Purpose of ethics

[Ichthus91]

What is the purpose of ethics to an individual (not to society or a group)? If punishment is circumventable; Why should we follow them? What standard set of ethics have we chosen or have we made our own changeable set? Is society (or any social group), law, parental regulations, or religion necessary to provide one with a certain standard?

[nerdfiles]

Originally Posted by Ichthus91

What is the purpose of ethics to an individual (not to society or a group)?

Ethics today is concerned with the determination of morally obligatory, morally permissible and morally impermissible action.

Meta-ethics is largely concerned with the theoretical underpinning of moral worth, the broad class of what falls under the category of "the moral".

Virtue ethics is some fluffy stuff about the conditions for moral identity and character within a community. It's largely concerned with our moral vocabulary and the conditions necessary to apply said vocabulary to individuals (for the successful application implies virtues relative to the individual).

If punishment is circumventable; Why should we follow them?

Too broad. Make the question more precise.

What standard set of ethics have we chosen or have we made our own changeable set?

Too broad. Make the question more precise.

Is society (or any social group), law, parental regulations, or religion necessary to provide one with a certain standard?

Too broad. Societies are a culmination of norms, standards and forms of life. A standard "unto oneself" would be a pretty uninteresting "standard" if not an outright abuse of the concept. So yes, societies are necessary for standards. But this is a chicken-egg scenario. Societies are the contours for standards and norms. A society is a collection of correct or incorrect behavior.

Sounds like a paper topic.

See: Personal Identity and Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by Ichthus91

What is the purpose of ethics to an individual (not to society or a group)? If punishment is circumventable; Why should we follow them? What standard set of ethics have we chosen or have we made our own changeable set? Is society (or any social group), law, parental regulations, or religion necessary to provide one with a certain standard?

I believe that the purpose or meaning of ethics is how one should conduct themselves in order to achieve the ultimate good in life, not only for themselves but also for others. One cannot treat people one way and expect to be treated in another way by other people.

I don't believe that law, parental regulations, or religion is necessary to provide one with a certain standard of how to live, though parental guidance is very important for the moral development of a child.

[nerdfiles]

Originally Posted by hue-man

One cannot treat people one way and expect to be treated in another way by other people.

In what sense do you mean "cannot"? It seems psychologically inevitable that we will engage in this sort of behavior. If you mean there's some kind of psychological or physical limitation which prevents us from doing such a thing, your claim is patently false. We engage in such behavior all the time.

Do you mean "should not"? If so, why shouldn't we?

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by nerdfiles

In what sense do you mean "cannot"? It seems psychologically inevitable that we will engage in this sort of behavior. If you mean there's some kind of psychological or physical limitation which prevents us from doing such a thing, your claim is patently false. We engage in such behavior all the time.

Do you mean "should not"? If so, why shouldn't we?

Of course I don't mean that we literally cannot behave or think this way. I'm saying that it is irrational to think this way, and so we should not. You read into that too much.

[nerdfiles]

Originally Posted by hue-man

Of course I don't mean that we literally cannot behave or think this way. I'm saying that it is irrational to think this way, and so we should not. You read into that too much.

What makes it irrational? And, again, as you did not answer my question, in what sense do you mean "cannot"?

What is the relation between "irrationality" or something's being "irrational" and this "cannot" you speak of.

Are you saying we cannot be irrational? Surely we can be irrational.

These are your words; I'm only reading them. Reading it them is not reading too much into it. Reading it at all is not the same as reading too much into it. So let's can the accusations, and get to the philosophical.

If you don't literally mean that then say what it is that you literally mean.

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by nerdfiles

What makes it irrational? And, again, as you did not answer my question, in what sense do you mean "cannot"?

What is the relation between "irrationality" or something's being "irrational" and this "cannot" you speak of.

Are you saying we cannot be irrational? Surely we can be irrational.

These are your words; I'm only reading them. Reading it them is not reading too much into it. Reading it at all is not the same as reading too much into it. So let's can the accusations, and get to the philosophical.

If you don't literally mean that then say what it is that you literally mean.

I seem to have offended you, which was not my intent. Don't be so sensitive. I'm just saying that I obviously don't mean that we literally cannot think in that way. You, like me, are a philosopher, and some of us tend to question every minute detail of a statement. It's the habitual tendency to deduct every single thing someone says. Sometimes it is warranted, but sometimes it unnecessary. I didn't mean anything by it.

I don't think that you read into my last post nearly enough. My response was that by cannot I meant that we should not, because it is irrational. How rational does it sound to punch someone in the face and expect the person to smile and give you a kiss afterward?

[nerdfiles]

Halt. I am not "offended." I am being critical. Can the ad hominem and focus on the philosophical. Do not confuse spice for being offended.

This time I don't think that you read into my post nearly enough. My response was that by cannot I meant that we should not, because it is irrational. How rational does it sound to punch someone in the face and expect the person to smile and give you a kiss afterward?

Surely I read your post nearly enough when I first made the distinction between "should not" and "cannot" wherein I asked you to clarify why we should not. I asked the question first, so if your basis for saying that I did not read closely or understand properly enough is that I did not understand that you meant "should not," then perhaps you should re-read my post.

So, onto your justification.

Is "punching in the face" anything like "not tending to one's presumed moral obligation"? One can say "there's nothing moral about punching someone in the face, and if that person deserves to be punched in the face, then that person got what's coming to him. Certainly, I wouldn't expect this person to smile at me, for whatever it is that warranted my punching implies that he'd have no reason to smile at me before the fact of my punching him."

But even then, how is your example representative of all of rationality?

People might act in a morally wrong way and expect to be held blameworthy for such action, but what has rationality to do with this? I do not think that by lying or making a false promise or cheating my friends that I have done something irrational. Indeed, it took a great deal of rationality on my part to outsmart them! What then would make my lying irrational if it took some keen rationality to get my lying off the ground in the first place?

[Joe]

Humility is a good thing.

[YumClock]

It's not a good idea to tell someone not to feel something.
This is the main reason girls think their boyfriends are insensitive.
"Why do you take it that way?"
"Do not confuse being (whatever) with being (whatever else)."
"Don't be so sensitive."
And so on. That comment alone likely sparked the little rivalry you two have with each other.