Universal Ethics

[GettinInTune]

I was thinking if it was possible to have a set of universal ethics. There is a variety of diversity here. We live in a very diverse world in which diversity brings strength, but added challenges. I would appreciate feedback if you either agree, disagree, see potential problems or would like to make revisions. I have done some research and found this site interesting:

http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/papers/invited/colero.html

Principles of Personal Ethics
Concern for the well-being of others
Respect for the autonomy of others
Trustworthiness & honesty
Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
Basic justice; being fair
Refusing to take unfair advantage
Benevolence: doing good
Preventing harm


Principles of Professional Ethics
Impartiality; objectivity
Openness; full disclosure
Confidentiality
Due diligence / duty of care
Fidelity to professional responsibilities
Avoiding potential or apparent conflict of interest


Principles of Global Ethics
Global justice (as reflected in international laws)
Society before self / social responsibility
Environmental stewardship
Interdependence & responsibility for the ‘whole’
Reverence for place

 

[The Nihilist]

You have so far failed to provide the most important piece of information: why is it better to do what is good than to do what is bad? Many systems are consistent, so that is no virtue. Your other appeal is that everyone already basically believes it. What does it mean then if someone disagrees? Does this exclude people who are not a member of a faith that holds these positions?

 

[GettinInTune]

You have so far failed to provide the most important piece of information: why is it better to do what is good than to do what is bad?

I don't view learning as a failure. How do you define good and bad?

Many systems are consistent, so that is no virtue. Your other appeal is that everyone already basically believes it.

Are you implying that inconsistency is virtuous?
I never said that everyone basically believed it I don't know how you arrived at that presumption. At best I provided a foundation to build off of. Thought it would be interesting to discuss the possibility and ramifications (positive and negative) of an universal ethical system.

What does it mean then if someone disagrees?

One definition of disagree is: differing in opinion or dissent. There are other definition also. If you disagree, please share.

Does this exclude people who are not a member of a faith that holds these positions?

Do you know what universal means? Why did you attribute faith with ethics? Ethics and morals can exist outside of faith.

 

[AuraTwilight]

I can do one better: "Don't hurt people, and wish everyone well-being, happiness, and love."

There. The same basic ethics in one sentence.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I have always kind of followed a "Do unto others" kind of thing, mixed with a bit of "Don't meddle in the personal freedoms of others" kind of thing. You do your thing, I'll do mine, and we can even throw a little bit of God's will in the mix while we're at it.

 

[GettinInTune]

I have always kind of followed a "Do unto others" kind of thing, mixed with a bit of "Don't meddle in the personal freedoms of others" kind of thing. You do your thing, I'll do mine, and we can even throw a little bit of God's will in the mix while we're at it.

Throwing God's will into the mix is not universal, since different religions have different Gods and some of us lack a belief in God.

You are more than welcome to intepret and elaborate on your God's will, but saying God's will is not meaningful to someone like myself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Benevolence: doing good

To what extent though? As a duty? In moderation? On a whim?

Global justice (as reflected in international laws)

Any international laws? What is the principle here?

Society before self / social responsibility

I don't believe in "society before self". "Society" ought to respect the "self" -- the individual -- or else it is a society that treats people like nothing more than tools. That is dehumanizing and dangerous. Dictatorships thrive on the idea that individuals must place society first.

Individuals morally have the right to pursue their own happiness. Sure, they need to respect the equal right of others to do the same, but even this is justified by self-interest. Societies exist for the well-being of individuals, not individuals for the well-being of "society".

Environmental stewardship

No, it should be humanity first, and environment second. We need to preserve the environment to some extent for the sake of human well-being. But we do not "serve" the environment as a moral principle.

Interdependence & responsibility for the ‘whole’

We are interdependent; this is not a moral principle, but a fact. However, you are only responsible for your own actions and how those actions affect others. You can't be responsible for the "whole" (a rather collectivistic concept). You may, of course, be charitable in moderation.

Reverence for place

I have no idea what this means.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Throwing God's will into the mix is not universal, since different religions have different Gods and some of us lack a belief in God.

You are more than welcome to intepret and elaborate on your God's will, but saying God's will is not meaningful to someone like myself.

That was just my interpretation on things. Sorry if it came out wrong.

 

[MarcusHill]

I was thinking if it was possible to have a set of universal ethics.

It isn't.

 

[Verv]

I really like the idea behind this post, and I agree with most everything listed except I feel that international laws we are not prepared for nor can we come up properly with laws that always represent the interests of nations involved.

Since I believe strongly in the sovereignty of nations I also believe that the properly elected national leaders, alone, should be the ones involved in the legal process. Otherwise it is hopelessly unrepresentative.

 

[.Sabre.]

I really like the idea behind this post, and I agree with most everything listed except I feel that international laws we are not prepared for nor can we come up properly with laws that always represent the interests of nations involved.

Since I believe strongly in the sovereignty of nations I also believe that the properly elected national leaders, alone, should be the ones involved in the legal process. Otherwise it is hopelessly unrepresentative.

Agreed.

I agree with alidarjarok too, I believe in the Golden Rule and also in minding your own business.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't view learning as a failure. How do you define good and bad?
Are you implying that inconsistency is virtuous?
I never said that everyone basically believed it I don't know how you arrived at that presumption. At best I provided a foundation to build off of. Thought it would be interesting to discuss the possibility and ramifications (positive and negative) of an universal ethical system.

One definition of disagree is: differing in opinion or dissent. There are other definition also. If you disagree, please share.

Do you know what universal means? Why did you attribute faith with ethics? Ethics and morals can exist outside of faith.

Let me rephrase my criticism: why should anyone follow the ethical system you've outlined?

 

[Voegelin]

We live in a very diverse world

Compared to what?

in which diversity brings strength

It does? Why? Seems ability and a shared goal, among other things, not diversity itself, would bring strenght.

but added challenges.

Such as?

 

[quatona]

I was thinking if it was possible to have a set of universal ethics. There is a variety of diversity here. We live in a very diverse world in which diversity brings strength, but added challenges. I would appreciate feedback if you either agree, disagree, see potential problems or would like to make revisions. I have done some research and found this site interesting:

http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/papers/invited/colero.html

Principles of Personal Ethics
Concern for the well-being of others
Respect for the autonomy of others
Trustworthiness & honesty
Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
Basic justice; being fair
Refusing to take unfair advantage
Benevolence: doing good
Preventing harm


Principles of Professional Ethics
Impartiality; objectivity
Openness; full disclosure
Confidentiality
Due diligence / duty of care
Fidelity to professional responsibilities
Avoiding potential or apparent conflict of interest


Principles of Global Ethics
Global justice (as reflected in international laws)
Society before self / social responsibility
Environmental stewardship
Interdependence & responsibility for the ‘whole’
Reverence for place

Good thread.
Not to rain in your parade, but here are two questions for you:

1. It is pretty safe to say that pretty much everyone will agree upon most of the points, no matter how much they disagree when it comes to the practical implications. What does that tell you?

2. Would you agree that most of the severe ethical questions and dilemmas that we face are caused by the fact that two or more of our ethical stances are conflicting, so that the actual problem is not to put together a collection of agreeable ethical principles, but the priority we give to each of them?

 

[GettinInTune]

To what extent though? As a duty? In moderation? On a whim?

I need think about this more. I was such trying to lay some groundwork and provoke thought.

Any international laws? What is the principle here?

Again, I need more time for thought

I don't believe in "society before self". "Society" ought to respect the "self" -- the individual -- or else it is a society that treats people like nothing more than tools. That is dehumanizing and dangerous. Dictatorships thrive on the idea that individuals must place society first.

I agree with you that Dictatorships and societies that treat peoples nothing more as tools is dehumanizing and dangerous. Isn't a dictatorship an extreme example of placing the self before the society? With the dictator is in charge, wouldn't society be better off if the dictator placed society before himself?

With respect to humanity, isn't the whole greater the sum of the individual parts? Perhaps, there is a common good to strive for that benefits all of humanity.

Individuals morally have the right to pursue their own happiness. Sure, they need to respect the equal right of others to do the same, but even this is justified by self-interest. Societies exist for the well-being of individuals, not individuals for the well-being of "society".

Aren't morals socially constructed? Isn't the happiness of others in the equation of individual's pursuits of their own happiness? Societies exist because they are a construct of man. Man is a gregarious and social creature and societies (at least democratic) are a natural by-product of a common good. If you advocate that individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness, aren't you advocating that this a universal ethic?

No, it should be humanity first, and environment second. We need to preserve the environment to some extent for the sake of human well-being. But we do not "serve" the environment as a moral principle.

Do we belong to the Earth or does the Earth belong to us? Isn't preservation of the Earth for furture an ethical responsibility? Or do we have the moral right to extract as much as happiness at the expense of future generations?

We are interdependent; this is not a moral principle, but a fact. However, you are only responsible for your own actions and how those actions affect others. You can't be responsible for the "whole" (a rather collectivistic concept). You may, of course, be charitable in moderation.

I am an advocate of personal responsibilty. Surely you could not have arrived at this conclusion without the aid of others. You are repsonsibilty for yourself and part of the "whole" (i.e the well being of your friends and family).

 

[GettinInTune]

Let me rephrase my criticism: why should anyone follow the ethical system you've outlined?

I am not proposing that people follow the specific ethical system that I outlined. I figure that we all live our lives by an ethical system, and just wonder if they is a global or universal ethical system. It is my opinion that ethical systems change over time and I see that our world is becoming more accessible and intertwined. My education in ethics is not that strong, but I just wanted to share my idea.

What is your opinion? Do you think that a universal ethical system too ideal?

 

[GettinInTune]

Good thread.
Not to rain in your parade, but here are two questions for you:

1. It is pretty safe to say that pretty much everyone will agree upon most of the points, no matter how much they disagree when it comes to the practical implications. What does that tell you?

I don't know. I am guessing, but that we all subscribe to a general universal ethical system without even knowing it? Do you care to answer your own question?

2. Would you agree that most of the severe ethical questions and dilemmas that we face are caused by the fact that two or more of our ethical stances are conflicting, so that the actual problem is not to put together a collection of agreeable ethical principles, but the priority we give to each of them?

This is an excellent question. If possible, could you elaborate on specific examples? Where do you see two or more of our ethical stances conflicting?

 

[The Nihilist]

I am not proposing that people follow the specific ethical system that I outlined. I figure that we all live our lives by an ethical system, and just wonder if they is a global or universal ethical system. It is my opinion that ethical systems change over time and I see that our world is becoming more accessible and intertwined. My education in ethics is not that strong, but I just wanted to share my idea.

What is your opinion? Do you think that a universal ethical system too ideal?

It is my opinion that ethics are essentially a collection of a society's opinions, reinforced by the men who carry the guns. The end.

 

[Verv]

I can echo the notion that implementing it is nearly impossible and that even though people will pay lip service it is seemingly useless. However, it is a good gesture.

Sometimes good gestures are all that people need to build the respect for each other -- that is why I have never minded outreaches to other cultures and societies. It is healthy.

 

[GettinInTune]

It is my opinion that ethics are essentially a collection of a society's opinions, reinforced by the men who carry the guns. The end.

Your outlook is as bleak as people who view humanity filled with base and sin.

We shape the experiences we have, the relationships we form, and the people we attract into our lives. The amount of danger we are willing to face in this life, the joy, the sorrow – all of this is within our control.

We have power to shape our lives and the lives around us or we can forever live under the tyranny by the men that carry these guns. We can use our strength of character and our intellect to shape our environments. We have the power to make change or let others take the reins and make changes for us. We all of the power of choice.