceitful and trying to help those are being deceived. But in discussions or debates I wouldn't expect a skeptic to say, "Believe me, I'm a skeptic," but rather something to the effect of "Use your own brain. Think for yourself. Don't be fooled."

Examples:
My father is retired and works part-time as a bagger in a supermarket. One day a women had an item that turned out to be a different price than she thought it was. She complained about a misplaced, and therefore, misleading sign and said, "These stores do that deliberately to trick people." My father, instead of arguing with her, just said, "Now, do you really believe that?" She acquiesed and said quietly, "No I don't."

While browsing eBay for Tolkien books, I spotted an auction where the seller was presenting a fairly recent, still-in-print edition of the Hobbit and trying to pass it off a valuable, out-of-print 1937 edition, blah, blah, blah. Everything he said about the book was a lie. So I e-mailed the only bidder (who was bidding a rather high price) and told him what I thought was going on. But it occured to me that he could easily think I'm just trying to get him to cancel his bid only to turn around and try to sell him my copy of the book instead. So I told him, "I don't expect you to believe me any more than the seller. You shouldn't. Don't take my word for it. Search the internet. For goodness sakes, this exact edition is available at Amazon! Go look. Just check it out for yourself before you pay this guy." I never heard back from him (I guess he was embarassed), but the next day his bid had been withdrawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom