My New View of Ethics

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

First off, to rationally look at ethics you need to ask what does "rational" mean. I have come to believe that rationality means fitting in with your culture in a certain way. Thus, looking at ethics from a rational point of view mean that one looks at ethics from the perspective of fitting in with one's own culture. Therefore, ethics are largely based upon the society examining them. In this light all ethics are rational if they are indented to help people fit within their society.

Sir; consider this: If ethics are built upon emotion does it not seem as senseless to be rational in regard to that which involves all the emotions as it is to regard a single emotion such as hate, or love with reason? You see it all the time, and it is too common to have people try to disect love and mount bits of it on microscpe slides only to look foolish in the process. One can try to look at ethics, or patriotism, esprit de corp, or love -without passion, but few know an emotion until they feel it and emotion is never without passion. So; no matter how we try, if we recognize an emotion at all it is because we have been in that state, and to be honest, every emotion carries a load of subjectivity. For example: I don't know what you are feeling even if you tell me, and an emotion with a common name is anything but common; but is always unique to the individual. And if ethics is a conceptual manifold built upon many common emotions we can still only rationalize it in the most off hand and general fashion. We have to gossip about it like a friend not present, and share our impressions. Thanks

[Khethil]

Very good discussion

Proper ethics are based on being compatible with the applicable culture or they're proper because they fit 'productive' or 'proper' behavior at large?

I'm curious where this is going. Good poop though...

For my part, I've come to the conclusion that what I proport as being "ethical" would necessarily have to apply to all people, everywhere. Yes, there are *large* cultural differences that we can't ignore, but my sights are set on the Holy Grail of Ethics: A standard all humans can aspire to with the basis being what's best for humans (only those things we all share in common). I'm not sure this exists, but to me its a work in progress and the search goes on.

And... because I couldn't resist using the new emoticons I thought this would be approriate:

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Khethil

For my part, I've come to the conclusion that what I proport as being "ethical" would necessarily have to apply to all people, everywhere. Yes, there are *large* cultural differences that we can't ignore, but my sights are set on the Holy Grail of Ethics: A standard all humans can aspire to with the basis being what's best for humans (only those things we all share in common). I'm not sure this exists, but to me its a work in progress and the search goes on.

You really cannot apply what is ethical to all people everywhere due to rationality. For example, it was once rational to think that universe revolves around the earth because at the time the observations rationally supported the argument. Nowadays, it is considered irrational to think the universe revolves around the earth, because the earth is not at the center of the universe. Much in the same way, what was once ethical may no longer be so due to people learning what was once thought to be good, no longer is. Therefore, ethics cannot be universal if they are to be rational because you cannot decide right and wrong independent from society and the individuals living in the society.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

You really cannot apply what is ethical to all people everywhere due to rationality. For example, it was once rational to think that universe revolves around the earth because at the time the observations rationally supported the argument. Nowadays, it is considered irrational to think the universe revolves around the earth, because the earth is not at the center of the universe. Much in the same way, what was once ethical may no longer be so due to people learning what was once thought to be good, no longer is. Therefore, ethics cannot be universal if they are to be rational because you cannot decide right and wrong independent from society and the individuals living in the society.

What is ethical really only applies to ones own community. The standard of behavior between ones own and all others is entirely different. That is one reason laws attend the growth of civilizations and nation states. But; if we can see each other as human, morality does not forbid so much negative behavior as it encourages positive behavior. If savages seem savage in modern memory it is because they saw strangers as only another form of dangerous animal. We only rarely accept such a view, but look what happens to people on death row who have demonstrated that they are animals, vicious, and clearly inhuman. We kill them with little thought. And, the unfortunate fact is that nation states begin in a spirit of humanity, and equality; but soon, parasites emerge who use the peace of law as a cover to destroy the body politic and the natural union of the people for a measely profit. Clearly they think they are better, chosen, or entitled. The easily acceptible fact is, that if it is bad to exploit family out of all their rights and property it is also wrong to exploit fellow citizens, and all the more so when it is known how much injustice has contributed to war and revolution. thanks

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

You really cannot apply what is ethical to all people everywhere due to rationality.

Are you asserting that individual ethics *should* be defined by society, or that they simply *are* defined by societies? 'Tis a big difference - there is "What is"... and there is our notions of "What should be".

While it is true that different societies and cultures define their own 'ethics' through taboos, mores, religion and laws, we're all 'human'; and to me, the very best set of individual ethics is one that whose basis is that commonality. To me, the nature of successful interaction between peoples of radically different cultures and ideals must necessarily have a common theme. What better than what we consider 'good' for our species? (which is another can o worms)

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Fido

And, the unfortunate fact is that nation states begin in a spirit of humanity, and equality; but soon, parasites emerge who use the peace of law as a cover to destroy the body politic and the natural union of the people for a measely profit. Clearly they think they are better, chosen, or entitled.

I've been thinking much about this lately. One of the series of historical compilations I've been reading* lead me through a good smattering of the source documents on which the U.S. Constitution was built. The principles are - to me - VERY insightful, very well thought out and were a product of most-excellent debate and forethought. When I see the lines of thought on which it was built and compare it to how it is *today*, I can't help but wonder 'what happened'.

Fido hit on a great point here; the difference between the design of human conduct and how it morphs over time into something else. This would be good to flesh out in another topic.


-----------------
* Great Works of the Western World

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Are you asserting that individual ethics *should* be defined by society, or that they simply *are* defined by societies? 'Tis a big difference - there is "What is"... and there is our notions of "What should be".

While it is true that different societies and cultures define their own 'ethics' through taboos, mores, religion and laws, we're all 'human'; and to me, the very best set of individual ethics is one that whose basis is that commonality. To me, the nature of successful interaction between peoples of radically different cultures and ideals must necessarily have a common theme. What better than what we consider 'good' for our species? (which is another can o worms)

I think ethics are defined by society. What should be is the way that ethics should be viewed with in a society rather than what is because the former implies adaptability and the latter implies absolutes. Things change overtime within society so ethical doctrines should as well.

The larger the community the less specific ethics can be. I do agree that there needs to be some sort of common ground from which all of human society can agree to simple ethical principles due to universality, but trying to govern right and wrong at the species level is near impossible.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Are you asserting that individual ethics *should* be defined by society, or that they simply *are* defined by societies? 'Tis a big difference - there is "What is"... and there is our notions of "What should be".

While it is true that different societies and cultures define their own 'ethics' through taboos, mores, religion and laws, we're all 'human'; and to me, the very best set of individual ethics is one that whose basis is that commonality. To me, the nature of successful interaction between peoples of radically different cultures and ideals must necessarily have a common theme. What better than what we consider 'good' for our species? (which is another can o worms)

If I can hit at this; to try to rationally consider ethics may shed some light on the subject, but at its beginning, ethics is based upon an emotional connectedness with people. Ethics may reflect the character or the customs of ones people; but it is the feeling one has for ones people, and in the modern age, for all people that determines what a person's ethics are. It is never a question of what a person should do in a hypothetical situation that defines them ethically, because people are never in hypothetical situtations, but in real situations. In real situations, people behave according to who they are and not what they say they think. Then, the more important questions to ask is whether one is optimistic, or pessimistic, or whether they love humanity, or dispise them. I see those who truly love others as forever being ethical in their relationships, and those who are pessimistic proving their philosophy with their every action or inaction. And I say this knowing I am often percieved as pessimistic; but I am not. Rather, I accept that knowledge is virtue, and that people are only as good as they know to be, and that ignorance is a greater curse to humanity than death. If we should do unto others as we would have them do to us, we should first know what good we seek so we can deliver the same to others.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Fido

If I can hit at this; to try to rationally consider ethics may shed some light on the subject, but at its beginning, ethics is based upon an emotional connectedness with people.

I think you're spot-on with this; it's an excellent overtone that I've not seen addressed much. Compassion, respect, consideration... all those aspects of what we consider ethical have, lying at their base, emotional connectedness. Very nice

Originally Posted by Fido

I see those who truly love others as forever being ethical in their relationships, and those who are pessimistic proving their philosophy with their every action or inaction.

Very pragmatic view; it takes appreciation and application of ethics out of the lofty, theorizing quagmire and puts it into real-life.

Good insights, thank you.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by threebobs

threebobs post deleted!

What ever it is; if it qualified, it is not what it was. Property Rights are not rights, Horse Chestnuts are not Chestnuts, Road Apples are not Apples, and Osage Oranges are not Oranges. Secular ethics are not ethics at all. Business ethics are not ethics. Religious ethic are not ethics. If you can limit ethical behavior to a certain group it is not ethcis, but an ethical argument made from a certain perspective. Now, for your benefit I will qualify my qualification. There are gold fish, and beagle dogs and each are respectively, fish and dog. Of Moral Qualities, where confusion is common, and the desire to fulfill ones social obligation is wanting, we should still remember that a concept is one single thing, even when camomflaged as something other. And it is possible to look at ethic as an obligation, but if we want anyone to behave ethically we have to give them the emotional satisfaction usually surrounding ethical behavior, in its natural state, of Family, and Community. Asking people to behave ethically with those outside of ones group is asking the impossible. If you want people ethical; expand the group, and give the feeling of unity. Some people have been in this country from the beginning, and have no more a sense of unity than before. New people come here everyday, and look at the larger population as so much prey, or cattle. To such people ethics will always be an abstract consideration. It is not abstract, but like all things, even moral things, it is concieved of by abstraction.