Ethics (General Discussion)

[Unesh52]

I don't operate on a set of values, morals or ethics. I operate on logic and reasoning instead. I don't care if action X is right or wrong, I only look at how it affects myself and those around me.

You seem to misunderstand some terms here. Logic is the philosophy of thought -- it's how we understand concepts themselves and how they can be said to relate to one another. Ethics, a branch of Axiology, is the philosophy of value -- what matters; particularly, what matters when deciding how to act. You have to have ethics, or else you wouldn't have any basis for making any decision. And you do have ethics whether you think about it or not. You ethics are just what matters to you.

What you're thinking about is the difference between deontological and consequentialist ethics. It's not that actions are inherently bad, it's that they have bad consequences. Thus, you assess each situation and figure out what will happen given each possible action, and try to choose the outcome that you believe will be the best. Am I right in assuming that?

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I'm a pragmatist through and through. I care about what, not how and why. I'm neither left wing nor right wing and have no real loyalty to any particular system other than 'let's just get this shit done'. I look at the problem at hand and solve it in the, fastest, most effective, and most efficient way possible. My response to anyone who disagrees with my methods... "Have a better idea, then get back to me."

 

[Unesh52]

Nope. I just don't have ethics. I don't think about right or wrong. I'm merely thinking about whether or not doing that donut in Guy A's driveway is gonna get me sued or not. If it won't, then I'm going to roast a set of Goodyears right on the spot, if it will, I'll roast 'em on the street in front where he can't sue me. It has nothing to do with the ethics of roasting tires in someone's driveway.

You're still misunderstanding what ethics is. The fact that you can make non-random decisions implies that you do have ethics. You decision to not burn out in some dude's driveway because you would get sued is an ethical decision. It's just egoistic (apparently; not sure about the rest of your philosophy).

 

[Master Taffer]

I believe morality is relative. As for my personal belief system, I am an ethical egoist. For me, the only morally right course of action is to look after yourself. You are only intimately aware of the wants and needs of one person, and that is yourself. To become involved in the lives of others has a higher probability to backfire than I am comfortable with. I am not my brother's keeper, and he is not my keeper.

 

[The Funslinger]

We're still studying Empiricism in my Philosophy course. We're doing Ethics and Morality next term.

 

[SaikyoKid]

-Snips-

But the Egoists view isn't necessarily aiming for the greater good, but rather aiming for the MOST good for ones self. To say that killing a child for the potential for money for the greater good is really gonna be hard to defend as you're much better off as trying to say you're killing them for your own personal good. I think the key difference between an egoist and the utilitarian is that the egoist is basically omitting the "greatest number of people" part of the utilitarian creed.

As far as trying to define what good necessarily is, it really depends upon what kind of ethical viewpoint you are using to define it. As stated, the egoist generally will look at good as any personal gain. Whether it be money, status (such as moving up in a job), or anything else really. I find their viewpoint to be the most fun to play with, but the most impractical in practice as I don't have the heart to be that much of a douche.

I forget the exact term for it, but there is another branch that views any form of preserving life as the greatest good. I believe it's something along the line of Naturalist, but I could be way off... I remember them as being fairly straightforward, but a simple example for them was the idea of abortion. To abort a child was one of, if not the, most unethical things to do. Anything short of the mother dying was deemed more practical to go through than kill the unborn child.

For utilitarians, the term good is generally referred to as the lack of pain and suffering. This basically means they define it as happiness and joy. When applied to the term "greatest good for greatest number of people" you're basically trying to give the greatest amount of joy while keeping the amount of pain to an absolute minimum. You can almost view it as a kind of math problem where joy is a positive number and pain is a negative.

As far as differing on specifics, the old man vs. young mans life situation, I'm fairly sure that is why people have tried to aim for a more objective stance on ethics. Or, at the very least, utilitarians try to stray away from the situational utilitarianism and instead try to aim for rule utilitarianism. It's been a good while since I seriously studied ethics though, so I may be a tad bit rusty on the various logics...

Damn it, I wanted to avoid wordy posts...

 

[Stickfigure]

I believe in Utilitarian morality. The best action is the one that accomplishes the most good. I generally define good along similar lines as John Stuart Mill, if you actually care that much. Not exactly the same, but pretty close.

I honestly think that, while this has a certain logic, it is still a somewhat dangerous line of thinking. After all, how does one define "the most good?"

e.g. Let's consider the popular moral conundrum "Would you kill one baby if it meant sparing the lives of millions?" A fairly straightforward, matter-of-fact question on the surface. Adhering to the strictures of Utilitarianism, it would be fairly easy to say kill the baby. It's certainly not an ideal situation, but hey: needs of the many and whatnot, right?

However, now add a secondary qualifier: this baby will grow up to be the man who cures all forms of cancer in a consequence-light manner. There will not be another human who comes across the perfect storm of circumstances that allow them to cure this disease for the next hundred years. Do you still kill the child? Do you spare the child and allow the millions of people to die instantly?

It's an extreme example, yes, but it's meant to illustrate a point: are any of us capable of understanding the full scope of any decision we make? How many people will answer this question differently, for "the good of the majority?" The utilitarian ethic is, in theory, the best way, except that it takes into very little into account. Act utilitarianism and the like often ends up lacking the insight needed to wield it effectively. We can never really know whether or not any action will generate the most "good."

 

[spartan231490]

I believe in Utilitarian morality. The best action is the one that accomplishes the most good. I generally define good along similar lines as John Stuart Mill, if you actually care that much. Not exactly the same, but pretty close.

I honestly think that, while this has a certain logic, it is still a somewhat dangerous line of thinking. After all, how does one define "the most good?"

e.g. Let's consider the popular moral conundrum "Would you kill one baby if it meant sparing the lives of millions?" A fairly straightforward, matter-of-fact question on the surface. Adhering to the strictures of Utilitarianism, it would be fairly easy to say kill the baby. It's certainly not an ideal situation, but hey: needs of the many and whatnot, right?

However, now add a secondary qualifier: this baby will grow up to be the man who cures all forms of cancer in a consequence-light manner. There will not be another human who comes across the perfect storm of circumstances that allow them to cure this disease for the next hundred years. Do you still kill the child? Do you spare the child and allow the millions of people to die instantly?

It's an extreme example, yes, but it's meant to illustrate a point: are any of us capable of understanding the full scope of any decision we make? How many people will answer this question differently, for "the good of the majority?" The utilitarian ethic is, in theory, the best way, except that it takes into very little into account. Act utilitarianism and the like often ends up lacking the insight needed to wield it effectively. We can never really know whether or not any action will generate the most "good."

That's a poor way to think about it. You can't be sure that any of your actions will succeed. You can't know whether or not you will graduate college, or even if you will get a job once you do. You can't know whether you will fall in love with that girl/guy smiling at you from across the bar. You can't know whether you will enjoy that video game or not. Thinking that way, there is no reason to even try, no reason to even get out of bed in the morning.

Just because you can't be 100% sure about the consequences of an action, doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

This same dilemma applies to any form of morality, all anyone can do is make the best decision they can with the information they have. No one can avoid that, no matter what moral system you ascribe to.

 

[INeedAName]

I'm mostly a consequentialist myself. I believe any sort of horrenduos act can (and have) been justified by good intentions. There are exceptions however.

For example, if a boy is sick and his father has just enough money to buy the medicine that may save his son's life OR the lives of the two neighboring kids down the street (both of them) then it would be perfectly justifiable for him to try and save his own son's life rather than the lives of two other kids, even though the outcome would more probably be worse (in terms of most lives saved anyway).

 

[SaikyoKid]

I believe in Utilitarian morality. The best action is the one that accomplishes the most good. I generally define good along similar lines as John Stuart Mill, if you actually care that much. Not exactly the same, but pretty close.

I honestly think that, while this has a certain logic, it is still a somewhat dangerous line of thinking. After all, how does one define "the most good?"

e.g. Let's consider the popular moral conundrum "Would you kill one baby if it meant sparing the lives of millions?" A fairly straightforward, matter-of-fact question on the surface. Adhering to the strictures of Utilitarianism, it would be fairly easy to say kill the baby. It's certainly not an ideal situation, but hey: needs of the many and whatnot, right?

However, now add a secondary qualifier: this baby will grow up to be the man who cures all forms of cancer in a consequence-light manner. There will not be another human who comes across the perfect storm of circumstances that allow them to cure this disease for the next hundred years. Do you still kill the child? Do you spare the child and allow the millions of people to die instantly?

It's an extreme example, yes, but it's meant to illustrate a point: are any of us capable of understanding the full scope of any decision we make? How many people will answer this question differently, for "the good of the majority?" The utilitarian ethic is, in theory, the best way, except that it takes into very little into account. Act utilitarianism and the like often ends up lacking the insight needed to wield it effectively. We can never really know whether or not any action will generate the most "good."

That isn't really fair, because on the flip side who's to say the baby won't grow up to become the most vile human being on the planet? One can't really judge someones actions based on such a wild "what if" possibility.

 

[Unesh52]

For example, if a boy is sick and his father has just enough money to buy the medicine that may save his son's life OR the lives of the two neighboring kids down the street (both of them) then it would be perfectly justifiable for him to try and save his own son's life rather than the lives of two other kids, even though the outcome would more probably be worse (in terms of most lives saved anyway).

Obviously protecting one's own family and loved ones is more important to you that protecting strangers. Thus the value of the man's son's life can exceed the value of the lives of the kids down the street. But only from the perspective of the father, it seems. That's a problem for an absolutist morality. But from a relativist standpoint it makes perfect sense.

That's a really good one! I can use that in class. Thank you!

 

[Unesh52]

Damn it, I wanted to avoid wordy posts...

<..>

I could have sworn I'd already responded to this. Er... anyway, it's ok that you were wordy. It's a wordy sort of topic. And I concede the point. It was mostly a play on words anyway.

 

[SaikyoKid]

Damn it, I wanted to avoid wordy posts...

<..>

I could have sworn I'd already responded to this. Er... anyway, it's ok that you were wordy. It's a wordy sort of topic. And I concede the point. It was mostly a play on words anyway.

Yay for points...? Haha, no worries my good sir. Tis all in good fun when discussing philosophy and ethics as I really just enjoy rambling about those kinds of things. I find them to be some of the best ways to really make people think.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I believe that turnabout is fair play, but forgiveness is preferable. If someone wrongs you, they should be expecting you to return the favor and I absolutely would not hold it against you if you did. But I still find it better in the long run to learn to forgive. Not that I choose forgiveness all the time myself, which just goes to show how hard it can be sometimes to do it and why nobody should blame you for taking proportionate vengeance.

It's also why despite the fact that I want nothing more than world peace and understanding, I can respect pursuits of justice against extremist organizations and states.

 

[Stickfigure]

That's a poor way to think about it. You can't be sure that any of your actions will succeed. You can't know whether or not you will graduate college, or even if you will get a job once you do. You can't know whether you will fall in love with that girl/guy smiling at you from across the bar. You can't know whether you will enjoy that video game or not. Thinking that way, there is no reason to even try, no reason to even get out of bed in the morning.

Just because you can't be 100% sure about the consequences of an action, doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

This same dilemma applies to any form of morality, all anyone can do is make the best decision they can with the information they have. No one can avoid that, no matter what moral system you ascribe to.

That's exactly my point, though: to subscribe to the belief that you're capable of judging what is empirically the "most good" is a fundamentally flawed system of ethics to begin with. Subscribing to ethics from an emotional/moral standpoint at the very least bears the distinction of being arguable. If you boil ethics down to the mathematics of "most good," then you gut the ethics of any identifiable qualities, and I can guarantee you lack the faculties to perform such math. The examples you gave me have no place in utilitarian ethics, because personal feelings don't factor into the equation: from a utilitarian standpoint, you choose the mate that would do the most good for the most involved, rather than out of love. From a utilitarian standpoint, you play the game that best serves everyone's time(if you consider games a worthy endeavor in the first place).

What's worse is that pure utilitarianism can allow for decidedly unethical and inhumane behaviors. Torture, slavery, even cannibalism are justifiable through utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, after all, benefits the group, and ignores the individual. Torture a few guys, possibly save a country, that sort of thing. The only way to balance that is to consider individual rights a greater part of the equation, which ultimately ignores the core of what defines utilitarianism.

 

[spartan231490]

That's a poor way to think about it. You can't be sure that any of your actions will succeed. You can't know whether or not you will graduate college, or even if you will get a job once you do. You can't know whether you will fall in love with that girl/guy smiling at you from across the bar. You can't know whether you will enjoy that video game or not. Thinking that way, there is no reason to even try, no reason to even get out of bed in the morning.

Just because you can't be 100% sure about the consequences of an action, doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

This same dilemma applies to any form of morality, all anyone can do is make the best decision they can with the information they have. No one can avoid that, no matter what moral system you ascribe to.

That's exactly my point, though: to subscribe to the belief that you're capable of judging what is empirically the "most good" is a fundamentally flawed system of ethics to begin with. Subscribing to ethics from an emotional/moral standpoint at the very least bears the distinction of being arguable. If you boil ethics down to the mathematics of "most good," then you gut the ethics of any identifiable qualities, and I can guarantee you lack the faculties to perform such math. The examples you gave me have no place in utilitarian ethics, because personal feelings don't factor into the equation: from a utilitarian standpoint, you choose the mate that would do the most good for the most involved, rather than out of love. From a utilitarian standpoint, you play the game that best serves everyone's time(if you consider games a worthy endeavor in the first place).

What's worse is that pure utilitarianism can allow for decidedly unethical and inhumane behaviors. Torture, slavery, even cannibalism are justifiable through utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, after all, benefits the group, and ignores the individual. Torture a few guys, possibly save a country, that sort of thing. The only way to balance that is to consider individual rights a greater part of the equation, which ultimately ignores the core of what defines utilitarianism.

I disagree. The most good is subjective, but there's nothing wrong with that. We can all do only the best we can. It's better to try and fail than to sit back and say "I'm not capable of judging good or bad, so I'm going to let Hitler kill 12 million Jews." If you say that you are incapable of making judgments for good or bad, then you are incapable, you can't say that you're incapable of judging good or bad, except when you want to. You can't have it both ways.
And if you can't tell what is good or bad, you can't tell what is ethical, and there is no point in even believing in ethics. There is no point acting ethically, because you can't judge it. That is fatalistic logic and I refuse to ascribe to it.

Further, the most good doesn't ignore the individual, because a group is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Benefiting the group is only good because it benefits every individual within the group. Valuing individual rights doesn't ignore the core of utilitarianism, because valuing individual rights will allow all individuals to benefit from those rights, bringing about a high amount of good. That is good by utilitarian ethics.

 

[Giest4life]

So, we're stating Ethics in my intro to philosophy course tomorrow, and I thought it might be fun to talk a little about the subject before class. My professor wants us to think about it anyway. I wonder what informs the Escapist's moral codes.

Spoiler: My view

I have what I think is best termed a relativistic view of morality. It's on every individual to decide what is right, and this will be determined by their personal goals, aspirations, and intuitions. Every moral system is equally as valid as any other.

I arrive at this conclusion by process of elimination -- what objective standard can be referenced when trying to establish an absolute moral code? It can't be our feelings, because they contradict each other and they change all the time. They certainly aren't absolute. It can't be tradition or law -- that would be the naturalistic fallacy. The way things are says nothing about the way things should be. And (though I'm sure someone will disagree on this) it can't come from God -- either physical or otherwise. If it's physical I'm almost positive it's non-existent and therefore irrelevant, my hesitation coming only from the strictest adherence to empirical uncertainty (I'll take you up on your particular God's ethics if you think you have a demonstrably existent one). If it's non-physical, it can't be empirically verified, and once you start allowing dubious alternative methods of investigation, any and every God concept becomes equally as valid as any other, and therefore each moral code supposed to have been invented by each God becomes equally valid. We still arrive at irresolvable contradictions.

The obvious objection to the relativistic claim is that it implies we are supposed to live and let live while young girls are being circumcised in barbaric cultural rites and people terrorize others because of their skin color or sexual orientation. I think that that misses the whole point. Part of my understanding of ethics is that we're allowed to decide that certain actions of others are wrong, and thus are justified to try and stop them. This starts to sound like an advocation of anarchy at this point, but I don't believe that would be best. If everyone began acting on their own, deciding for themselves what was right and wrong, not only would the world dissolve into chaos, but few, if any, people would actually be able to satisfy their moral code (i.e., the elimination of evil and the attainment of good). Luckily, there's a loop hole. It seems to me that almost everyone shares quite a lot of basic, fundamental ethical assertions -- things like, "it's good for me to be happy" and "it's bad for those I love to be hurt," etc. Naturally people want to have the most good things and the fewest bad things possible. It's possible (indeed, we've done it for ages) to construct a society out of rules that facilitates that basic desire. While you give up the right to do whatever you want, by doing so you enable yourself to satisfy more of the rest of your moral code than you otherwise would. It's simply social contract, John Locke and all that. Thus, our modern apparatuses of justice and law are perfectly consistent with this relativistic view, even if the underlying concepts need to be tweaked a little.

As an addendum, it occurs to me that it's the consistency of beliefs that allows the whole social contract thing to work, and inconsistency that creates perceived injustice. A perfectly moral society, therefore, could only be achieved if every member held the exact same beliefs (and the simpler the beliefs, the easier the associated perfect social structure would be to invent). Thus, unilateral brainwashing and reduction to the lowest common denominator would allow for the best possible society at the lowest cost! Sounds positively Orwellian, don't it? But would you be unhappy?

tldr:

I believe moral relativism is true, because there's no apparent objective source for morals. I think that life as we know it (er, here in the first world anyway) is still pretty much consistent compatible with this view.

EDIT: I think that's a better way to put it.

Without understanding the theory of knowledge, no discussion of ethics can be considered truly valid. Just from the style of reasoning, I feel that you'll change your response once you come across Kant, and his transcendental idealism, in your class.

Personally, however, anyone espousing universal morality is bat-shit insane. The universe is bigger and more complex than we can ever imagine. The universe is apathetic beyond measure; none of our cares, concerns, joys, sorrows, needs, and wants apply to it--we hold less value than a speck of dust, our "morality" is as clueless as a mote of dust floating in the sunlight. Anyone claiming otherwise has to be insane, because I can't believe anyone will have an ego big enough to claim that they understand they way the universe works.

 

[Unesh52]

It's better to try and fail than to sit back and say "I'm not capable of judging good or bad, so I'm going to let Hitler kill 12 million Jews."

He wasn't saying that. He was saying that we can't determine what will result from any action, therefore consequentialist ethics (utilitarianism is a sub-group within consequentialist ethical theory) are flawed. You can only judge actions by their inherent morality. I disagree with that, but you still can't argue a straw man. (I'm sure it was unintentional, but nonetheless.)

Benefiting the group is only good because it benefits every individual within the group.

...unless you're the individual who has been conscripted into slavery "for the good of all." Then you're not seeing any of that benefit, are you? His point is that "the most good" can leave some people in horrible situations.

Subscribing to ethics from an emotional/moral standpoint at the very least bears the distinction of being arguable. If you boil ethics down to the mathematics of "most good," then you gut the ethics of any identifiable qualities, and I can guarantee you lack the faculties to perform such math.

You're saying that what is going to result from any given action isn't arguable? I can argue very well what would happen if I, say, slapped my roommate. He would feel pain and confusion, and, if I convinced him that I did it out of malice, would result in indignation. Inductive arguments may not be absolute, but they are still useful.