Ethics

[Frodo]

Ethics are a set of moral principles guiding your actions. It's quite clear that ethics are relative, since most cultures have very different principles about what is right and what is wrong.

Or are you asking if there is one absolute code of ethics that is right for everybody, whether they know it or not?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Osweld
I don't understand how anyone could think ethics are absolute. Doesn't the fact that there are debates about ethics, or even this pole where not everyone thinks they are absolute, prove that they are relative?

no

people disagree on which theory in physics is right and 'debate' on it

but physics is absolute

Jon Miller

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Eliminator
My favourite book is The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.....

Wierd book that I found to be logically incosistant.

[DinoDoc]

Osweld: I plan on robbing your house within the next few weeks. I hope you don't try to impose your ethics on me and try and stop me or anything.

I love Christmas hats.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Osweld: I plan on robbing your house within the next few weeks. I hope you don't try to impose your ethics on me and try and stop me or anything.

I love Christmas hats.

What are you trying to say?


Like I said, ethics are relative and if you think stealing is ethical, that's your problem. But just because you think something is ethical does not mean it's OK for you to do it, nor does it mean it is legal, as I said, ethics are not absolute.

If ethics where absolute and binding - who's ethics are you going to use? there are obviosuly 2 distinct ideas of what is ethical and what is not, in this situation. Why should the idea that stealing is unethical carry anymore weight then the idea that it is ethical to steal? This is why we have laws and a judicial system, not inquisitors.

[Victor Galis]

"Victor, but, you will admit there is something moral underlying the logic."

-If you want to look at it that way. Though a logical system can be based on arbitrary goals that most people wouldn't call "moral"

there might be absolute values at the beginning of an ethical system, like: Do good to others.

Than someone will ask: What is good?

Hitler would say killing all Jews is good.

And if you are relative you might respect his view.

However if you are absolutly sure this is wrong, you will say. Sorry Adolf but this is a No No. You would not want to be killed yourself, how can killing others be good.

That could be another absolute value in your system that should hold true for everyone

-Absolute values are possible within relative systems, but they are only absolute locally (i.e. within one possible system).

[Dr.Oogkloot]

I'm an ethical absolutist - specifically, a consequentialist.
It's fairly clear to me that the ethical action is the one that maximizes utility. However, I'm not sure what utility is (I used to be pretty sure that it was happiness but am not anymore). Therefore, it seems to me that for now, the ethical thing to do is the one that leads to more general things such as power and knowledge, should this problem ever be figured out with certainty.
Specifically, it seems a good idea to do things that lead to creating brains (machinal or natural) that surpass humans in intelligence and rationality, and creating these in an ordered and careful way. That is, if it can be done.
Since the fate of the entire universe may be at stake here and biological beings are horribly inefficient, the destruction of humanity should probably be seen as an unfortunate side effect in this.
Oh, I love being a mad scientist.

Either there are absolute ethics or there aren't.
If there are absolute ethics, then some acts are better than others; if there are no absolute ethics, then no acts are better than others.
Therefore, any subjective probability distribution other than one that gives a 100% probability to subjective ethics dictates that some actions have a higher moral expectation value.
I haven't seen any proof of subjective morality yet, therefore the subjective prob. distribution should not be one that gives 100% to subjective morality.
Therefore, there is an "absolute morality".

[loinburger]

I believe that there are some ethical absolutes that result from the presuppositions that we make in order to function in society; if we presuppose the principle of reciprocity for purposes of discourse, then we must logically accept the principle of reciprocity in other areas of our life as well (specifically, when determining what actions are moral or immoral; if our intended actions do not satisfy the Golden Rule, then our intended actions are immoral).

If somebody does not make these presuppositions, for example if somebody is a hermit or a psychopath, then the "absolutes" do not necessarily apply to them. However, because they are incapable of functioning in society without making these presuppositions, it is justified for hermits and psychopaths to be removed from society (allowed to live in their mountain cabins, or put in mental hospitals, for example).

Beyond that, there is room for argumentation over what course of action is the best (or most morally correct); for example, if we have determined that Individual Freedoms and Stability of Society are both "good" things, but realize that these are sometimes mutually exclusive (if someone is allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater then public safety is endangered, so we justify limiting the individual's freedom of speech so that it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater), then we argue and attempt to justify why the particular balance that we are in favor of is superior to the balance that our opponents are in favor of. However, regardless of what balance is chosen, the point is that it must adhere to certain ethical absolutes in order to be valid.

That's all I'll say regarding the ethical theory that I adhere to; I've already tried explaining it fully on Wiglaf's "Atheists are quitters" or "Atheists are stupid jerks" thread (I can't remember the name off the top of my head), and was either unjustifiably attacked by people who did not want their world view questioned or was eventually ignored by the people who were capable of having a rational argument.

[Bereta_Eder]

what causes human suffering is unethical.

this is the basis.

now one can say a dentist is far from being an unethical man....


there are no absolutes. That is the only absolute. And the exception that verifies the rule

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Isn't "what causes human suffering is unethical" an absolute?

Technophile: why is it morally good to function in society? (not that I disagree, but you'll have to give some reason)

paiktis:
Why is what causes human suffering unethical? (again, not that I disagree).

I think there should be some perspective here - human suffering/happiness at this moment is negligible compared to the potential amount of conscioous experiences that could come to exist if the universe is filled with intelligent beings - or even just this planet, if computational resources are used more efficiently. We're talking maybe 10-50 orders of magnitude here...(edit, maybe an infinity if infinite computation turns out to be possible - basement universes, Omega point-type scenarios, infinite expansion in open universes, that kind of thing)

In everything you do, you shouldn't ask yourself, "will this help or hurt the people around me?", but: "will this increase the chance of a morally correct universal order coming about?"

I'm still not sure what to make of infinite utilities and infinite negative utilities, though.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
Technophile: why is it morally good to function in society? (not that I disagree, but you'll have to give some reason)

Dammit, man, you're making me break my promise not to deluge this thread with my long-winded posts on ethical theory.

It is not necessary to claim that it is morally good to function in society. However, in order to function in society, one must make certain presuppositions (reciprocity being the most important presupposition for purposes of our discussion), and in order to remain consistent one must then apply these presuppositions to all other aspects of their behavior (e.g. they must behave reciprocally (adhere to the Golden Rule) if they are to remain consistent). If they choose not to function in society then they live a life apart from all other humans; it is not necessary to claim that this behavior is immoral, only that this behavior does not exist within a society. The very act of saying "I am not a member of society" is itself a social action, the act of communication.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

OK, but then I don't see the point. If functioning in society is not necessary always moral, but you need to do certain things to function in society, then we're not talking about ethics anymore, right? But about "survival skills"?
It's easy to say "to do X, you have to do Y", but that doesn't prove anything about ethics, as you haven't proven your premise.
(well, it proves that if X is ethical, then Y is ethical, but since we don't know whether X is ethical, that gives us no information)

Or is this one of those ethics vs. morality things again?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
If functioning in society is not necessary always moral

Functioning in society is not "moral" or "immoral", it is "amoral."

we're not talking about ethics anymore, right?

Ethics, or morality (I don't consider the two to be substantively different) is concerned with determining what behavior is correct. If someone has made the amoral presupposition to adhere to the principle of reciprocity, then they must extend this presupposition so that it covers moral behaviors as well, i.e. when determining what behavior is correct they must adhere to the priniciple of reciprocity. Failing to do so is a performative contradiction, and is therefore incorrect (irrational, illogical, immoral, whatever).

(well, it proves that if X is ethical, then Y is ethical, but since we don't know whether X is ethical, that gives us no information)

The terms "good" and "evil" (or better yet, "virtuous" and "wicked") do not exist outside of human society. If a person were to live the life of a hermit, never coming in contact with another human being throughout his entire life (maybe he was raised by wolves or something, I don't know), then he would never invent the terms "virtuous" or "wicked" because these terms describe actions that the man has never witnessed or taken part in. Similarly, the term "meter" does not exist outside of human society, and if a society never had the need to measure the length of a board or a football field or whatever have you then it would never invent the term "meter" (or any other term used to describe length).

So, whether or not someone chooses to participate in society is an amoral decision, because without society (I'm using a very broad definition of "society" so that it covers all human social interaction) there is no morality.

Once we have chosen to participate in society and have accepted the presuppositions (like reciprocity) necessary for human interaction, then we can apply the terms "virtuous" or "wicked" to describe helpful and harmful behaviors. However, these terms do not describe simply "that which I like" and "that which I do not like;" it is ludicrous to say that ice cream is "virtuous" and that brocolli is "wicked" simply because we enjoy the taste of ice cream and dislike the taste of broccoli, and it is similarly ludicrous to say that an oral surgeon is "virtuous" when we pay him to pull out our impacted wisdom teeth or that a shopkeeper is "wicked" because he is charging more than we can afford to pay for the bicycle in his store (for sake of argument, let's say that we can afford to pay five dollars, and the shopkeeper would need to charge at least two hundred dollars to cover his expenses). "Virtuous" and "wicked" only describe excellence or offensiveness in morality; behaviors that are "morally good" or "morally bad." It is in applying these terms that we must remain consistent with our presuppositions, with reciprocity. If I say "It is virtuous for me to kill you but wicked for you to kill me" and offer no further justification, then I have misused the terms "virtuous" and "wicked" by contradicting my own presuppositions.


I'd be willing to debate this with you further, but I'd suggest that you either a. make sure that Jon Miller doesn't mind a threadjacking, because my posts can tend to get a bit long-winded (at least, when I'm posting about ethics) and many posters may flee in terror and/or boredom, b. start a new thread on this, or c. PM me. I'd suggest that you try a to avoid making a copy-cat thread (and because Jon Miller might want exactly this kind of argument on his thread), then b, and avoid c because I'm not in the habit of checking my PM's. That is, of course, if you still want to debate it.

[KrazyHorse]

When you get involved it's no longer debate; it's monologue.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
When you get involved it's no longer debate; it's monologue.

Is it my fault that nobody can come up with a counter-argument?