"B- Responds" :)
Thankyou, John for this very well thought out response.  I think this is very 
logical response, and it kind of puts some focus on the task of ethics in 
itself,  with relation to how it applies to EE. The "quite toasty debates on 
global warming nicely link in with this response. " Your perspectives on 
value, and theories of good and evil are very interesting as well.   



In a message dated 4/15/00 6:10:15 PM !!!First Boot!!!, 
[log in to unmask] writes:


 I would like to respond by saying that when a body of evidence demonstrates
 that there is a reason to be concerned about an issue that the ethical task
 is to determine what the consequences of the body of evidence have first.
 This in itself is not the task of ethics, but it is the first step in an
 ethical task.
 
 The categorical assertion that something is of value is in itself not an
 interpretation of the evidence nor the facts, but more or less a science and
 art of prediction. The first indication of an ethical task is involved in
 the evaluation of those facts and the interpretation of those facts. When a
 judgement proceeds on the basis of the interpretation of the evidence and
 the facts, then that judgement will consist in an evaluation. An evaluation
 is not a fact at all regarding the validity of the data regarding the issues
 to assessed using science and art.
 
 So my point is that based on the what some ethicists have observed which
 they term the naturalistic fallacy, facts themselves regardless of what they
 mean do not themselves indicate an evaluation. An evaluation itself is a
 feeling based on a much more comprehensive gestalt facing the ethicist and
 the ethical person. Thinking has various orienting functions. At the most
 simple level of thought, ideas themselves are two dimensional, but the
 realization of the ideas themselves, or the concrete expression of those
 ideas - whether based on facts and interpretation of the facts- is something
 that the ethicist feels.
 
 The first indication regarding what may be an evaluation is the imperative.
 The imperative is felt as an expression of the Good or the Bad. In terms of
 an evaluation therefore no judgement itself is 'beyond good and evil' since
 an evaluation is really felt. One may suppose therefore that an ethical
 statement will necessarily involve an interpretation of the facts, but it is
 more than that. An interpretation of the facts itself is not a judgement,
 and it is not a statement that reflects the feeling sense of the interpreter
 at all. The category of the imperative derives from a much more obscure - if
 you will - source in the mind of the thinking person. It is what Carl Jung
 called the fourth term, the neglected fourth term mentioned at the beginning
 of the dialogue Timaeus. This neglected fourth term is feeling (valuation)
 which is also an orienting function describing the unconscious
 non-differentitating process of thought. If the fourth term is neglected in
 an thinking, then there is an emphasis on the more logical and rational
 components of thinking, primarily the conscious differentiable products of
 thought.
 
 When there is neglect of the feeling function which Jung also terms
 'valuation' the thinker finds himself becoming dissociated with the world
 about him. The statement that Jung makes specifically about the function of
 feeling is this:
 
 "Three of the four orienting functions are available to consciousness. This
 is confounded by the psychological experience that a rational type, for
 instance, whose superior function is thinking, has at his disposal one,
 possibly two, auxiliary functions of an irrational nature, namely sensation
 and intuition. His inferior function will be feeling (valuation), which
 remains in a retarded state and is contaminated with the unconscious. It
 refuses to go along with the others and often goes wildly off on its own.
 This peculiar dissociation is, it seems, a product of civilization, and it
 denotes a freeing of consciousness from any excessive attachment to the
 'spirit of gravity'." [The Problem of the Fourth, in Psychology and Western
 Religion]
 
 In the Timaeus it begins with the question: "One, two, three -but ...where
 is the fourth?" And Jung reminds the reader that the same question is taken
 up later Goethe. Quoting Faust in the Cabiri Scene by Goethe:
 
 "Three we brought with us,
  The fourth did not come
  He was the right one
  Who thought for them all."
 
 The definition then of the feeling function is that it is an orienting
 function that is to be respected since it is the 'right one who thought for
 them all' is pretty clear.
 
 Phillipa Foot has pointed out that there are two assumptions regarding
 ethical beliefs. She maintains that the an ethical premise is based on the
 assumption that regardless of what merits the belief rests apon it is not
 about to simply fall 'into a morass of meaninglessness' due to a failure of
 supporting evidence since it is in its' action-guiding' or 'practical'
 function that it has some good based on a 'pro-attitude' which is termed the
 Good, or that which is comendatory and recommendable. [Moral Beliefs. In
 Theories of Ethics, ed. Phillipa Foot]
 
 Therefore the fact and how that fact stands up to interpretation and whether
 that fact is supported or not by evidence does not naturally constitute that
 it has value in of itself. An evaluation, if it is commendatory and
 recommendable, is undifferentiable thinking at a level that combines the
 unconscious with the conscious meaning content sense of rational thought.
 For this reason there is no logical reason to assume that facts speak for
 themselves; however facts and the information are not yet of value unless
 they are used to guide actions in a 'pro-active' guiding sense for the Good
 of all.
 
 So in answer to what was posed as a question regarding ethical theory I
 would like to add that whether or not climate change is a fact or not fact
 is not relevant precisely to ethics, nor to ethical theory except in a
 practical comportment sense. It is after the 'evaluation' of those facts,
 not the interpretation of those facts that the ethical task begins, but in
 the full meaning and content sense of the realization of the those ideas for
 concrete experience that the Good and the Bad arise. What is Good is
 commendatory and recommendable in terms of the action that is proposed. If
 there is no need felt regarding the imperative felt, then the facts still
 stand there is no convincing reason to act.
 
 Thanks for your question,
 
 John Foster
 
  >>
<< B asks:
 > how does this apply to env. ethics. What should we be concerned about? ?
 Flairing or perhaps
 > seeking some fundamental basic ethics to the controversy of global warming
 > patterns. No one overall, has agreed to universal ethical theory, but each
 > theory has some value. Perhaps would should find value or try to find some
 reason to
 > debate, but the flaming does none of this.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%