Is it ethically wrong to have wrong ethics?

[Autumnleaf]

Let's assume there exists an objective set of ethics, we'll call this ethical standard "correct" or "right". If one's personal code of ethics dictates some act as ethical when it in fact unethical objectively, is this person unethical by definition?

Some salient points:
1) Is ignorance of truth a valid ethical excuse?

• On one hand, if there exists objective ethics, ignorance of truth would not be excusable because your ethical standard would still be wrong.
• On the other hand, if the objective set of ethics is unverifiable or unobservable, then an unethical person cannot be held ethically responsible for their actions, because the objective standard can never be met or understood intentionally.

2) Is there any way to show that one person's set of subjective ethics are more "right" than another person's?

• If objective ethics exist, then some people are going to be more "right" in their determination of their own subjective ethics - these people are simply better at identifying a true moral imperative than others. As such, these people should have a right to dictate their ethics on others who are less "right".
• On the other hand, what metric can we validly use to determine whose ethics are more or less right? Everyone's ethical standard is more true to them than that of others. This compels us to change people to be more "right", it should be ethical to impose our own ethical standard upon others if it is more objective. But of course, it would be more unethical to impose our ethical standard upon others if it is "wrong" than to not impose ethical standards at all.
  • Therefore, if there is no way to verify or observe the objective set of ethics (and we assume that an objective set exists), we can say that it is unethical to impose our ethical standard on others. *This foundation actually leads us to the development of an objective set of ethics, if we can prove that an objective set of ethics exists and is unverifiable.

I'll come up with more points as they come to me, but I'd like to hear what you all think.

 

[david_x]

The only way to find the correct form of ethics is by trial and error. So no it is not wrong to be wrong, but it is wrong to be wrong and not learn from it.

 

[A Rhys]

Kant's categorical imperative and concept of 'duty' is a fairly decent way of measuring your own ethics. Imagine a scenario with any kind of ethical implication and speculate about how you'd act.

Is it ethical to assist a mugging victim? If you don't believe people should have the right to mug others then it is not only ethical to intervene but you have a duty to intervene.

It's basically the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have then do unto you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There are errors of intent, and errors of knowledge.

Both involve wrong action, but only one is morally blameworthy.


eudaimonia,

Mark