Be honest... ethics

Post Reply New Topic

I've gotten into a sh*tstorm over a breach of conventional ethics over on L&D. So tell me, what do you think ethics means?

I agree with this one "Whether something is wrong depends on whether it harms others."

If there is no harm how can it be wrong?

Ethics (n): a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

Morality (n): the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

It's all based on the concepts of "right" and "wrong", or "Good" and "Evil".

Who decides what is "Good" and what is "Evil"? THAT is the question to ask.

You forgot the option 'none of the above'

As far as I'm concerned, there is no 'outside source' of ethics or morality. It is my own set of right and wrong. Some are the things my parents taught me, some are things I have come up with on my own. I try to conduct myself the way I wish other people behaved towards me.
Since I don't like being lied to, cheated on, stolen from, abused, taken for granted, etc, I do not do that to others. To me it does not matter if I am 'found out' or not, a lie is a lie regardless if the other person know the truth or not.
It's the way I choose to live my life, and I don't expect anyone else to do the same, unless we have agreed on certain terms.

Morals and ethics are not the same. One is secular and the other usually comes from a religious set of rules or beliefs or societal standards. So in ethics sex is not ever morally wrong but rape is ethically wrong. However in various moral codes sex except for in certain instances could be morally wrong. Ethics is a philosophy that it is possible to come up with not rules but agree on if an individual action is ethical or not. This is usually determined on if it could harm another being either physically or emotionally or both but allows harming someone if it's necessary for the greater good as being "ethical." In fact in a given moral code which is a set of rules something could be considered moral but yet still not be ethical. And also conversely it could be considered ethical but in a given moral code immoral.

For example polyamory if all people involved are open and honest is completely ethical but mainstream society and many religions consider it immoral. However "cheating" on a romantic partner is considered unethical and immoral.

That poll *really* would be better if an "Other" option was included.

Anyway, my view is that objective morality/ethics is not subject to scientific enquiry, as it is not falsifiable. In other words, morality cannot progress beyond the scope of opinion (subjective morality).

So - despite its face validity - even the claim "Justin Bieber Sucks!" holds no objective truth value. It may be true that the person making the claim really believes this (falsifiable, although very difficult to test), but unless we are making some falsifiable factual statement about Justin Bieber (for instance, if he is/was performing fellatio) even this claim can be countered by the almighty...: "I disagree".

You don't seem to recognize that it is all about what the people involved in the situation decide, not what various people outside the situation. You may have one poly-group that accept any and every physical and emotional relations, and another that have strict rules as to who may or may not join as partner(s) to the existing members of the group. In successful poly-relationships, there is a very open and honest communication about how to handle these things. They never ask if it's cheating if they can do it without the other person(s) finding out, because they would have already discussed it and know the awnser.

Morality dictates that murder is wrong.
What about self-defense?
What about accidents, or acts of war?
Which is worse: To execute a man who has murdered 39 children, or to keep him caged up like an animal until he kills himself or dies from loneliness?

Morality dictates that lying is wrong.
What about exaggeration or embellishment?
What about sincerely believing that something is true when "everyone else" knows that it's a lie?
Which is worse: Lying to avoid prosecution, or lying to frame someone else for a crime?

Morality dictates that theft is wrong.
What about stealing food to avoid starvation?
What about stealing guns or tools that a criminal uses in carrying out his crimes?
What about stealing booze from an alcoholic, or cocaine from a junkie?
Which is worse: Stealing a few coins from an honest businessman, or stealing millions of dollars from a drug kingpin?

Morality is based on convention, not on fact. And morality in no way flows from the natural laws of the cosmos.

ruveyn

Yeah, I'm going to agree with the other category for this.

I mean, as a matter of language something we could call "ethics" exists. What we call ethics is not likely just a matter of our social conventions as similar conventions exist in multiple societies and ethical learning is primed suggesting some degree of evolutionary root. My feeling is that core ethics is a matter of a set of evolved psychological frameworks that are broadly shared, but where variances exist, and that these ideas are both ultimately social and contested.

So, because moral claims are full of the need for moral agreement within communities, they aren't purely individual so it's not like each individual should be treated as having a wholly unique moral code. Because moral claims are cross-societal, it is not as if the moral claims of an individual society should be treated as basic in and of itself. Because moral claims are known by how they are binding on a psychological level, where even proclaimed moral nihilists still feel bound by moral behavior, we should not treat these issues as dismissible(which I think stands against nihilism). Because there is an odd specificity to the moral character of different societies and different people, it is not clear that morality should be treated as perfectly universal/transcendent.

And as such I think an odd "other" category exists. Large sets of moral claims are intersubjective(moral teaching, institutions are bound by morality, moral discussion and agreement, etc). Some elements of it are expressed in a largely subjective manner(morality binds individuals, individual variation exists, an individual's moral beliefs can clash with that of a community). And some aspects are expressed in a way that captures the majority of the members of our species(most societies have some similarity in rules, the basis of these rules appears to be moral, moral learning appears primed as the category would not even exist without an evolutionary history).

I like to look at obvious examples of being Unethical and Immoral.

Being unethical leads to abuse of power, privilege, or other people as well as willful neglect of responsibilities. Usually this leads to a path of self destruction. There are exception though such as being a Totalitarian dictator. Still, the result is a ruined nation. A Mafia Don might be a 50/50 mix by exploiting businesses but also treating Family and other Gangsters with respect. I think when Crime Families become entirely unethical to each other they start assassinating each other. One more example would be a scandal like Enron that seemed to enrich everyone involved until it all fell apart causing massive financial ruin.

Immorality is more vague to me. I think it could argued that being Immoral is wrapped up in emotions really. I think you could be Ethical with other people by being honest, but still be rude to them or using foul language while discussing a sensitive topic so arguably being immoral. I suppose substance abuse or being promiscuous is considered immoral, but generally only affects the individual doing it. They may even be Ethical if they're open about their behavior and do not deceive their partners if they have a STD.

I'd say the most important one to consider is Ethics. I don't think it's a Divine Law, but I do think Scientific or even Philosophical inquiry into it is very reasonable. Bad Ethics naturally creates a bad environment for oneself with an ever increasing chance of blowback.

Unfortunately, being Immoral can do lead to bad consequences because certain victomless behaviors are crimes. It could be said that being drunk all the time and smoking like a chimney to the extent it is self abuse is immoral, but that is still legal. However, some marijuana or other drugs will land you in prison.

I believe in an absolute moral lawgiver and proper "ethics" are based on that, but the vast majority of society holds what's "ethical" on what the cultural norms are and even then it's the ones who make the rules who decide what is "ethical."

Morality from belief is subjective.

Subjective belief leads to act such as slavery, subjugation of women, and the murder and exploitation of children.

I´d say: "Whether something is wrong depends on whether it has to harm others."

I mean I am sorry, but if someone thinks, he needs to be hurt, because of me wearing pink trousers or other nonsense, that he forces himself to believe in, that he must be hurtened by that, its not my responsibility for someone else choosing to be hurt about such nonsense.

Something's truly wrong if someone else is harmed by it. Thieves and murderers do harm to others. Having sex with any other consenting adult, or belief in a particular theology, etc. hardly hurts anyone else, despite the disapproval of certain segments of society.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I believe morality stems from our early tribal ancestors forming fledgling societies. A community that tolerates murder won't survive, nor will one in which the population lies to others more than not, steals profusely, etc. In our modern day, we extrapolate from that and make moral judgements informed by those initial set of necessary ethics for a society to thrive. Religious morality usually incorporates these ethics, but also add their own that don't take, universally (and are often not even adhered to by much of the devout).