Ethics

[Dr.Oogkloot]

For the record, I still disagree, but can't be arsed to follow option a, b, or c.

I'll try to say why in a very condensed way in order not to tempt you to write very long replies:

If you define "society" as all human interaction, then reciprocity is IMO no longer necessary to function in it.
Plus, reciprocity becomes moot because people's situations are never exactly the same.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
If you define "society" as all human interaction, then reciprocity is IMO no longer necessary to function in it.

Reciprocity is required for interactive communication, and without interactive communication you don't have human interaction.

Plus, reciprocity becomes moot because people's situations are never exactly the same.

There are many times when it is justified not to behave reciprocally, for example if an expert is speaking to a layman about the expert's field of study. However, this is justified, and is therefore not inconsistent.

[MORON]

The longer the post, the less likely anyone would read it technophile

Just be a bananaist

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MORON
The longer the post, the less likely anyone would read it technophile

I know, it's a problem. If I make the post too short, then it doesn't properly justify my position. If I make the post too long, then either nobody reads it, or those who do read it can't understand half of what I'm saying thanks to my overly dense writing style.

Just be a bananaist

True words of wisdom. Nobody argues against bananaism, so henceforth, I shall be a bananaist.

From now on, my position on ethics shall be summarized as follows:

"I am a bananaist."

It's short, and to the point.

[Berzerker]

For the ethical relativists:

If you say ethics are relative - that while you have your own system of ethics, others do to, then would you say Hitler was ethical? If you say he had his system of ethics and just committed his crimes outside of that system, aren't you also saying that while everyone has their own systems of ethics, they are only acting ethically when acting in accordance with your own system of ethics?

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

Correct, there is only one ethical system and all others are false. That leaves us with the problem of discovering the one true system. And I suggest the key to that discovery are the "universal" desires we all share. Aside from unusual (not universal) circumstances, no one wants to be murdered - and that means the act of murder is unethical since it violates a universal desire (not even murderers want to be murdered). This universal desire constitutes the primary principle of the true ethical system.

Thus the "right" to life forms the basis of the true system of ethics followed by other principles derived from universal desires. No one wants to be enslaved, therefore freedom becomes the second principle, and because no one wants to be robbed, stealing violates the third principle - private property. This was all well-stated by Jesus when he offered up the "Golden Rule" - treat others as you want others to treat you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

then would you say Hitler was ethical? If you say he had his system of ethics and just committed his crimes outside of that system

Under Hitler's system of ethics, he was ethical. Most people do not agree with genocide, so for those people and societies, Hitler was unethical. In my belief system, genocide is wrong, so Hitler acted unethically.

aren't you also saying that while everyone has their own systems of ethics, they are only acting ethically when acting in accordance with your own system of ethics?

Yep... basically. They are acting ethically to themselves, but unethically to you, who are judging them.

the act of murder is unethical since it violates a universal desire (not even murderers want to be murdered). This universal desire constitutes the primary principle of the true ethical system.

Thus the "right" to life forms the basis of the true system of ethics followed by other principles derived from universal desires. No one wants to be enslaved, therefore freedom becomes the second principle, and because no one wants to be robbed, stealing violates the third principle - private property. This was all well-stated by Jesus when he offered up the "Golden Rule" - treat others as you want others to treat you.

No one wants to be poor, therefore there should be an extensive welfare system so no one is poor... right Scot? Oh wait, that doesn't jive with you ethical system (I assume), but it is a universal desire, and you cannot say that it isn't.

[Urban Ranger]

How do you use "ethics" here? Ethics and morals are, for the most part, the same.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by technophile
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.

Blame it on Ramo

Only you bum students have time to argue ad infinitum about these things.

My point is still this. If there is an absolute set of ethics/moral code/etc. there must be a souce for it. Unless you accept that there is a higher power from which this code originated, absolute morality is impossible.


Dr. Oog,

That would make you an Utilitarian.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My point is still this. If there is an absolute set of ethics/moral code/etc. there must be a souce for it. Unless you accept that there is a higher power from which this code originated, absolute morality is impossible.

Good point... VERY good point.

Without a higher power, there could be different ways to interpret what the source of morality is.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My point is still this. If there is an absolute set of ethics/moral code/etc. there must be a souce for it

What do you mean by an absolute set of ethics?

Using this definition, why is the existence of a higher being required?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Absolute set of ethic is Absolute morality... ie, one set of morals which are the true set of morals, and everything that deviates is wrong.

You need a higher power for this, because you need to know what the source of this absolute morality comes from. If it simply comes from an ideal (ie, life should be protected) then you argue why is that the best ideal to follow, etc. With a higher being, there is no argument... that is what the higher being wants you to do, so the morals that come from his teachings are absolute.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Without a higher power, there could be different ways to interpret what the source of morality is.

Hm?

I think the people here are arguing at cross-purposes, in that the definition of what an "absolute" set of ethics is.

There are many codes of ethics which are self-consistent; there is only one that I agree with, and I am willing to force my will on others if my code of ethics requires that I do so.

Case in point: human sacrifice

A group of people believe that ther are gods and that these gods require them to sacrifice other human beings without consent. I can't argue with them logically, since my moral axioms are just as "unprovable" as theirs are (that's why they're axioms). I can only argue at the most basic level, using emotions in an attempt to shift their axioms and I can stop them physically if they won't change. That's all.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Mornington Crescent

[KrazyHorse]

Absolute set of ethic is Absolute morality... ie, one set of morals which are the true set of morals, and everything that deviates is wrong.

You need a higher power for this, because you need to know what the source of this absolute morality comes from. If it simply comes from an ideal (ie, life should be protected) then you argue why is that the best ideal to follow, etc. With a higher being, there is no argument... that is what the higher being wants you to do, so the morals that come from his teachings are absolute

Imran, just because we can't figure out what the absolute moral code is doesn't mean it doesn't exist

To take an analogy, let us regard (don't groan) quantum physics.

You have a particle, and it has quantum uncertainty with regards to its location inside a box. We can do a "measurement" to determine where it is, but if we repeat the same experiment numerous times we will end up with different answers, even though the situation is precisely the same. There are two interpretations to this: either the particle makes a "choice" when you perform the measurement (Copenhagen interpretation) or it was always there and the measurement simply reveals its location (many-worlds interpretation).

Take the location of the particle as the "right" moral code. According to the many-worlds interpretation, just because we don't know where the particle is doesn't mean it doesn't have a location. Even if we can never perform a measurement (ask God), it doesn't mean that the particle isn't located at a definite point in the box (there isn't an absolute moral code).

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Urban Ranger:
I prefer the term "consequentialist" instead of "utilitarian", because "utilitarian" is usually taken to mean that you think happiness/pleasure/absence of pain should be maximized.
Perhaps I should have said "value" instead of "utility" above.

If absolute morality requires a source (why?), can't the universe somehow be that source?
And why would a higher power be a potential source of absolute morality? Why would it be good to do what that higher power says is good?
The only way I could see this happening is because such a higher power would have perfect insight into reality - but then the higher power is no longer the source of morality, it would be there anyhow.

Technophile:

Reciprocity is required for interactive communication, and without interactive communication you don't have human interaction.

Why is reciprocity required for interactive communication? I can secretly think it's my birthright to murder anyone I want (and act like it) and still communicate interactively.

There are many times when it is justified not to behave reciprocally, for example if an expert is speaking to a layman about the expert's field of study. However, this is justified, and is therefore not inconsistent.

But how do you know it's justified? If it's justified, there must already be some other principle (such as maximization of utility) to justify it. And when this principle is there, there's no longer any need for reciprocity - you can judge everything by the maximization-of-utility principle.
Why would reciprocity be correct in cases where there is any difference between the situations of two people? i.e., all situations? The "Golden Rule" certainly doesn't follow here, IMO.