Ethics?
Pages
| Author | Topic: Ethics? |
|---|---|
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 18:12
Profile
With there being so many different "acceptable" religions/modes of life out there, I have often pondered exactly what the definition of right and wrong must be under this system. How do you find the difference between crime and "the expression of my moral belief system". Often the thought is heard "Do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" The qualifier on that seems like it is refering to some higher moral code- but what if I don't follow that code? Am I a criminal? Is my "moral system" wrong? Because if so, it sure seems like all the stuff about there being no absolute moral code is a load of junk. Which would make the entire system a load of junk- Which is hard to believe since the "advanced" age that we live in basically teaches this as doctrine. (Or so it seems) Anybody got thoughts? (Yes a rhetorical question) Feel free to rip on my logic (Not that you wouldn't anyways but just that I won't take offense- like some people) Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 3310
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 19:38
Profile
1. There is no right or wrong moral system. 2. There might be a right moral system, but we have no chance of knowing it and living by it. Which leads us to point one. You must define what "right" is. Believe me, no divine/supernatural/cosmologicl thing will come and tell you the "ultimate thruth and how things should be done etc". When you have defined thruth and right, live that way. You don't know if it's right, but it's the best you've got. Not hurting people is not "right". It's just that people prefer having it that way. If you like it, follow that code. It isn't the ultimate thruth, but it can be quite nice, nontheless. Crimes are defined by belief systmes. Laws are based on belief systems. Crime is not more or less than law. It's just different ways of looking at something. Of course, if you don't want to spend your life in jail, you'd better follow the widely accepted belief system we know as "don't steal from others - don't hurt others". Aka the law. Democracy rules. Why do I always end up with so twisted views? I shouldn't think so much. EDIT: Oh, yeah, and I hoped this had something to do with the first post. [ Thursday, October 07, 2004 19:39: Message edited by: Kreshweed ] -------------------- ahhahaha i rule u droool Posts: 756 | Registered: Monday, August 4 2003 07:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 22:06
Profile
I'm right, and disagreeing with me is wrong. Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 00:16
Profile
Homepage
A moral system is really little more than a definition of the phrases "morally right" and "morally wrong", and the only arbiter of the truth or falsehood of a definition is community consensus. The etymological root of "moral" is, after all, the same as that of "moré" -- meaning a norm upheld by society. Now here's the kicker; just because action X is morally right under the definition of a given community, this does not mean that you should do action X. "You should do what is morally right" isn't a tautology; it's meaningless. All valid "should" statements are conditional; "if you want to pass the exam, you should study" or "if you want to have good health, you should take vitamin supplements". (Note that a statement being valid doesn't necessarily make it true.) You can't say someone should do something without specifying what reason they have for doing so. "If you want to do what's morally right in your community, you should not kill except in self-defence", for example, is a valid statement which can be assessed for truth or falsehood based on the definition widely held within the community of the person to whom it's said. "It is morally wrong to kill except in self-defence" is also valid, and is essentially equivalent to the previous statement. "You should not kill except in self-defence" is meaningless. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 02:04
Profile
Ah, but Thuryl, isn't personal morality the very thing that gives rise to unqualified "should" statements? I'm sure that even you with your heart of silicon believe there are some things that are inherently wrong, and you don't do them only because they feel wrong to you. [ Friday, October 08, 2004 03:14: Message edited by: Sarachim ] Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 02:15
Profile
Homepage
"If I want my conscience to be at ease, I should not shoplift." Don't equate conscience with morality. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 02:41
Profile
Basically in the end you want to end up at 42, but nobody is quite sure how to get there. -------------------- Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 03:16
Profile
Don't you think conscience and morality have a connection, even if they aren't exactly the same thing? What is your conscience, if not your regret when you think you may have done something immoral? Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 04:18
Profile
to me if there is an absolute code of good and evil then their must be a god/supreme being. Any one that believes that there is a real "wrong" and real "right" but believes that there is no god is decieving themselves. --the other option for wrong and right is the society based one. Our society has a code of ethics but it is not an absolute one. It can be challenged and changed. I would say that this is because the power of society is not absolute- like the power of god would be- in the case that there is a god. the power of society is to affect the individual and to make him/her act in a certain way is derived from the individuals desire to live a life that is comfortable( ie not poor nasty brutish and short) :) --both of these alternatives for ethics though are based on one thing- power. If god's power is absolute then what he says is good is absolutely good. why? because the individual has the desire to to live a comfortable life. "right" is what should be done to keep the powerful happy with one. so unless you are the most powerful entity in existance or are beyond the reach of any more powerful entity than yourself, you are bound to a system of morals that you need to follow to be "comfortable". this I would say is why power corrupts- it loosens the hold of morals on a person because they begin to not have to meet the norms of society. As to consience, it could be the unease at doing what is unacceptable to society, and therefore is dangerous for comfort. Even the more intelligent animals have consience. Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 05:28
Profile
Moral relativism in many ways is nonsense. There are common things which people want in an ethical or social system for the most part 1) a sense of justice, 2) a clear moral code which they can live by, 3) a guarantee that they can seek happiness and for many people liberty and the right to practice a clear cut religion or philosophy, 4) a guarantee that they can support their families and associates. 5) freedom from fear and oppression. People cannot practice or even look at ethics if they are starving. I strongly believe in the Hierarchy of Needs created by Abraham Maslow. I think it is necessary to create conditions for people to thrive before ethics can even be suggested. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 05:53
Profile
I yet again posit that everyone should read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. He suggests (quite rightly, I think) that morals are created by society on the basis of a social contract. This assertion is pretty adequately proven by fairly substantial discrepancies regarding what is considered "right" and "wrong" by different cultures today. [ Friday, October 08, 2004 06:15: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 06:52
Profile
Homepage
Sarachim, I don't deny that conscience is largely shaped by morality, and also by social approval, which is probably not quite the same thing (we may disapprove of things we don't explicitly call immoral). But conscience doesn't determine morality; the chain of causation is the other way round. Conscience also doesn't provide an absolute reason for doing anything; people can and do act against their consciences all the time. m: Connecting God to morality has always felt like a distraction to me. How does the existence of an omnipotent being create an absolute morality? Nobody has ever answered this question to my satisfaction. Unless you want to grant your God the power to make 1=2 and construct square circles, it's not within his power to make a single definition the only true one. The very nature of a definition is that it has to be accepted by those who use it; morality is a linguistic term, and language is democratic. If your answer is (as it seems to be) that God has the power to punish anyone who does something he doesn't like, well, firstly, that doesn't seem like any sort of morality that I'm familiar with, and secondly, it still relies on the subject of his decrees being susceptible to reward and punishment. Sociopaths are almost impossible to reason with precisely because they're virtually immune to the normal effects of reward and punishment; they don't desire anything, they simply react. People with damage to the frontal lobes of the brain (such as from a lobotomy) sometimes behave similarly. Toast: Some people don't want some or all of the things you list. What about recluses, with no family or associates? What about severe depressives, who don't think they're worthy of happiness or don't think that happiness is possible? Again, what about sociopaths and individuals with frontal lobe damage? Any attempt to create a universal morality will fail, because there's too little that's universal to all conscious beings for any common foundation to be built on it. Also, if you really believe people don't worry about ethics when they're starving, you've clearly never been someone's guest in a poor country. Many people will provide guests with food and shelter even when it means going hungry themselves, because that's accepted behaviour in their society. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that poor people, on the whole, are more generous than wealthy people. (If I were a more cynical man than I am, I'd say that's why they're poor.) AM, I'm familiar with the ideas of Hobbes. I don't disagree with them as such. There's still the fact that in practice, individuals can and do benefit from transgressing the moral codes of their society; any moral system leads to everyone ignoring the parts they don't like to the extent that they can get away with doing so. For most people, this is only perceived as a problem if others seem to be getting away with more than they do. [ Friday, October 08, 2004 07:05: Message edited by: Prince Albert in a Can ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 07:25
Profile
Are we distinguishing morals from laws? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 07:32
Profile
Homepage
Toast- Some people have ethics while starving. (Not doing an individual example here, suffice it to say that ALL societies have their own morays) Some people believe that it is ethical to oppress. (Plato being an example of this) You, for instance, oppress your wang with your fist. E. Durkheim, bitch. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 07:35
Profile
Homepage
Well, AM, I don't know about you, but I am. Clearly, not all morals are "laws" in the sense in which that word is normally applied, in that, say, telling lies isn't likely to get you brought before a court. Likewise, not all laws are morals, or at least not morals of the societies to which they apply; this is clearly shown by the fact that many obscure or obsolete laws exist about which the vast majority of people neither know nor care, yet which are still technically applicable. A social contract isn't a magic wand for carrying out the current will of the people at all times. [ Friday, October 08, 2004 07:38: Message edited by: Prince Albert in a Can ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 07:39
Profile
I think that you interpreted what I'm saying here wrongly quote:My explanation here was very over-simplistic. There are obviously complications. Parts of what I said there were within the context "If there is a God" but I was not trying to assert that there is a god, nor is this the "god" that I believe in. (Though I do believe there is a God) Also only you can decide when you are satisfied. quote:I don't know what "poor, nasty, brutish, and short" was a reference to if not him. Yes I know knowing that phrase does not really mean that I've read the book(Though I have read most of it) but it was supposed to convey that this was somewhat a rephrasing of some of his simpler ideas. Has anyone else read C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity ? The first two chapters deal extensivly with this subject and are rather interesting. His proof makes some sense but any proof of that kind is bound to be kinda vague.... The material that he uses for the proof however is interesting I think. Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 08:07
Profile
TM it is an interesting idea to say that it is ethical to oppress people. What a nice idea. Plato's republic is very similar to a fascist state. It is broken down by caste. Most caste systems are falling to pieces right now. They have proven to be not very effective in a modern setting. Plato seems to love the Spartans who are remembered for their military victories and system of brutalizing their slaves the helots and little else. Xenophon the other little remembered disciple of Plato often makes more sense than Socrates. Generosity and helping people does not make a moral system. People who are on the edge of starvation in my opinion are not being treated ethically. There simply is not much time for philosophy if you work 15 hours a day in the fields. Prince Albert In A Can-- those examples are kind of strange-- for the most part you are talking about people who have chosen to marginalize themselves from society, or are marginalized because of their mental conditions. Thus they are actively trying to separate themselves from the majority of society's ethics. In general my point is focused on "society", not marginalized individuals. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 08:14
Profile
Thuryl, as I understood it, was stating his issues with universal morality, and divinely-inspired morality in particular, not moral systems that are formed by social consensus. The former would have to work for everybody to make sense; the latter exists as a concept precisely because the former is so elusive. Nonetheless, your implication that the mentally ill have no place in society is just heartwarming. As for TM, you should read posts more carefully before you reply to them. I don't see how you can interpret what he said as being pro-Plato or pro-oppression. Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 08:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:An absolute, universal morality is not absolute or universal unless it applies to all people. I mean, most Americans think it's wrong to eat dogs. In general, it's morally wrong to eat dogs in the United States. On the other hand, dog was and continues to be a delicacy in Korea, even after pressure from the West forced the (South) Korean government to ban it. Are the Koreans just a bunch of immoral bastards? [ Friday, October 08, 2004 08:21: Message edited by: Andrea ] -------------------- I've got a pyg in a poke. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 08:36
Profile
There can never be a universal morality which everyone will agree to. The point is that moral relativism is limited. You will always be able to come up with aberrations-- a tribe that eats parts of its grandparents in the death bed ceremony to remember them, koreans eating dogs, etc. Moral relativism leads to the idea of amorality being acceptable. Which in my opinion is dangerous. A kind of moral numbness. Amoral-- 1) Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral. 2) Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 08:42
Profile
But the different "local moralities" are not just quaint variations on the same basic theme. True, many of them agree on a number of things, but there are many crucial differences between some major moral systems. And even within a society, there can be disagreements between sizeable segments of the population about whether certain actions are moral or not. Abortion is the obvious example for America, and capital punishment is another good one. Moral relativism might be dangerous, but it's the only philosophy that makes sense. And if the events of the last three years have taught us anything, it's that moral absolutism is far, far worse. Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 09:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:Acceptable to who? Who says that moral relativism means that you have to agree with the morality of others? Just because some Americans consider it moral to execute criminals doesn't means that I have to accept it. You're basically saying that moral relativism is bad because it isn't moral absolutism. -------------------- I've got a pyg in a poke. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 10:18
Profile
It is very easy to be polarized neither moral relativism, nor moral absolutism is particularly acceptable. It is very easy to manipulate people when they swing too far in either direction. There is such a thing as moderation. A lot of Americans have forgotten this especially with this weird election going on and the terrorist fanatics blowing things up. Anyways, I think I'll stop my mental wanging for the moment. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 10:44
Profile
Homepage
"Morality" hinges on the desire to be a "good" person, or at least to be so perceived. It is basically an exercise in selfishness, as Thuryl pointed out: do the morally right thing (or don't do the morally wrong thing) and you'll get accolades, a pat on the back, or maybe just a release of chemicals in your brain that feel pretty neat. With enough conditioning, I am sure you convince anyone that anything is moral. So where do the origins of our various codes come from? I would say that they're all from the same set of rules that govern herd life for less intelligent species. We do what we do because we want to mate and pass on our genes, and certain codified behavior makes one more socially acceptable and thus more likely to succeed in procreation. Most of these behaviors are either good for the individual, good for a group (herd behavior) or neutral. In short, morality is something imposed by natural selection. Those with a predisposition toward doing things that make the group more likely to survive are, well, more likely to survive and pass on that predilection. The fact that morality has gotten caught up in absurdities because we are thinking and thus stupid creatures doesn't change the basic core of ethics. —Alorael, who realizes this is a rather unpleasant view of morals. However, since everyone is so well-programmed, it's unlikely to change anyone's behavior now. Besides, there are all kinds of safeguards in place to ensure that psychotic mass-murders and/or raging boors are dealt with appropriately. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 10:56
Profile
Within the context of moral relativism why would somebody care if something is done to somebody else. Say I take Alo's computer, and Alo comes and snipes me, why would anyone unconnected with myself (so not people who actually know me and enjoy being around me) pursue him in an attempt to get justice? This seems unselfish. Admittedly maybe they are just trying to make sure that it doesn't happen to them, but they aren't going to go and steal a dangerous person's computer provoking his wrath. I deserved my fate for what I did? Didn't I? (No I'm not asking for personal opinions on myself :) .) Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |