What is the basis of ethics?

[brightlights]

According to you what is the basis of ethics? In other words, what makes something right or wrong?

For example:

I think it's true that something is wrong because God has declared it to be so.

Hume thought something was wrong because nature tuned us to be averted to certain things, but wrong only corresponds with a feeling we experience.

What about you?

 

[elman]

According to you what is the basis of ethics? In other words, what makes something right or wrong?

For example:

I think it's true that something is wrong because God has declared it to be so.

Hume thought something was wrong because nature tuned us to be averted to certain things, but wrong only corresponds with a feeling we experience.

What about you?

Something is wrong if it harms others and does not help them. Something is right if it helps others and does not harm them.

 

[sbvera13]

I believe the basis of morality is compassion. We have a natural aversion to pain in ourselves; when we see it in others (especially those we are close to) we sympathise, and seek to alleviate their pain (as we would ourselves). This is why racism is one of the most heinously immoral attitudes possible; it cuts us off from our own natural tendencies, and allows us to justify unspeakably evil acts.

 

[Corey]

According to you what is the basis of ethics? In other words, what makes something right or wrong?

For example:

I think it's true that something is wrong because God has declared it to be so.

Hume thought something was wrong because nature tuned us to be averted to certain things, but wrong only corresponds with a feeling we experience.

What about you?

Well. First you're confusing morals and ethics. Morals are rules dictated by a higher power. Ethics are rules you can choose for yourself.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

This is my logical ethical code.

Whatever decision creates the environment best suited to make people learn efficiently and to teach them to use what they are taught to the best effect (in essence recreating that "environment" over and over) is the best decision, slowly eradicating (perhaps not completely, as I don't think that is possible) human fallibility.

 

[Washington]

Well. First you're confusing morals and ethics. Morals are rules dictated by a higher power. Ethics are rules you can choose for yourself.

Morals are about elemental good and bad, usually with little regard to change in situation. In general, morals correspond to what is actually done in a society. They are shared ideas of a society or culture, which can vary from one to another. Different groups of people can have different morals.

Ethics deal with how we should act, not how people do in fact act. It prescribes what we do as acceptable. Ethics often end up as a formal set of rules, such as business ethics, and may vary greatly from situation to situation. They typically cut across societal and cultural differences because the congregation of people from which they spring does.
Ethics are based on a common need for promoting proper behavior within a group.

 

[quatona]

According to you what is the basis of ethics? In other words, what makes something right or wrong?

For example:

I think it's true that something is wrong because God has declared it to be so.

Hume thought something was wrong because nature tuned us to be averted to certain things, but wrong only corresponds with a feeling we experience.

What about you?

I call something is good when I like it (or, in regards to an action, if I think the [expected] results that I like outweigh the results that I don´t like).
I call something is bad when I don´t like it.

Right/wrong are usable terms for me only in a given frame of reference, e.g. a clearly defined goal.

 

[Eudaimonist]

According to you what is the basis of ethics? In other words, what makes something right or wrong?

The basis of ethics is what is good for the life of the individual, i.e. what nourishes or promotes life activities thus actualizing that being's potentials. Another way of putting this is that what is right for the individual is the fulfillment of that individual's natural function as the sort of living being it is.

When it comes to human beings, that natural function is most significantly the effective use of one's own psychology for the purpose of attending to the issues of life. Effective here means, at root, the ability to understand and to act on one's understanding. And so, at root, human ethics is properly about acting rationally and in ways that promote rationality.

Let me stress here that I don't mean to imply that ethics has nothing to do with emotions, desires, passions, etc. Human psychology is complex, and so we must always keep the full context of our psychological needs in mind, especially as they pertain to rational action. For instance, we need to be sane in order to face reality, we need love in various forms in order to find the motivation to act, we need self-respect in order to feel confident in our rational activities, etc.

Skipping a few pages (this is a large subject), I'll mention that I think that virtue ethics has the best approach out of the schools of ethics because it stresses the agent over the act, which I think cuts closest to how ethics is used in real life. And so rationality would be the basic virtue, with other virtues either specific aspects of reason or needed habits that support qualities of our psychology that are a means to rationality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

The basis of ethics is what is good for the life of the individual, i.e. what nourishes or promotes life activities thus actualizing that being's potentials. Another way of putting this is that what is right for the individual is the fulfillment of that individual's natural function as the sort of living being it is.

When it comes to human beings, that natural function is most significantly the effective use of one's own psychology for the purpose of attending to the issues of life. Effective here means, at root, the ability to understand and to act on one's understanding. And so, at root, human ethics is properly about acting rationally and in ways that promote rationality.

Ever read Nicomachean Ethics?
This sounds to me like Aristotle's function argument. It procedes thusly:
1) The virtue of a being deals with its function (purpose derived from nature or from the gods).
2) The function of a human being is to use reason well.
3) The virtuous human is the one who cultivates and uses his reason well.

Here is a challenge to the function argument, and correct me if this is not the position you are asserting:
I am not convinced that either 1 or 2 are true. What is good for something is for that thing to fulfill it's function? A car's function is to drive, but driving is certainly not beneficial for the car. It devalues it and eventually leads it to break down. Also, how do we arive at the idea that man's function is to reason well?

Let me stress here that I don't mean to imply that ethics has nothing to do with emotions, desires, passions, etc. Human psychology is complex, and so we must always keep the full context of our psychological needs in mind, especially as they pertain to rational action. For instance, we need to be sane in order to face reality, we need love in various forms in order to find the motivation to act, we need self-respect in order to feel confident in our rational activities, etc.

Skipping a few pages (this is a large subject), I'll mention that I think that virtue ethics has the best approach out of the schools of ethics because it stresses the agent over the act, which I think cuts closest to how ethics is used in real life. And so rationality would be the basic virtue, with other virtues either specific aspects of reason or needed habits that support qualities of our psychology that are a means to rationality.

It is true that real ethics must always stem from the virtue of the person. Whether or not a person has a virtuous character determines his overall virtue (over his actions, etc). I'm not sure that rationality, or prudence as Aristotle called it, is the chief virtue though. If you think that Jesus had anything valuable to say then I think that this is worth consideration: When a man asked him what the chief virtue was (What is the most important commandment?), Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and the second is like it -- love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two" (paraphrase). Perhaps the chief virtue is love. That makes sense to me.

 

[brightlights]

I call something is good when I like it (or, in regards to an action, if I think the [expected] results that I like outweigh the results that I don´t like).
I call something is bad when I don´t like it.

Right/wrong are usable terms for me only in a given frame of reference, e.g. a clearly defined goal.

Thanks for the honesty. Do you also think it's true that all ethics boils down to the preference of a species?

 

[brightlights]

This is my logical ethical code.

Whatever decision creates the environment best suited to make people learn efficiently and to teach them to use what they are taught to the best effect (in essence recreating that "environment" over and over) is the best decision, slowly eradicating (perhaps not completely, as I don't think that is possible) human fallibility.

Could you rephrase this for me?

 

[brightlights]

Something is wrong if it harms others and does not help them. Something is right if it helps others and does not harm them.

I think that this principle could be applied to certain situations that would make you disagree with it.

For instance:

It probably would have been the right thing to do to assassinate Hitler. This certainly harms and does not help him.

 

[cantata]

What about you?

I don't believe in objective moral values.

Various people's ethical systems are based on various beliefs about the existence or non-existence of objective moral values. There is no single basis for all ethics; that much is evident. To speak of a correct basis for ethics assumes that 'the truth is out there' about it, and I don't believe that it is. No acts or things are inherently wrong/evil or right/good. There are only opinions and feelings.

My personal moral code is based on a combination of empathy and self-interest. It works for me.

 

[brightlights]

I believe the basis of morality is compassion. We have a natural aversion to pain in ourselves; when we see it in others (especially those we are close to) we sympathise, and seek to alleviate their pain (as we would ourselves). This is why racism is one of the most heinously immoral attitudes possible; it cuts us off from our own natural tendencies, and allows us to justify unspeakably evil acts.

Compassion is important, but it doesn't lay down an imperative or responsibility. Ethics does deal with these things. Do you think there are such things as rights and responsibilities?

 

[brightlights]

I don't believe in objective moral values.

Various people's ethical systems are based on various beliefs about the existence or non-existence of objective moral values. There is no single basis for all ethics; that much is evident. To speak of a correct basis for ethics assumes that 'the truth is out there' about it, and I don't believe that it is. No acts or things are inherently wrong/evil or right/good. There are only opinions and feelings.

My personal moral code is based on a combination of empathy and self-interest. It works for me.

Certainly there is a 'truth out there' about it, even if that truth is that there is no 'fact-of-the-matter' about right and wrong (like David Hume said). Do you think that all ethics boils down to the preference of a species?

 

[cantata]

Certainly there is a 'truth out there' about it, even if that truth is that there is no 'fact-of-the-matter' about right and wrong (like David Hume said). Do you think that all ethics boils down to the preference of a species?

What I mean is that there are no objective moral values which make acts inherently right or wrong.

Yes, I think that the preference of our species for some actions and our abhorrence of others is what we label 'ethics'.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ever read Nicomachean Ethics?
This sounds to me like Aristotle's function argument.

It's actually quite a bit more than that, though certainly influenced by Aristotle.

What is good for something is for that thing to fulfill it's function? A car's function is to drive, but driving is certainly not beneficial for the car. It devalues it and eventually leads it to break down.

I don't think that anything can be beneficial or harmful to a car, so this challenge definitely misses the point.

Something can only be beneficial to a living being. The natural function of such a being refers to the exercise of its vital powers -- the tools of survival that express its nature.

Also, how do we arive at the idea that man's function is to reason well?

Reason (the ability to understand in conceptual terms and act on that understanding) is the essential survival and growth tool of any human individual. We can't live on perception alone or instinct alone. Look at the basis of just about any human activity, and one finds conceptual awareness at its base. Even humor requires the power to understand the joke. This sort of conclusion is something that we can know by studying human beings.

I'm not sure that rationality, or prudence as Aristotle called it, is the chief virtue though.

That's fine. I am.

When a man asked him what the chief virtue was (What is the most important commandment?), Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and the second is like it -- love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two" (paraphrase). Perhaps the chief virtue is love. That makes sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me, and Jesus offers no arguments for me to even consider his proposal. It is an empty assertion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

Reason (the ability to understand in conceptual terms and act on that understanding) is the essential survival and growth tool of any human individual. We can't live on perception alone or instinct alone. Look at the basis of just about any human activity, and one finds conceptual awareness at its base. Even humor requires the power to understand the joke. This sort of conclusion is something that we can know by studying human beings.

Would you say that we could survive on instinct and reason alone (no perception) or perception and reason alone (no instinct)? Or what about reason alone?

Are there not many other features of human beings which are vital to their survival?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Would you say that we could survive on instinct and reason alone (no perception) or perception and reason alone (no instinct)? Or what about reason alone?

I don't consider reason as a fully separate activity from perception. Perception is involved in reasoning, and without any perception at all (across one's entire life), there would be no reasoning.

I don't chop up human nature like this. What I am insisting though is that reasoning is most basic to our survival and growth as human individuals, and every other power "rests" on this most essential power.

Are there not many other features of human beings which are vital to their survival?

Yes, of course, but none as fundamental as conceptual understanding (what I mean by reason).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

I don't consider reason as a fully separate activity from perception. Perception is involved in reasoning, and without any perception at all (across one's entire life), there would be no reasoning.

I don't chop up human nature like this. What I am insisting though is that reasoning is most basic to our survival and growth as human individuals, and every other power "rests" on this most essential power.

Well, fair enough - but I'm not wholly convinced. Surely this is a question for psychology rather than philosophy.

Also, I don't like to throw about accusations of the naturalistic fallacy, but... would you care to explain how you're not committing it?

Yes, of course, but none as fundamental as conceptual understanding (what I mean by reason).

Again, fair enough, but I fail to see how this is an argument that reason should therefore dictate morality or anything else. People reason, and reason makes us human; so?

(I mean you no animosity, by the way. I have a great deal of respect for you! I'm just interested in dissecting your point of view to get a clearer idea of your beliefs.)