Ethical Reconciliation?

[2ndRateMind]

Hi y’all,

From what I can make out, the following are the main ethical trajectories in Western Philosophy:


Supernaturalism – The idea that God’s revealed commands constitute morality


Consequentialism – the idea that morality is defined by the consequences of an action


Deontology – the idea that duties arise out of a rational view of the world, and that we should perform those duties


Virtue ethics – the idea that morality is defined by what a virtuous person would do, in any given circumstances


Hedonism – a sub category of consequentialism, that thinks humans should pursue their own pleasure


Utilitarianism – another sub category of consequentialism, this time promoting the greatest good of the greatest number


Situationism – the idea that ethics depend on circumstances, and that love, ‘desiring the neighbours good’ should be the motivating force


Subjectivism or Relativism – which doesn’t think morality to be objective anyway, only a matter of opinion.

They are all strong in some senses, (I am a moral realist), and unsatisfactory in others. Have any of you tried to reconcile these agendas into a single, comprehensive, coherent system, and did it work? If not, what was the problem? I ask out of pure laziness; this being a question that vexes me, and this being work I am sure others have done, such that reinventing the wheel would be superfluous.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[The Nihilist]

It does not work because they are utterly incompatible.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Would you care to elaborate, Nihilist?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok, some of them will work. Supernaturalism can be made to fit deontology and maybe virtue ethics if you try pretty hard. You might even be able to fit deontology with virtue ethics, if you're willing to completely bastardize the major thinkers in the fields (namely Kant and Aristotle.)
Consequentialism, though, will absolutely not work with deontology. I don't know how familiar you are with Kant, but the categorial imperative by its very nature makes a lie immoral, while consequentialism grants that some lies are good.
Your definition of moral relativism needs work.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, for starters, I think your definition of subjectivist/relativist ethics is misleading, to say the least.
I consider moral codes to be (inter-)subjective, cultural constructs, and yet I'd never claim that they're "just a matter of opinion". "Subjective" is not the same as "arbitrary", and "relative" is not the same as "random".

In fact, your definition of "Situationism" is *much* closer to what Relativism/Subjectivism is actually about.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, for starters, I think your definition of subjectivist/relativist ethics is misleading, to say the least.
I consider moral codes to be (inter-)subjective, cultural constructs, and yet I'd never claim that they're "just a matter of opinion". "Subjective" is not the same as "arbitrary", and "relative" is not the same as "random".

In fact, your definition of "Situationism" is *much* closer to what Relativism/Subjectivism is actually about.

Your definition of moral relativism needs work.

That's OK. On consideration, I can see that what I wrote might be considered provocative. I apologise. I'm quite happy to be corrected, if you all will accept that this is a Christian forum, that sees the objective status of ethics as a sine qua non.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[2ndRateMind]

Consequentialism, though, will absolutely not work with deontology. I don't know how familiar you are with Kant, but the categorial imperative by its very nature makes a lie immoral, while consequentialism grants that some lies are good.

I am not very familiar with Kant, being only a neophyte philosopher. But it strikes me that the categorical imperative could work with lying. For example, one might wish it to be a universal maxim that one should lie to Gestapo officers requiring the whereabouts of hidden Jews, without doing violence to the concept.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

That's OK. On consideration, I can see that what I wrote might be considered provocative. I apologise.

Oh, the problem was not that it sounded provocative. (It doesn't, and if it did, it wouldn't be a big deal.) The problem was that it was just plain wrong.

I'm quite happy to be corrected, if you all will accept that this is a Christian forum, that sees the objective status of ethics as a sine qua non.

1. Your personal convictions keep you from presenting other points of view correctly? Why?
(By the way, what you described as "relativism" would more correctly be labeled "moral nihilism" - a position that very few people support.

2. Forums do not subscribe to world views. People do. I grant you that the majority of Christians on this board subscribes to some form of moral absolutism (sometimes well-defined, sometimes quite vaguely circumscribed), but what you seem to imply there is: "This is our turf, so know your place." Which, quite obviously, is hardly the purpose of this discussion, now is it?

 

[2ndRateMind]

1. Your personal convictions keep you from presenting other points of view correctly? Why?

I'm going to ignore that question, until such time as I can think of an answer to it.

2. Forums do not subscribe to world views. People do. I grant you that the majority of Christians on this board subscribes to some form of moral absolutism (sometimes well-defined, sometimes quite vaguely circumscribed), but what you seem to imply there is: "This is our turf, so know your place." Which, quite obviously, is hardly the purpose of this discussion, now is it?

It's not so much that, as the notion I have that while one can reconcile an objectivist ethical view with relativism (ie., there are objective ethics, but we all have different ideas as to what they might be, some more accurate than others), I don't see how it is possible to reconcile a subjectivist view with ethical realism. Perhaps you can oblige?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, I see it like this:

Ethics - as opposed to moralities - are the "lowest common denominator" of behavioural patterns that make co-existence in a social group possible.
No matter what culture or age you may herald from, certain behaviours will almost universally trigger negative reactions from the people around you. In fact, these reactions are much older than our ability to put them into words and to reflect upon them: other species who live in social groups exhibit the same behaviours. (If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to live in such groups to begin with.)

This is the closest you can get to "objective" ethics: they are determined by specific circumstances, by the internal logic of equity. Ethics arise from social behaviours, not vice versa.

Putting a deity into the picture, by the way, would not exactly make things more objective: in the worst case, it'd mean that these rules of behaviour are utterly arbitrary (meaning that they were determined by the deity's choice alone, and could have been utterly different if the deity had wished for it), and in the best case, we'd be back to having the circumstances determine the moral quality of an action (meaning that the deity didn't randomly decree the rules, but did so according to their usefulness).

Moralities, on the other hand, are cultural products, and change from place to place as well as from time to time. Most of them possess some sort of internal logic, but from the outside, they're mostly random, having grown on specific traditions and thought patterns.

 

[The Nihilist]

I am not very familiar with Kant, being only a neophyte philosopher. But it strikes me that the categorical imperative could work with lying. For example, one might wish it to be a universal maxim that one should lie to Gestapo officers requiring the whereabouts of hidden Jews, without doing violence to the concept.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

No. The precise vocabulary Kant uses escapes me, but essentially, because the intent of the lie relies on the fact that people usually believe others, and so it is ultimately self-defeating. Therefore, it cannot be rationally accepted as moral, under a deontological moral paradigm.

 

[The Nihilist]

Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Deception

 

[2ndRateMind]

OK, I can see that, if everyone lied all the time to Gestapo officers, they could be certain they were being lied to. How about if we good people wished for a universal maxim that one should occasionally lie to Gestapo officers, and with the intention of saving at least some hidden Jews?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hi y’all,

From what I can make out, the following are the main ethical trajectories in Western Philosophy:


Supernaturalism – The idea that God’s revealed commands constitute morality


Consequentialism – the idea that morality is defined by the consequences of an action


Deontology – the idea that duties arise out of a rational view of the world, and that we should perform those duties


Virtue ethics – the idea that morality is defined by what a virtuous person would do, in any given circumstances


Hedonism – a sub category of consequentialism, that thinks humans should pursue their own pleasure


Utilitarianism – another sub category of consequentialism, this time promoting the greatest good of the greatest number


Situationism – the idea that ethics depend on circumstances, and that love, ‘desiring the neighbours good’ should be the motivating force


Subjectivism or Relativism – which doesn’t think morality to be objective anyway, only a matter of opinion.

They are all strong in some senses, (I am a moral realist), and unsatisfactory in others. Have any of you tried to reconcile these agendas into a single, comprehensive, coherent system, and did it work? If not, what was the problem? I ask out of pure laziness; this being a question that vexes me, and this being work I am sure others have done, such that reinventing the wheel would be superfluous.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

I'm happy you've just started college.

Good luck in discovering other wonderful classes.

Um, I'm kind of saying, that you are pushing a wheel already invented.

I'm not going to help out though.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, I see it like this:

Ethics - as opposed to moralities - are the "lowest common denominator" of behavioural patterns that make co-existence in a social group possible.
No matter what culture or age you may herald from, certain behaviours will almost universally trigger negative reactions from the people around you. In fact, these reactions are much older than our ability to put them into words and to reflect upon them: other species who live in social groups exhibit the same behaviours. (If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to live in such groups to begin with.)

This is the closest you can get to "objective" ethics: they are determined by specific circumstances, by the internal logic of equity. Ethics arise from social behaviours, not vice versa.

Putting a deity into the picture, by the way, would not exactly make things more objective: in the worst case, it'd mean that these rules of behaviour are utterly arbitrary (meaning that they were determined by the deity's choice alone, and could have been utterly different if the deity had wished for it), and in the best case, we'd be back to having the circumstances determine the moral quality of an action (meaning that the deity didn't randomly decree the rules, but did so according to their usefulness).

Moralities, on the other hand, are cultural products, and change from place to place as well as from time to time. Most of them possess some sort of internal logic, but from the outside, they're mostly random, having grown on specific traditions and thought patterns.

An interesting distinction you draw between ethics and moralities. I don’t think I’ve seen it before.

My own feeling is that objective ethics and morality has the subtle ontology of being God’s will for us. If He is omni-benevolent, and loves us, then He wants what is best for us; if He is omniscient, He knows what that is. But – here’s the catch – we don’t. None of the scriptures are satisfactory, from this point of view. I see one of the major threads of history as humanity's attempt to discover precisely what is best, and I see historical progress as the extent to which humanity, asymptotically, approaches the theoretical limit of perfect morality.

So, I incline towards your best case scenario, with God’s will neither random nor merely expediently useful, but nevertheless morally vital in that it represents a perfection to aim at. While circumstances surely have a bearing, I don’t think that they ‘define’ the moral quality of an action: there are simply too many other considerations, ranging from intentions to the wide variety of possible consequences at their different levels – spiritual, psychological, social, cultural etc.

I guess, then, whereas you find objectivity in the foundations in which ethics arose, I find it in ideals towards which they aspire.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[jayem]

Hi y’all,

Supernaturalism – The idea that God’s revealed commands constitute morality

I'm just being persnickety. I've never seen the divine command theory of ethics referred to as supernaturalism. The proper technical term, AFAIK, is theological voluntarism. Voluntarism here referring to the will--specifically the will of a deity.

Carry on.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

An interesting distinction you draw between ethics and moralities. I don’t think I’ve seen it before.

Really? How would you distinguish between norms that are obviously cultural (dress codes, taboos, etc.) and ethical boundaries that exist in virtually every functional society or social species?

As far as mere emotional reactions are concerned, these two are indeed often confused by the average citizen. But it should be quite obvious that moralities go much further as far as rules and regulations are concerned, and differ quite drastically from culture to culture or time to time.

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on
This thread is moved to the Philosophy Forum

Mod hat off​

 

[The Nihilist]

OK, I can see that, if everyone lied all the time to Gestapo officers, they could be certain they were being lied to. How about if we good people wished for a universal maxim that one should occasionally lie to Gestapo officers, and with the intention of saving at least some hidden Jews?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

No. That is not how deontology works.

 

[-Vincent-]

Well, I believe that moral rules or ethics are intended to promote success in navigating through life. They imply also systematic health within the individual.

For instance, not telling lies about ones neighbor implies that there is an obligation to develop a healthy ability to observe the world accurately. Thou shalt not bear false wittness is about the mind within the senses, and it is the root ontological basis of science as a priestcraft.

You shall not take the Lords name in vain, is about the mind within ones highest self. It is about the necessity of sacred language, and is the ontological root of Islamic fundamentalism.

You shall honor your father and you mother is a performance which is about knowing the spirit of marriage within your mothers home. This is the ontological root of eastern ancestor worship.

There are other associations, however, the commandments are implied from a model of the soul composed of five parts.



heart
soul
mind
strength
senses

Each of the ten commandments is about the health of a coordinated marriage between a pair taken from the list above. The commandments are based on a five part model of the human being suggested by the Shemma in Deuteronomy 6.

I am only suggesting this, but I find it to be rather compelling...

See my website at:

http://www.theosopher.com

Please don't try to invent another 'ism.

I would really like to know why the list of 'isms are useful. What problems do they solve?