Ethics

[Wraith]

I'm coming in on the tail-end of this, but I may have time later today to play catch up with the rest of the thread...

--"You need a higher power for this, because you need to know what the source of this absolute morality comes from"

No, not really. Absolute morality can come from the universe itself, and more specifically from human interaction with it. A higher power is not a requirement.

Wraith
"Fred the alien," Yang thought disgustedly. "What next?"
-- The Madness Season - C. S. Friedman

[Berzerker]

Imran -

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.

Which is why ethics are absolute, not relative. Either he was ethical or he wasn't. Claiming he was both creates an unresolvable paradox.

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

Which would mean "ethics" - morality - is a meaningless term. Either there is a right and a wrong, or there is no right or wrong.

No one wants to be poor

Not true, many peoples around the globe intentionally lead lives of poverty - from the Hopi to Jainist priests practicing the doctrine of "ahimsa". And some peoples have disdain for material wealth and technological improvements to make life easier such as the Amish who still live life as their ancestors did centuries ago.

therefore there should be an extensive welfare system so no one is poor... right Scot?

Not wanting to be poor is not a universal desire, and this welfare state - if involuntary to those footing the bill - violates the universal desire to not be robbed. Your time is your own, not because government created the universe that gave rise to you, but because government did not create the universe. Besides, jumping from the claim that no one wants to be poor to a welfare state is a leap in logic - the welfare state can promote poverty by diminishing the desire of recipients to work for themselves leaving them dependent on those handouts.

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.

It isn't, your premise is false.

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

But regardless of these multiple "interpretations", there is only one source - whomever or whatever "created" the universe that led to our existence. Since neither of us created the universe, we cannot claim ownership over each other.

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.

That's assuming this "higher being" actually talks to us. Inspite of what some people claim, the only way to detect this absolute morality is by examining the natural world that stems from the universe.

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. Unless you accept that there is a higher power from which this code originated, absolute morality is impossible.

This "higher power" is called ownership. Human beings did not create the universe that gave rise to us, therefore we cannot own each other, but each person owns themself until the universe reclaims us.

[Frodo]

Most of you are using the wrong word. There is no question of ethical relativity. Ethical relativity is a given. Moral relativity is what is up in the air. I hate to be picky, but this is actually a big difference.

Ethic refers principles of conduct, where following such principles means doing what is right. These principles vary from place to place and society to society, therefore they are relative.

Moral is concerned with the goodness or badness of human action/character, or the question of what is good or bad in general. Your ethics depend on your morals, that is, they depend what you think is good or bad. They are not the same thing. One is derived from the other.

So you're not debating whether ethics are absolute, but whether there is an objective goodness that is always good regardless of what people think; i. e., an absolute morality.

[Berzerker]

Frodo -

Most of you are using the wrong word

From Webster's New Collegiate:

Ethic - the discipline dealing with what is good or bad and with moral duty and obligation; a set of moral principles or values. A theory or system of moral values.

[Frodo]

That's right, ethics are a set of moral principles, that is, principles regarding what is right or wrong; or the study of such principles. A theory or system of moral values.

Ethical absolutism would say that everyone uses the same ethical principles/ethical system. This isn't true. All cultures have different ethical principles. An example of ethical principles would be the ten commandments. Not everyone believes in the ten commandments, or uses them, so there is no such thing as ethical absolutism.

Morality is what such principles are based upon. You can argue that there is moral absolutism and that ethical principles differ from place to place only because people come to different conclusions about how to best achieve the good. But you can't argue that there is ethical absolutism, because there is no case for it. Your dictionary definition doesn't contradict this.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that "ethical absolutism" is a malapropism. It doesn't exist.

[Berzerker]

Frodo -

Ethical absolutism would say that everyone uses the same ethical principles/ethical system.

No, it means there is only one correct system, not that everyone respects that correct system, i.e., unethical as opposed to ethical.

This isn't true. All cultures have different ethical principles. An example of ethical principles would be the ten commandments. Not everyone believes in the ten commandments, or uses them, so there is no such thing as ethical absolutism.

No one is saying everyone behaves morally/ethically, we are saying there is only one set of morals that constitute morality.

You can argue that there is moral absolutism and that ethical principles differ from place to place only because people come to different conclusions about how to best achieve the good. But you can't argue that there is ethical absolutism, because there is no case for it. Your dictionary definition doesn't contradict this.

Did you fail to see the repeated references to morality in the definition of "ethic"? And please do try to refute the case I and others have made for moral/ethical absolutism instead of telling us there is no case to be made.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that "ethical absolutism" is a malapropism. It doesn't exist.

You've already conceded there may be a moral absolutism, you just don't agree with equating ethics with morality. I suggest you debate the author's of the dictionary instead of all the people in this thread who are equating ethics with morality

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
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.

Then you would be behaving inconsistently. If you did not adhere to reciprocity in communicative practices then you would be unable to communicate; if, for example, you were to say to me "I am right, and nothing you say can change my mind," then I would stop listening to you and would stop talking to you because you have arbitrarily broken reciprocity (by unjustifiably claiming that your opinions are superior). So, to communicate effectively is to presuppose reciprocity, and to say "I will be reciprocal in communication but not elsewhere" is to be inconsistent (i.e. irrational).

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.

The principle is the logical maxim "If one applies predicate P to subject A, then one must also apply predicate P to the substantively identical subject B." Justification comes in showing that A and B are not substantively identical, for example, "This is not an ordinary communicative action because I am an expert in the topic being discussed, so the opinions of others carry less weight than my opinions in this matter;" I'm certainly not about to argue with a neurosurgeon about neurosurgery, but if I were interested in neurosurgery then I might listen to him/her lecture.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"You need a higher power for this, because you need to know what the source of this absolute morality comes from"

No, not really. Absolute morality can come from the universe itself, and more specifically from human interaction with it. A higher power is not a requirement.

I agree, except I would have spent three pages saying this.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Only you bum students have time to argue ad infinitum about these things.

This is especially the case right now, since Finals are next week (hence no classes, no assignments, no huge semester-long projects, etc.). I haven't had this much free time since August.

[Giant_Squid]

Berserker:

This "higher power" is called ownership. Human beings did not create the universe that gave rise to us, therefore we cannot own each other, but each person owns themself until the universe reclaims us.

Wouldn't this imply that since we didn't create land, we can't own real estate? Come to think of it, we haven't created anything except out of pre-existing materials. (possible exception: intellectual property, but forget that for now). Doesn't this mean private property is unethical?

I would say that the most powerful human desire of all (possibly the only desire) is that no one wants to be unhappy. Of course there are people who LOOK like they want to be unhappy, like people those who dress up in black all the time and write bad poetry about the transience of life, but they're just doing it because being superficially unhappy makes them happier on a deeper level. This is the one universal desire. The desire for life is not universal...if it was, there wouldn't be suicides. Or think of Socrates, who could have escaped the death penalty in multiple different ways but *wanted to be murdered* to make a point. You could say (and probably will) that the difference is that these people wanted to be killed, so it's different than killing someone who doesn't want to be killed, but that means that the sacred principle isn't life, it's *getting what you want* and *not being unhappy*. Making people happy is certainly a wonderful system of morals, but if you use it, you've made a full one hundred eighty degree turn from libertarianism to utilitarianism.

I was going to write a long thing on why moral relativism is good down here, but now that I think about it, maybe making people happy IS a moral absolute. Hmm.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Berzerker

No, it means there is only one correct system, not that everyone respects that correct system, i.e., unethical as opposed to ethical.

No one is saying everyone behaves morally/ethically, we are saying there is only one set of morals that constitute morality.

My apologies, then, as I thought that you were implying that everyone used the same ethical system.

Nevertheless, there is still a substantial difference between the words. Ethics are basically morals-in-action, and you can't have a set of ethics unless you have morals to base them on. If you believe that such-and-such is wrong, only then can you create rules saying "I will not do such-and-such." In other words, before you can make a case for ethical absolutism, you have to make one for moral absolutism. Even if everybody agrees on the same morals, they may not all agree on the same ethical system following from the morals. Do you see the difference I'm trying to make?

I mean, you can use whatever word you want, but there is a distinction. Otherwise the two dictionary definitions would be the same. How would you differentiate between ethics and morals, if you don't agree with the way I present them?