What is the basis of ethics?

[quatona]

Thanks for the honesty.

Do you feel holding this position requires extraordinary courage or something?

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

I´m afraid I don´t understand the question. Care to reword it for me?
Who prefers?
Which species is preferred?
What has ethics got to do with it?

 

[nadroj1985]

According to you what is the basis of ethics?

I really have no idea, and I'm rather skeptical that there really is any such basis. Belief in such a basis, oddly enough, almost always seems to do more harm than good. What I consider "acting well" very rarely has anything to do with an anchoring, unquestionable first principle. It usually doesn't have much to do with following rules either.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Ignore

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Could you rephrase this for me?

Whatever makes people learn in an efficient manner

 

[Silenus]

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.

Eudaimonist . . . what happens when a person's psychology rebels, when their psychology no longer clings to the purpose of attaining to the issues of life. It seems your ethics, as Aristolte's was, was based off teleology. In your case, it seems to be the teleology of existence. Life is the ultimate moral value. When you say "fulfillment of the natural function as the sort of living being it is," I'd assume that's how you get considerations of friendship, etc, things not pertaining to biological survival, but psychological fulfilment into the mix and avoid pure utilitarianism, just like Aristotle. But he based his ethics on a different telos . . .

my question is pertaining to suicide. if the actor in question's psychology no longer values and holds life as a premise, your ethics has nothing to say about this. Suicide is an amoral question.

This is stated as a assertion but it is more a question . . . just going to bed soon . . .

 

[Eudaimonist]

Eudaimonist . . . what happens when a person's psychology rebels, when their psychology no longer clings to the purpose of attaining to the issues of life.

What happens is that there is a serious malfunction. Psychologies do not rebel against life without some reason. Are you suggesting that such a person would be psychologically healthy and functional? I would argue that this is a psychological meltdown, and undesirable.

It seems your ethics, as Aristolte's was, was based off teleology. In your case, it seems to be the teleology of existence. Life is the ultimate moral value.

Yes.

When you say "fulfillment of the natural function as the sort of living being it is," I'd assume that's how you get considerations of friendship, etc, things not pertaining to biological survival, but psychological fulfilment into the mix and avoid pure utilitarianism, just like Aristotle. But he based his ethics on a different telos . . .

Psychological fulfillment also contributes to biological survival, albeit in subtle ways. No, I'm not trying to add something irrelevant to biological survival just to avoid "pure utilitarianism". Natural function arguments are not something that exist in addition to the issue of survival, but have a lot to do with the very question of: "What does it mean to survive? Survive as what? Survive how?"

my question is pertaining to suicide. if the actor in question's psychology no longer values and holds life as a premise, your ethics has nothing to say about this. Suicide is an amoral question.

In a certain respect, you are right. The decision to live is, in a sense, not something that morality can dictate to you, since morality is a means to life and assumes that one has chosen life as a goal.

And there are times in which fulfilling one's own life means losing it. To heroically die achieving an important value when the alternative is to lose that value may be appropriate in some circumstances, such as in wartime. I'm not someone who thinks that the quantity of life is more important than the quality of life.

However, that doesn't mean that my ethics has nothing to say to a suicidal person to get them to reframe their perspective in such a way that life is seen as the value it (virtually always) is. We can see through our own experiences and the experiences of others that life has enormous potential to provide fulfilling meaning and purposes. Death offers no values at all -- it is non-existence. It behoves a suicidal person to respark a love of life, and to get help for whatever pain they may feel, so that they can actually achieve something that matters (or will matter) to them. Unless you are living in a Nazi concentration camp, it is unlikely that suicide is a wise course of action.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[acropolis]

Based on most of my actions and intentions, my ethics are based on chasing pleasure and fleeing from pain. Any 'selfless' acts I happen to do are just part of a larger scheme of getting whatever my senses tell me I want. I aspire to something greater, however, but I can't say I'm aspiring very diligently. By extension, I assume everyone has their own pleasure in mind in whatever they do.

The way this thread is playing out has me thinking:

I think there is an assumption that an ethical system, regardless of how complex, should be complete; any possible situation should be resolved to a useful degree (ie. not so vague as to be useless) using that ethical system.

Using this assumption, it is true that for any system of ethics there is a situation in which the correct action dictated by the system is either unresolvable due to an internal conflict, or else would be considered the less desirable for reasons outside the system. I think this is what brightlights is getting at.

The first trap will apply to any ethical system with two or more rules of conduct. These maxims will need a system for determining which rule to use when the rules conflict. That system will either be incomplete or infinitely complex.

A system with only one rule of conduct will still fall to reductio ad absurdum. However, it seems most people just accept the absurdity for the sake of staying consistent, so it's impossible to prove in any way. It is true for me, anyway.

All this to say that ethics cannot be systematized completely; there is always an exception to the rules. And yet people are able to resolve every situation they find themselves in, regardless of the incompleteness of whatever ethical method they use. This suggests to me that there is either an innate and complex method that cannot be enumerated completely, or that human action is inherently probabilistic. Wherever the system is incomplete, it could just be a coin toss.

 

[Idea]

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.


11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.
12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil

As people learn more about the gospel, their consciences become more sensitive - and the distinction between good and evil becomes clearer...

See also works of C.S. Lewis "link"

 

[The Nihilist]

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.


11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.
12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil

As people learn more about the gospel, their consciences become more sensitive - and the distinction between good and evil becomes clearer...

See also works of C.S. Lewis "link"

Really? What about when God murdered Lot's wife for taking a look at what would probably be the most spectacular view in her entire life? Or what about murdering 40 or so children for calling his prophet bald? Or what about a hundred other atrocities committed by your god of love? Is that pretty obviously good to you? Because it seems to me that the more sensitive your knowledge of good and evil, the less inclined you would be to remain a christian.
More importantly, C.S. Lewis is a hack. Cite a real theologian.

 

[cantata]

More importantly, C.S. Lewis is a hack. Cite a real theologian.

Seconded.

 

[brightlights]

All this to say that ethics cannot be systematized completely; there is always an exception to the rules. And yet people are able to resolve every situation they find themselves in, regardless of the incompleteness of whatever ethical method they use. This suggests to me that there is either an innate and complex method that cannot be enumerated completely, or that human action is inherently probabilistic. Wherever the system is incomplete, it could just be a coin toss.

Interesting. Certainly ethics isn't a matter of absolutes, then, but a matter of wisdom and discernment. To be fair, I'm not asking for an ethical system, but simply a basis for ethics. There's still room for ethical dilemas.

Something I was trying to test though is this: It seems to be that any proposed basis for ethics is inadequate. The only two that I've seen that remain consistent are these:

1) "Right" means something that is in line with the character of God.
2) "Right" means the preference of a species.

 

[brightlights]

What's a real theologian?

 

[acropolis]

What's a real theologian?

Someone whose theology is academically rigorous. C. S. Lewis wasn't a theologian in an academic sense, but that does not mean what he wrote is less true. It's just less researched and referenced, in general.

 

[Received]

Whatever metaethical standings you hold, something is bad only ultimately; contrariwise, something is good if it is qualified ultimately as well. Amputation is an immediate bad, but an ultimate good. The problem is: how do we determine what is good or bad? Nietzsche said, chiding the utilitarians, that we can know what is good for us...four or five steps down the way. The only solution is an absolute -- correct action in any situation. This can take the form of the divine command theory -- presumably God knows the ultimate good. There's a problem: how do we know these commandments aren't meant generically, not specifically (perhaps as an accessory to conscience)? And, stronger: how do we know we're correctly interpreting the ethical maxim in consideration?

The only solution is abandoning value judgements completely (including pleasure and pain -- for sometimes a momentary resignation of pleasure for pain results in a comprehensively more intense or durative feeling of pleasure!) or, well, following one's conscience. Listening to oneself intuitively. Intuitive ethics allows one to hurdle the problem of interpretation. I can't think of any other alternative.

 

[brightlights]

I'd add that intuitive ethics is very important and no applied ethical discussion can be had without it.

 

[Received]

I think intuitive ethics is absolutely central when Jesus asked what it profits a man to gain the world and lose his soul. Presumably the soul is found intuitively, actualized and sustained through conscience. One can easily "lose himself" through foregoing his conscience in favor of even a contrary ethical system. He can choose pleasure and attempt to fool himself by muffling up his conscience with the postscript, "well, it's not intuitive but pleasure that's important." Still, he dies -- he loses his soul.

 

[Received]

Sin transcends the ethical qualified as it relates to external laws, even if they are biblical. One can sin by following one of the ten commandments. Laws -- good laws -- work generally with spiritual development: in general a person is spiritually healthy in proportion to how he follows laws. However, law isn't everything, as Jesus pointed in reproaching the Pharisees. Law needs to be based in faith, and not the other way around where faith is evidenced through following the law (as the Pharisees presumed); and because law is based in faith, faith gets the upper hand and has the potential to circumsribe and transcend the law when conscience dictates. It is the special power of the law to unveil hidden, or nearly imperceptible, sinfulness; yet the law can't save. Faith saves, and faith transcends the law. As such, "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24). In this sense Christ is the end (goal) of the law (Romans 10:4).

 

[brightlights]

Whenever I read books like Deutoronomy it seems like God gave the law so that we would follow it and live, yet Paul talks about it differently in the epistles. I've been thinking: what were/are the purposes of the law then and today?

 

[Received]

To magnify our oftentimes near-inconspicuous sinfulness that results from a lack of faith -- that is, from a lack of translegal relation with God. The law works with faith in the sense that it aids in realizing sin -- for many times it's hard to recognize sin, but it's still there. It isn't that Paul is contradicting the point of the law, nor is Jesus. Both believed we must fulfill the law; but the law isn't technically fulfilled by striving to fulfill the law. The law is fulfilled through living a life of faith. Only through faith can the spirit work fruits in us -- and these fruits are what we use to prove that we're fulfilling the law. If you live a life of faith -- intuitively responding to Eternity within you, the Logos within you -- you naturally won't be covetous, or envious, or wrathful, or lustful. You'll love God; indeed, to love God starts and finishes with the will, for authentic love is definitively will-to-good.

 

[funyun]

I once went to a Chinese buffet and got a fortune cookie that read:

"When your heart is pure your mind is clear."

I've always held the opposite to be true. When your mind is clear your heart is pure. Reason is the highest virtue and from it all other virtues and all good action follows. Regardless to what some will say, compassion, benevolence, and magnanimity follow from reason. Overt and overbearing emotional action, whether "positive" or "negative" emotion, as they are traditionally viewed, is bad.

But there is no "good" and "evil." There is only good action and bad action, good action flowing from rationality and bad action flowing from irrationality. Bad action is, essentially, weakness, of the intellect or of the will. That's shouldn't become a judgmental attitude on the part of the virtuous individual because even the virtuous individual isn't perfect and is understanding of the shortcomings of others. But to know the distinction from bad and good action and to not modify one's own action accordingly is weakness. It's not "evil", it's not "wickedness," it's just weakness.

Ethics is not a "societal" phenomenon, by the way. The most foundational parts of ethics are grounded in the individual. There is essentially no distinction between how the virtuous individual would act in a natural environment and how the virtuous individual would act in a social environment.