Talk:Ethics (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Related task forces (major fields): Philosophical literature

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] The Title

The article at present claims that the book's title is Ethics because the author wanted to show how "...the ethical and content life can be attained by the life of reason and thought." This is puzzling because a life that is ethical does not have to be filled with contentment, and a life of contentment may not be ethical. Ethics are related to right and wrong. Contentment is related to happiness and sorrow. Also, Spinoza clearly asserted that there are really no ethics at all. Spinoza wrote that right and wrong are merely conventions that have been adopted by society in general. In reality, there is no right or wrong, and therefore there are no ethics. He said:

...in the state of nature everyone thinks solely of his own advantage, and according to his disposition, with reference only to his individual advantage, decides what is good or bad, being bound by no law to anyone besides himself.

– Ethics, Part IV, Prop. 37, Schol. 2

Also,

...by sovereign natural right every man judges what is good and what is bad....

– Ibid.

If everyone lived according to reason, people would not hurt each other. However, because people are guided by their emotions, instead of their reason, there is no harmony among people. But, as far as ethics are concerned, good and evil, as well as right and wrong, are mere conventions that have been agreed upon by society and their governments. Therefore, Spinoza's book entitled Ethics shows that there really are no ethics, in absolute contrast to what is claimed in this Wikipedia article.Lestrade 01:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

All pantheism must ultimately be shipwrecked on the inescapable demands of ethics, and then on the evil and suffering of the world. If the world is a theophany, then everything done by man, and even by the animal, is equally divine and excellent; nothing can be more censurable and nothing more praiseworthy than anything else; hence there is no ethics.

– Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVII

The Ethics vs "ethics" To help answer your question let me point out that Spinoza's "Ethics" is not the same as a generic philosophy of "ethics." What Spinoza proposes in his book of "Ethics" is a specific system for judgement. It is a robust system, somewhat mechanical even, that is based on both reason & dogma and it is the foundation of many other "ethical systems" of later philosophers such as Locke, Nietzsche, and Deleuze (etc.). As a system it as axiomatic principles which have universal application throughout the system. indeed, these principles may not be "ethiical" in a general philosophical sense, even though they constitute the rules of Spinoza's "Ethics." Dr.Crawboney 11:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Dr.Crawboney

According to red-linked User: Dr.Crawboney, Spinoza's book is a system of judgment. The title word is not to be taken in the "general philosophical sense." But, why use the word ethics, which already has a definite meaning? The word ethics denotes the study of what is good and what is right. Why give a word a meaning that has no relation to its accepted meaning? Are we to believe that ethics doesn't always mean ethics, but, rather, something else which we can choose arbitrarily? Spinoza's book, according to User:Dr.Crawboney's judgment, would have been better titled Judgment or A System of Judgment. Maybe it should have been called Reason. Also, on what dogma was Spinoza's system based?Lestrade 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

For people who are interested in learning ways to win an argument, it may be worthwhile to note the clever device used by User:Dr.Crawboney. After it was shown that there are no ethics in Spinoza's book Ethics, User:Dr.Crawboney responded by simply saying that the word Ethics in the title doesn't really mean ethics. Ethics means something else, which is not actually specified.Lestrade 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

It's kind of silly Lestrade. A system of prescriptive ethics seeks to tell you what you ought to do. Spinoza in his Ethics here, does indeed attempt to say what you ought to do. Therefore it is indeed an ethics. The "ethical life" merely being one in line with the 'ought.' --72.38.225.72 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's silly when a book is titled "Ethics" and hardly ever mentions values such as right, wrong, good, bad, and evil? When they are mentioned, the author claims that each natural human has to decide for himself as to what is right, wrong, good, bad, or evil. Spinoza claimed that nature is God. Therefore, essentially everything is divine and good when looked at under the aspect of eternity. This precludes ethics.Lestrade 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Natura

One way to read Ethics and make sense of it is to note that in two places Spinoza wrote "God or Nature" (Deus sive Natura). This equivalence can be found in Part IV, Preface and in Part IV, Proposition IV, Proof. If you read "Nature" every time you see the word "God," then the whole book is understandable. When Einstein said that he worshipped Spinoza's God, he meant that he found happiness when he studied nature.Lestrade (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Lestrade