Fundamentals of Ethics...

[Strivax]

Rules, character, outcome. (Deontological ethics, virtue ethics, utilitarianism).

On which of these approaches should we base our thinking about morality? Or, is it possible to unite the three into some coherent, consistent, comprehensive system?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Rules, character, outcome. (Deontological ethics, virtue ethics, utilitarianism).

On which of these approaches should we base our thinking about morality? Or, is it possible to unite the three into some coherent, consistent, comprehensive system?

An interesting question. I'd say, though, that ethics and morality can be seen as separate, but overlapping, things. Ethics are merely the rules you live under, and seem to me to be very context dependent. Their source are usually man-centered.

Morality can be seen as the 'right' rules of conduct that are not context-dependent. Too, the source of morality is either God-centered or man-centered depending upon one's belief. A God-centered morality does not change as God does not change; however, the Muslim will have a different moral code than does the Christian as Allah is not the same as God.

I might add that both our ethics and our morality suffer from being too narrowly defined in terms of how we benefit from them. A God-centered moral code, for example, will often stop us from doing what we want while a man-centered one will give us great latitude in carrying out our desires. Too, the same rules may exist in both categories, but it's the source of the rules that counts.

As I noted, it's a good question, and I look forward to the discussion. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Rules, character, outcome. (Deontological ethics, virtue ethics, utilitarianism).

On which of these approaches should we base our thinking about morality?

I opt for virtue ethics because it retains the ontological wholeness of the individual.

Or, is it possible to unite the three into some coherent, consistent, comprehensive system?

No, I don't see how. Sure, one may speak of rules and consequences even while taking a virtue ethics approach, but the question is where one places one's primary focus.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I think it is ultimately consequentialist. If you aren't concerned about how actions affect people, then aren't you placing abstract rules above people? I'm not sure that's any different from a robot that turns on humanity because it's just following the rules.

I think it comes down to respecting the will of others over their own lives. eg: Don't hit them because they don't want to be hit.

 

[durangodawood]

Rules, character, outcome. (Deontological ethics, virtue ethics, utilitarianism).

On which of these approaches....

Why not all three?

I'm suspicious of the desire to seek one "grand unified theory" in every field of inquiry.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Sermon on the Mount is a virtue ethic.

Kant favored deontological ethics because he had a rigid personality and was a German Pietist. The Lutheran tradition, like the Reformed tradition, has tended to focus on divine command ethics up until a century ago. Deontological ethical reasoning continues to have a small, but important influence on our culture- Kant's arguments for universal moral imperatives are not immediately apparent to the masses.

Utilitarianism is problematic from a Christian perspective because it turns human persons into a means to an end. So in extreme cases, a philosopher like Peter Singer might advocate infanticide and believe a rat has more inherent concern than a baby. Utilitarianism's advantage is that the theories behind it are often easier to understand for the masses.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I find morality to be more personal than ethics

 

[Eudaimonist]

Incidentally, I don't define morality and ethics in the same way that some here do.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that generates and justifies moral systems.

Morality is a code of values. Morality tells you what you ought to do with your life.

Ethics, in the sense that I mean, is not another kind of morality in competition with morality. Ethics is a field of study. If someone is "ethical", all that means is that they are philosophically reflective about their moral beliefs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Strivax]

Thanks, all, for your varied inputs. All fascinating, to anyone interested in how we, as individuals, go about constructing our ethical systems.

To move the discussion forward, I'd like to introduce the concept of 'interests'. I don't know how much it will help, but here's my thinking. As far as outcome, character and rules go, we are to seek the optimal best interests of all concerned parties. If rules optimise interests, we keep the rules. Where character is concerned, it is held to be in our best interests to be virtuous. Virtue, it is claimed, is it's own reward, and a more profound one than, say, our bank balance. As far as outcome is concerned, the collective best interests, (rather than the greatest happiness of the greatest number) should be the goal pursued.

I realise best interests are hard to calculate (as is any degree of virtue, or the exact level of happiness) but as a rule of thumb, a guide to conduct, I believe we could do worse.

Your (constructive) criticisms are actively sought!

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Mediate]

Rules, character, outcome. (Deontological ethics, virtue ethics, utilitarianism).

On which of these approaches should we base our thinking about morality? Or, is it possible to unite the three into some coherent, consistent, comprehensive system?

Best wishes, Strivax.

If ethics are based on rules, what are those rules based on? If ethics are based solely on outcome, then is motive irrelevant?

I would say character is the basis from which true ethics arise. Empathetic, compassionate character takes away the need for specific rules, and for an ethical system solely based on outcome. Because the rules will be innate, 'consider others as yourself', and 'make compassionate decisions', thus the outcome will be favourable.

 

[Strivax]

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that generates and justifies moral systems.

For you then, ethics is meta-morality? This could be a useful distinction to make. But, in general usage, a professional might have a written code of conduct, or code of ethics, which in your terms ought really to be called a code of morality. I think we need to be wary of any confusion that might thus arise.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Eudaimonist]

For you then, ethics is meta-morality?

I'm not certain what you mean by "meta-morality". I've heard of meta-ethics, but that is the philosophy of foundational ideas in ethics.

I think we need to be wary of any confusion that might thus arise.

The potential for confusion is already present, because more than a few people here don't use the term ethics and morality in the ways that you claim are general usage. This is the Philosophy board, after all. In philosophy, Ethics is something quite different than a "code of ethics" practiced, for instance, by accountants.

In any case, my purpose is to explain that there is more than one way to use these terms, and my way might not fit other ways.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

To move the discussion forward, I'd like to introduce the concept of 'interests'. I don't know how much it will help, but here's my thinking. As far as outcome, character and rules go, we are to seek the optimal best interests of all concerned parties.

It depend what you mean by that. Do you mean respecting the actual real interests of the individuals involved, or do you mean forcing your idea of their best interests on them?

Ie: Do you allow women to work because they want to (that is their interest), or do you force them to be only homemakers, because you think it's in their best interest? Do you allow people to get drunk because they want to, or do you to stop them, because you want to force your values on them (moral authoritarianism)?

I'd say that forcing your idea of and ideal world on others is vastly immoral. The actual interests of individuals should be respect. That means, people are free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. It also means that it's wrong to harm others, because they don't want to be harmed.

 

[Strivax]

It depend what you mean by that. Do you mean respecting the actual real interests of the individuals involved, or do you mean forcing your idea of their best interests on them?

Ie: Do you allow women to work because they want to (that is their interest), or do you force them to be only homemakers, because you think it's in their best interest? Do you allow people to get drunk because they want to, or do you to stop them, because you want to force your values on them (moral authoritarianism)?

I'd say that forcing your idea of and ideal world on others is vastly immoral. The actual interests of individuals should be respect. That means, people are free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. It also means that it's wrong to harm others, because they don't want to be harmed.

I can't disagree with any of this. The problem with discussing morality is the pull it has on us; people resent that imperative, unless they have accepted it as their own way through the world. And, any moralist is bound to be perceived as conservative. Nevertheless, I think that forcing any conception of morality on others is automatically wrong; people need to make their own moral errors, in order to learn by them.

The harm principle is well established, I think, in Western liberal democracies, at least. But is it enough? Can one be virtuous (if that is, as I believe, in one's best interests) simply by refraining from harming others?

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[Paradoxum]

I can't disagree with any of this. The problem with discussing morality is the pull it has on us; people resent that imperative, unless they have accepted it as their own way through the world. And, any moralist is bound to be perceived as conservative. Nevertheless, I think that forcing any conception of morality on others is automatically wrong; people need to make their own moral errors, in order to learn by them.

I wouldn't say moral people are conservative; if that is what you mean. I try to be moral, but I'm liberal. I agree with you last sentence specifically.

The harm principle is well established, I think, in Western liberal democracies, at least. But is it enough? Can one be virtuous (if that is, as I believe, in one's best interests) simply by refraining from harming others?

I'm more interested in being moral than being virtuous. By which I mean, I'd rather be selfish person who doesn't violate others, than a loving person who does violate others. I am moral because I care about others, not because I want to be told I'm a virtuous person.

I think being charitable, and of virtuous character, are good for morality, but avoiding violating people comes first.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am moral because I care about others, not because I want to be told I'm a virtuous person.

Being virtuous has absolutely nothing to do with what you want to be told.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The harm principle is well established, I think, in Western liberal democracies, at least. But is it enough? Can one be virtuous (if that is, as I believe, in one's best interests) simply by refraining from harming others?

No, that's not nearly enough.

Virtue is not simply about "not harming", but about having the character needed to flourish as a human being. It is about personal excellence, and should be regarded as a constructive thing, not merely the avoidance of a negative.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

Being virtuous has absolutely nothing to do with what you want to be told.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If it's about living a good life for yourself, I'd say that is being wise, not being moral.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If it's about living a good life for yourself, I'd say that is being wise, not being moral.

If being moral means doing what one ought to do, they are the same thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Great Fiction]

To move the discussion forward, I'd like to introduce the concept of 'interests'. I don't know how much it will help, but here's my thinking. As far as outcome, character and rules go, we are to seek the optimal best interests of all concerned parties.
Best wishes, Strivax.

Is it possible that you just followed Aristotle out of Plato’s cave?