Ethics in a nutshell...

[dawoel]

One heres no end of "what Is ethics?" and endless debates over what one "should" do and why?, and "are these things objective or subjective?" and "can we even deceide all our actions anyway?" Naturally as the "idea" of ethics (not the ethics themselves obviously) is a human creation, summing up ethics is a difficult things to do as it has been created from conflicting sources...but I think aristotle was onto something when he went into "Virtue Ethics". I tend to use that in combination with biology and basic psychology to work out my ethical questions, and thus here is what I think ethics is in a nutshell:

"Ethics is an inescapable result of our being a social species, and you see it in almost all of the animal kingdom. It is, in its most basic sense a recognition that other creatures exist, and a self set or accepted set of rules to act accordingly. The purpose being, to floorish, in a social environment. For wolf packs have strict rules, the alpha male only has authority over other males, the females fall under the alpha female's guidance and vice versa, also it is only the alpha pair that are aloud to mate, and only each other. If a wolf breaks the rules, they can be assulted even killed or banished from the group. In order to floorish and prosper, a wolf must accept the rules of wolf society, to recognise that other wolves exist. Humans are similar, but with much more complicated rules. Some of our rules are enforced more than others, the most serious being called "laws". Laws are in place to make sure everyone plays "fair", so that nobody takes advantage of each other, because if the human team or society is to prosper, we need to work togethar and that cannot be done if we are raping, stealing from and murdering each other. However, law only covers the rules of mere practical ethics, the more personal kind is largely left to individuals. For example, adultery is not illegal (at least in my country) because it isn't totally impractical for all society to have it around, I would however still call it immoral (unless its consentual), and that is because of a lack of virtue.
Virtues are the tools we utilise in order to apply our actions around others for the best results. So virtues like compassion, generosity, courage, happiness, loyalty etc, these all go down well in a social environment, and if someone deliberately ignores them they end up shuned, possibly assulted and even killed, just like with wolves. What can also result in this is if the moral agent utilises too much of any one virtue. Too little courage is cowardice, but too much is fool hardiness. Too little generosity is greedy, but too much can be suffocating. Too little compassion is callous, but too much is masochistic, too little loyalty is selfish, but too much is sycophantic...etc In order to get the best results and to make the most people happy one must find a balance of all one's virtues and be accepted as an "all-round-decent-human-being". Now none of this, has anything to do with "moral worthiness" which is non-existent in my opinion. People do moral or immoral (or amoral) acts because of their genetic profile and their past environment, its not their fault. This doesn't change the fact that we should praise people to allow them to associate good behaviour with good results, and to punish people to associate bad behaviour with bad results for this is basic behaviour psychology, listen to Pavlov! Also the use of the word "should", should not be made out of context really (although I do it all the time). "Should" only really makes sense if you say "should IF", for example IF you want to succeed in x, then you "should" do y. "Should" means, this will make x most likely. So that is it, we need to work togethar because that is what humanity does, it forms societies and groups, but in order to work togethar we need to respect each other's needs and drives and compromise with each other, so to that end we invent systems of rules that allow us to do this, the rules we call values, and the psychological tools we use to reach these values, we call virtues.

[Exebeche]

Seems to be widely acceptable.
That's probably why there is no response.

[ValueRanger]

Yes, too much, too little, more or less, is The Golden Ratio of ethics.

[SpaceChimp007]

Originally Posted by dawoel

People do moral or immoral (or amoral) acts because of their genetic profile and their past environment, its not their fault.

(Hegel's spirit lives on...)

So do people have free will? If you say they don't, I would disagree.

If you think they do, yet still say maintain your position I don't understand. How can I have a choice in the matter, but not be responsible for making the choice?

[Fido]

Dawoel,... If any thing is a choice, immorality is...Morality is something most of us are unconscious of...At some point in our lives all of us have to prove we are people apart from the crowd, and so we do that most heroic of actions: we crap on morality...Why this individualism is thought to be individualistic when every one at some point does it is a question beyond answer...I guess when we think we are being bad we feel all alone in the world... OOooo look at me...I am stealing a chicken.... What man ever has been so daring???At some point we all join society, and it is always for the same reason...Morality is natural...We do not really have to think about it...Immorality consumes our thoughts...

---------- Post added 07-10-2009 at 11:13 PM ----------

Originally Posted by ValueRanger

Yes, too much, too little, more or less, is The Golden Ratio of ethics.

It is all or nothing...No one can be a little bit immoral...If you will steal a dime you will steal a million, and if you will steal a million you will steal a dime... If you ever reach a point where you think you are going too far, you know you have already... I find that the moment I justify I am ready to cross a line...I don't bother...If it were right it would justify itself... If it is unjust, then I must justify it...Immorality is more work, especially when we realize that it injures society when society gave us life, and which all moral people will give their lives to...Consider what I say of justification... We can rationalize immorality... Morality is irrational, and cannot be fully rationalized.... What does it take to sacrifice for ones community, or for others???It feels right, but no part of it can be justified from the point of view of the individual... That is why outlaws are our heroes in this land of individualism... They are out for themselves...They take until they break...They can justify what they do, and cannot grasp why the average man does it his way, the way of society..

[ValueRanger]

Originally Posted by Fido

It is all or nothing

Like a hierarchy of needs at any point in space and time, each has priori values in momentum.

A may be at level 1 or 2 of a black and white, life or death decision, while B may be at level 5 or 6 aesthetic (lesser need), listening to Bach.

The over exapansion of value sets dilutes the species and accelerates entropy, while the opposite is also true: the over contraction, such as limiting your choices to fight-or-flight states, equally accelerates entropy.

The sustainable human lies in the eloquent sequitur and the layered need (causality) at hand.

Can you identify Prime Mover, twice, thrice, etc., removed trajectories from this point? Or is an internet forum too far removed from more intimate interaction that our species has so successfully evolved on?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by ValueRanger

Like a hierarchy of needs at any point in space and time, each has priori values in momentum.

A may be at level 1 or 2 of a black and white, life or death decision, while B may be at level 5 or 6 aesthetic (lesser need), listening to Bach.

The over exapansion of value sets dilutes the species and accelerates entropy, while the opposite is also true: the over contraction, such as limiting your choices to fight-or-flight states, equally accelerates entropy.

The sustainable human lies in the eloquent sequitur and the layered need (causality) at hand.

Can you identify Prime Mover, twice, thrice, etc., removed trajectories from this point? Or is an internet forum too far removed from more intimate interaction that our species has so successfully evolved on?

You are missing my point... When I was younger, perhaps thirty years ago, A black man jumped in the Grand river, and began to drown... Now; I am not black, and I did not know the man, and I knew from experience that the river was dirty, more dirty than the straits where I learned to swim... But when that man began to drown, and it became certain that he would drown without my help, I went into that river and helped to save his life...I might have judged him without knowing him and found him guilty... I judged him, and found him human, and I could not watch him die doing nothing, and though I came near to dying myself, still I, and another man saved that Individual... In another age if that man had been one of mine, my clan, or my nation; then I may have given my all, and if he were of another group, then left him to his fate...There is a story from my home of a race to the island in which the white's boat heeled too far over and sank... The natives kept on and then looked for their prize... The families of the dead white wanted to lynch the natives... How could they win the race with the whites in their canoes??? In fact, some peoples even in Europe believed it was bad luck to save the drowning, that the waters take who they will and the sooner fed the sooner the rest are safe...

If you take my point, society however it is conceived is a circle with two sides, inside and out...Primitives were very conscious of this dicotomy... The near and the far, the high and the low...The line enclosing their society divided them from all the animals...Now, we do not consider the criminal is such a fashion; yet the police and others are free to brutalize the criminal, worse than one would treat any domestic animal without charges...It was once true in nearly modern Europe that anyone could kill an outlaw with impunity....That was one danger of excommunication, that if not otherwise brought to justice, the criminal could be killed by anyone...

Yet; as an expression of individuality there is nothing better than crime...Since moral behavior is unconscious for the most part it cannot be proof of free will... Yet, if morality is practiced consciously as part of a conscious life; then it is evidence of free will..When people are truly anti social, or when they are convinced individualists, or self possessed essholes; then immorality become natural, and unconscious, and not proof of any will of any sort...

[ValueRanger]

Yes, visceral action is contained in the rational set.

Just how far apart can you make any bridgeable points?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by ValueRanger

Yes, visceral action is contained in the rational set.

Just how far apart can you make any bridgeable points?

Morality is not rational... No moral concept is rational...Physical concepts are rational... Can people find a reason to act morally??? Yes; but then they are acting rationally, and not morally as morality is found, naturally...Knowledge is not virtue...Knowledge is knowledge... We can know why people act morally and yet never be able to teach it; and the reason is that irrational behavior can be learned, but never systemitized; so not taught in a step by step fashion... When morality is learned is when a child is essentially too young for rational thought, when he, or she identifies with parents and siblings, and has no distinct self identity... Morality is emotional...You have to feel it... Immorality is always a rational affair, and for that reason is always justified...The really striking acts of morality, say, of laying down ones life for another are never justifiied from the perspective of the individual...Either reason has to give, or the sense of self must give for people to be moral since morality means sacrifice...

[ValueRanger]

Originally Posted by Fido

Morality is not rational... No moral concept is rational...Physical concepts are rational... Can people find a reason to act morally??? Yes; but then they are acting rationally, and not morally as morality is found, naturally...Knowledge is not virtue...Knowledge is knowledge... We can know why people act morally and yet never be able to teach it; and the reason is that irrational behavior can be learned, but never systemitized; so not taught in a step by step fashion... When morality is learned is when a child is essentially too young for rational thought, when he, or she identifies with parents and siblings, and has no distinct self identity... Morality is emotional...You have to feel it... Immorality is always a rational affair, and for that reason is always justified...The really striking acts of morality, say, of laying down ones life for another are never justifiied from the perspective of the individual...Either reason has to give, or the sense of self must give for people to be moral since morality means sacrifice...

In order for spacetime to persist, there must be bridgeable points. Logic and emotion are two singular balance.

Single~two, same~difference, and, the law of inverse proportion causes its equal and opposite action: dual-to-mono.

Is 1.618 a consistent equation?