Best Theory of Ethics?

[FireDragon76]

They seem to forget that Jesus said, "You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye,' but I say to you...." I think he is clearly abrogating a command found numerous times in the OT. The most brutal form being, "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Deut. 19:21. Of course, some will do back flips trying to argue he isn't abrogating that command, but that (imo) is simply their tendency to treat the book as an idol, I mean as inerrant. But, that's just me.

Well, I don't think its necessarily abrogation, he just has a deeper vision into what Thich Nhat Hanh would call "the Ultimate Dimension", which makes the command to take an eye for an eye relative. It gives us justice, but it doesn't give us the source of life itself.

I accept Marcus Borg's notion about Jesus, that he was a wisdom teacher or sage that he had a mystical vision of the world, articulated within his cultural context, so alot of his ethics is driven by that vision. And that vision is at least shared by non-Christians that have sufficient wisdom traditions of their own.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've never seen anyone say that Jesus was Nietzchean, haha. Honestly, I only have a survey understanding of Nietzsche, so I'm not sure what you mean. I'm thinking 'Will to Power,' but I doubt that's what you're getting at.

Nietzsche, while he criticized Christianity, admired some things about Jesus, because he lived without resentment. So in some ways, Jesus has some "superman" qualities.

Jesus didn't mind bucking convention, and he wasn't particularly moralistic. That is what I mean by him being "Nietzschean". Nietzsche wasn't a proto-Nazi so much as just a guy that was tired of a society that was addicted to Protestant niceties but didn't really believe in it anymore.

 

[zippy2006]

What do you think is the best (most effective?) approach to ethics? There are generally three schools of normative ethical theories (taken from IEP article linked below):

1. Virtue Theories: Stress the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (e.g. Aristotle).

2. Duty Theories: Base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation (e.g. Kant).

3. Consequentialist Theories: Correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences (e.g. Bentham)

You may have another theory or approach in mind, or some combination. What is the best theory and why? What is wrong with the ones you didn't choose?

Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I think virtue ethics is foundational, but traditional Christian morality is a combination of all three, with virtue ethics being reflected in a focus on the natural and theological virtues and terminating in deification; deontology being reflected in law (divine, natural, and human), and consequentialist analyses being reflected in what is usually called proportionalism.

 

[public hermit]

I think virtue ethics is foundational, but traditional Christian morality is a combination of all three, with virtue ethics being reflected in a focus on the natural and theological virtues and terminating in deification; deontology being reflected in law (divine, natural, and human), and consequentialist analyses being reflected in what is usually called proportionalism.

That is such a helpful breakdown. Is that from your reflection on the topic, a teaching of the Catholic Church, or...? Is there a source that goes into detail that I can read?

 

[zippy2006]

That is such a helpful breakdown. Is that from your reflection on the topic, a teaching of the Catholic Church, or...? Is there a source that goes into detail that I can read?

Thanks. It's my own reflection, but I would say it is a broadly Catholic & Orthodox approach.

I can see virtue ethics in the OT wisdom literature, James' letter, Paul's focus on love and freedom, and much of Jesus' teaching (e.g. the beatitudes, "Good trees will bear good fruit"). Then you have the Greek and Roman literature on natural virtue along with Plato and Aristotle's treatment of truth and friendship and Aristotle's treatment of eudaimonia, all of which exercised a significant influence on Christianity. Other strands of virtue ethics would include Evagrius' eight evil thoughts which Cassian brought to the West and which eventually became the seven deadly sins (and were complemented by the seven lively virtues). The gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit are another example, in this case built on a biblical foundation but developed in the tradition. And again, deification or theosis is probably the most stark example. The entire Secunda Pars of Aquinas' Summa Theologiae is structured around virtue ethics, with the First Part giving the underlying structure and the Second Part giving the individual virtues and vices.

The idea of a more absolute deontological law is also deeply embedded in the Christian tradition, in the first place through Judaism and the Torah. The codification of Roman law has also had a big impact on the West, including Roman Catholic canon law. Aquinas offered a synthesis, attempting to interrelate the various kinds in his treatise on law (ST Ia IIae, Q. 90-108).

Consequentialism is in some ways the most obvious and ubiquitous form of moral reasoning, and can really be found anywhere and everywhere. "Proportionalism" (i.e. the proportion between good and evil effects) is just the Thomistic way of expressing the idea, but that term has found its way into Catholic moral discourse generally. Most would agree that unfettered consequentialism or proportionalism is erroneous.


So my own path has been to approach Catholicism through Thomism, but I don't think the combination of the three approaches is limited to either of these traditions. I don't know of a book that treats the interrelation of the three approaches in Christianity.

 

[public hermit]

I don't know of a single book that treats the interrelation of the three approaches in Christianity.

Thank you, very helpful. Maybe you should write that book. You certainly have a good grasp on how they interrelate within the tradition.

 

[zippy2006]

Thank you, very helpful. Maybe you should write that book. You certainly have a good grasp on how they interrelate within the tradition.

Haha... Thanks PH, that's kind of you. Maybe in 20 or 30 years.

I don't mean to derail your thread into the standard apologetics rut, but there was a token thread in the philosophy section a few years ago about the relation of objective morality to God's existence. I posted links to a semi-academic exchange on the issue (in this post). What's interesting is that you have Dennis Prager, a Jew, affirming the connection between objective morality and God's existence via duty ethics; Kenneth Kemp, a Catholic, denying the connection via virtue ethics; Robert Miller, a lawyer, admitting teleological virtue ethics but also affirming a higher divine law; and Adam Seagrave arguing that we should turn away from the ancient philosophers and towards the modern philosophers in our modern context. It's a pretty interesting mix of Judeo-Christian perspectives on a closely related topic, and the relation of virtue ethics to duty ethics is a central theme.

(Seagrave's follow-up essay can be found here.)

 

[public hermit]

Haha... Thanks PH, that's kind of you. Maybe in 20 or 30 years.

I don't mean to derail your thread into the standard apologetics rut, but there was a token thread in the philosophy section a few years ago about the relation of objective morality to God's existence. I posted links to a semi-academic exchange on the issue (in this post). What's interesting is that you have Dennis Prager, a Jew, affirming the connection between objective morality and God's existence via duty ethics; Kenneth Kemp, a Catholic, denying the connection via virtue ethics; Robert Miller, a lawyer, admitting teleological virtue ethics but also affirming a higher divine law; and Adam Seagrave arguing that we should turn away from the ancient philosophers and towards the modern philosophers in our modern context. It's a pretty interesting mix of Judeo-Christian perspectives on a closely related topic, and the relation of virtue ethics to duty ethics is a central theme.

(Seagrave's follow-up essay can be found here.)

That is a fascinating mix of perspectives between Prager, Kemp, and Miller. I do think the usual three categories are a bit wooden. They pick out real distinctions, for sure, but how we humans usually operate is not so clear cut. When I think of my own decision making process on ethical matters it can involve a mixture, as well.

Also, that was a wonderful discussion you all were having on the Philosophy forum. To bad we don't have a Philosophy forum anymore.

 

[public hermit]

Maybe in 20 or 30 years.

By the by, you must be young if you have that kind of time. For some reason, I thought you were old like me!

 

[magiani]

I think all are needed. Ultimately the habits are those hoe drives us most of the time so the first one is the one that we aim to.

The duty theorie helps while we are in the process of building this habits. But duty theorie can be very dangerous if it is not founded on eternal lows of ethics( look what Hitler did).

Consequentialist theorie is useful on a daily basis where we can learn from experience. We try different things and we get different results. For more complicated issues there are many outcomes possible however and in the most situations we can't know the outcome beforehand as we can't measure and know all the variables.

 

[public hermit]

I think all are needed. Ultimately the habits are those hoe drives us most of the time so the first one is the one that we aim to.

The duty theorie helps while we are in the process of building this habits. But duty theorie can be very dangerous if it is not founded on eternal lows of ethics( look what Hitler did).

Consequentialist theorie is useful on a daily basis where we can learn from experience. We try different things and we get different results. For more complicated issues there are many outcomes possible however and in the most situations we can't know the outcome beforehand as we can't measure and know all the variables.

Nicely done! This makes a lot of sense to me. Question: Where might one get an eternal law of ethics if, let's say, they don't accept some religious book as the source of said laws?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Theories of ethics are for post hoc justification.

 

[public hermit]

Theories of ethics are for post hoc justification.

Do you mean, people use these theories to justify their ethical choices after the fact?

 

[public hermit]

I'm a little surprised no one has voted for consequentialist ethics, yet. Maybe they have determined there is no beneficial outcome in voting?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do you mean, people use these theories to justify their ethical choices after the fact?

Yes. Well, if one refers to them at all. I think it is likely that if one is not responsible for an organization one rarely evaluates one's actions against a theory.

My company has mandatory ethics training. Of course, it is presented as if doing X is ethical. But, the truth is that as a government contractor we are responsible to the government to follow certain policies and to make sure our employees do as directed.

Too, the company has sexual harassment training. In my cynical moments, I think it is more because if there is a case, the company can say that it did all it could. ("Hey, we trained them.")

I would venture that most companys' policies are about avoiding lawsuits. I imagine some companies may make a choice to do the right thing--implement a policy that prevents their customers from harm. But, we do see many companies taking shortcuts because they thought they could get away with it.

But, I don't consult an ethical theory for interracting with my co-workers. I just try to treat them how I perceive they want to be treated (and learn and adjust). But, that's morals not ethics.

 

[public hermit]

Yes. Well, if one refers to them at all. I think it is likely that if one is not responsible for an organization one rarely evaluates one's actions against a theory.

My company has mandatory ethics training. Of course, it is presented as if doing X is ethical. But, the truth is that as a government contractor we are responsible to the government to follow certain policies and to make sure our employees do as directed.

Too, the company has sexual harassment training. In my cynical moments, I think it is more because if there is a case, the company can say that it did all it could. ("Hey, we trained them.")

I would venture that most companys' policies are about avoiding lawsuits. I imagine some companies may make a choice to do the right thing--implement a policy that prevents their customers from harm. But, we do see many companies taking shortcuts because they thought they could get away with it.

But, I don't consult an ethical theory for interracting with my co-workers. I just try to treat them how I perceive they want to be treated (and learn and adjust). But, that's morals not ethics.

I think I see what you're saying. As a government contractor myself, I agree that much of the mandatory ethical training we go through seems aimed at avoiding lawsuits, or to give the appearance of doing the "right thing."

I'm not sure I'm clear on the distinction between ethics and morals. I take "ethics," as it is often used, to mean a set of rules for guiding behavior and "morals" to be more about internal motivations. That being said, the three mentioned in the opening post seem more like criteria for proper behavior, or systems describing how some approach proper behavior? See, I'm not clear.

Your "ad hoc" comment does make sense. Maybe it's not so much that one looks to one theory or the other to guide their behavior, so much as they see one or the other as better describing how they go about navigating situations. For instance, you seem to have a certain principle by which you operate, i.e. "Treat others as they appear to want to be treated." And then, "adjust accordingly." I won't try to pigeon hole that into one or the other "theory" but it does seem you have a kind of systematic approach.

At any rate, now that you bring it to my attention, I think I agree. I don't really look to one theory or another to guide my behavior. But, I do see the way I go about navigating situations fitting one theory better than another, in hindsight.

 

[durangodawood]

So glad to see no one's yet rolled out the "trolley problem".

 

[durangodawood]

What do you think is the best (most effective?) approach to ethics? ....

I'm little confused about whether we're looking for the most accurate description of human ethical behavior.... or my choice of what system I'd like most to see deployed in the world.

 

[public hermit]

I'm little confused about whether we're looking for the most accurate description of human ethical behavior.... or my choice of what system I'd like most to see deployed in the world.

I was thinking more along the lines of "system I'd like most to see deployed in the world."

 

[durangodawood]

I was thinking more along the lines of "system I'd like most to see deployed in the world."

Hopefully we can get fully beyond duty ethics. "Because I said so" is pretty lazy and ultimately not grounded in any authority we can all share.

I like virtue ethics with its emphasis on development of character. And its got an objective basis in the the wise have noted what virtues promote good living.

Consequentialism is important too, because even decisions born of virtue can have unintended consequences.

So I havent voted yet.....