 |
|
Frodo
|
|
of Asteroid B-612
May 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
Ethics are a set of moral principles guiding your actions. It's quite clear that ethics are relative, since most cultures have very different principles about what is right and what is wrong.
Or are you asking if there is one absolute code of ethics that is right for everybody, whether they know it or not?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
I'm an ethical absolutist - specifically, a consequentialist.
It's fairly clear to me that the ethical action is the one that maximizes utility. However, I'm not sure what utility is (I used to be pretty sure that it was happiness but am not anymore). Therefore, it seems to me that for now, the ethical thing to do is the one that leads to more general things such as power and knowledge, should this problem ever be figured out with certainty.
Specifically, it seems a good idea to do things that lead to creating brains (machinal or natural) that surpass humans in intelligence and rationality, and creating these in an ordered and careful way. That is, if it can be done.
Since the fate of the entire universe may be at stake here and biological beings are horribly inefficient, the destruction of humanity should probably be seen as an unfortunate side effect in this.
Oh, I love being a mad scientist.
Either there are absolute ethics or there aren't.
If there are absolute ethics, then some acts are better than others; if there are no absolute ethics, then no acts are better than others.
Therefore, any subjective probability distribution other than one that gives a 100% probability to subjective ethics dictates that some actions have a higher moral expectation value.
I haven't seen any proof of subjective morality yet, therefore the subjective prob. distribution should not be one that gives 100% to subjective morality.
Therefore, there is an "absolute morality".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
I believe that there are some ethical absolutes that result from the presuppositions that we make in order to function in society; if we presuppose the principle of reciprocity for purposes of discourse, then we must logically accept the principle of reciprocity in other areas of our life as well (specifically, when determining what actions are moral or immoral; if our intended actions do not satisfy the Golden Rule, then our intended actions are immoral).
If somebody does not make these presuppositions, for example if somebody is a hermit or a psychopath, then the "absolutes" do not necessarily apply to them. However, because they are incapable of functioning in society without making these presuppositions, it is justified for hermits and psychopaths to be removed from society (allowed to live in their mountain cabins, or put in mental hospitals, for example).
Beyond that, there is room for argumentation over what course of action is the best (or most morally correct); for example, if we have determined that Individual Freedoms and Stability of Society are both "good" things, but realize that these are sometimes mutually exclusive (if someone is allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater then public safety is endangered, so we justify limiting the individual's freedom of speech so that it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater), then we argue and attempt to justify why the particular balance that we are in favor of is superior to the balance that our opponents are in favor of. However, regardless of what balance is chosen, the point is that it must adhere to certain ethical absolutes in order to be valid.
That's all I'll say regarding the ethical theory that I adhere to; I've already tried explaining it fully on Wiglaf's "Atheists are quitters" or "Atheists are stupid jerks" thread (I can't remember the name off the top of my head), and was either unjustifiably attacked by people who did not want their world view questioned or was eventually ignored by the people who were capable of having a rational argument. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
Isn't "what causes human suffering is unethical" an absolute?
Technophile: why is it morally good to function in society? (not that I disagree, but you'll have to give some reason)
paiktis:
Why is what causes human suffering unethical? (again, not that I disagree).
I think there should be some perspective here - human suffering/happiness at this moment is negligible compared to the potential amount of conscioous experiences that could come to exist if the universe is filled with intelligent beings - or even just this planet, if computational resources are used more efficiently. We're talking maybe 10-50 orders of magnitude here...(edit, maybe an infinity if infinite computation turns out to be possible - basement universes, Omega point-type scenarios, infinite expansion in open universes, that kind of thing)
In everything you do, you shouldn't ask yourself, "will this help or hurt the people around me?", but: "will this increase the chance of a morally correct universal order coming about?"
I'm still not sure what to make of infinite utilities and infinite negative utilities, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
OK, but then I don't see the point. If functioning in society is not necessary always moral, but you need to do certain things to function in society, then we're not talking about ethics anymore, right? But about "survival skills"?
It's easy to say "to do X, you have to do Y", but that doesn't prove anything about ethics, as you haven't proven your premise.
(well, it proves that if X is ethical, then Y is ethical, but since we don't know whether X is ethical, that gives us no information)
Or is this one of those ethics vs. morality things again? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
If functioning in society is not necessary always moral |
Functioning in society is not "moral" or "immoral", it is "amoral."
quote:
we're not talking about ethics anymore, right? |
Ethics, or morality (I don't consider the two to be substantively different) is concerned with determining what behavior is correct. If someone has made the amoral presupposition to adhere to the principle of reciprocity, then they must extend this presupposition so that it covers moral behaviors as well, i.e. when determining what behavior is correct they must adhere to the priniciple of reciprocity. Failing to do so is a performative contradiction, and is therefore incorrect (irrational, illogical, immoral, whatever).
quote:
(well, it proves that if X is ethical, then Y is ethical, but since we don't know whether X is ethical, that gives us no information) |
The terms "good" and "evil" (or better yet, "virtuous" and "wicked") do not exist outside of human society. If a person were to live the life of a hermit, never coming in contact with another human being throughout his entire life (maybe he was raised by wolves or something, I don't know), then he would never invent the terms "virtuous" or "wicked" because these terms describe actions that the man has never witnessed or taken part in. Similarly, the term "meter" does not exist outside of human society, and if a society never had the need to measure the length of a board or a football field or whatever have you then it would never invent the term "meter" (or any other term used to describe length).
So, whether or not someone chooses to participate in society is an amoral decision, because without society (I'm using a very broad definition of "society" so that it covers all human social interaction) there is no morality.
Once we have chosen to participate in society and have accepted the presuppositions (like reciprocity) necessary for human interaction, then we can apply the terms "virtuous" or "wicked" to describe helpful and harmful behaviors. However, these terms do not describe simply "that which I like" and "that which I do not like;" it is ludicrous to say that ice cream is "virtuous" and that brocolli is "wicked" simply because we enjoy the taste of ice cream and dislike the taste of broccoli, and it is similarly ludicrous to say that an oral surgeon is "virtuous" when we pay him to pull out our impacted wisdom teeth or that a shopkeeper is "wicked" because he is charging more than we can afford to pay for the bicycle in his store (for sake of argument, let's say that we can afford to pay five dollars, and the shopkeeper would need to charge at least two hundred dollars to cover his expenses). "Virtuous" and "wicked" only describe excellence or offensiveness in morality; behaviors that are "morally good" or "morally bad." It is in applying these terms that we must remain consistent with our presuppositions, with reciprocity. If I say "It is virtuous for me to kill you but wicked for you to kill me" and offer no further justification, then I have misused the terms "virtuous" and "wicked" by contradicting my own presuppositions.
I'd be willing to debate this with you further, but I'd suggest that you either a. make sure that Jon Miller doesn't mind a threadjacking, because my posts can tend to get a bit long-winded (at least, when I'm posting about ethics) and many posters may flee in terror and/or boredom, b. start a new thread on this, or c. PM me. I'd suggest that you try a to avoid making a copy-cat thread (and because Jon Miller might want exactly this kind of argument on his thread), then b, and avoid c because I'm not in the habit of checking my PM's. That is, of course, if you still want to debate it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
For the record, I still disagree, but can't be arsed to follow option a, b, or c. 
I'll try to say why in a very condensed way in order not to tempt you to write very long replies:
If you define "society" as all human interaction, then reciprocity is IMO no longer necessary to function in it.
Plus, reciprocity becomes moot because people's situations are never exactly the same.
Last edited by Dr.Oogkloot on 16-12-2001 at 01:54
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
For the ethical relativists:
If you say ethics are relative - that while you have your own system of ethics, others do to, then would you say Hitler was ethical? If you say he had his system of ethics and just committed his crimes outside of that system, aren't you also saying that while everyone has their own systems of ethics, they are only acting ethically when acting in accordance with your own system of ethics? 
quote:
Or are you asking if there is one absolute code of ethics that is right for everybody, whether they know it or not? |
Correct, there is only one ethical system and all others are false. That leaves us with the problem of discovering the one true system. And I suggest the key to that discovery are the "universal" desires we all share. Aside from unusual (not universal) circumstances, no one wants to be murdered - and that means the act of murder is unethical since it violates a universal desire (not even murderers want to be murdered). This universal desire constitutes the primary principle of the true ethical system.
Thus the "right" to life forms the basis of the true system of ethics followed by other principles derived from universal desires. No one wants to be enslaved, therefore freedom becomes the second principle, and because no one wants to be robbed, stealing violates the third principle - private property. This was all well-stated by Jesus when he offered up the "Golden Rule" - treat others as you want others to treat you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
then would you say Hitler was ethical? If you say he had his system of ethics and just committed his crimes outside of that system |
Under Hitler's system of ethics, he was ethical. Most people do not agree with genocide, so for those people and societies, Hitler was unethical. In my belief system, genocide is wrong, so Hitler acted unethically.
quote:
aren't you also saying that while everyone has their own systems of ethics, they are only acting ethically when acting in accordance with your own system of ethics? |
Yep... basically. They are acting ethically to themselves, but unethically to you, who are judging them.
quote:
the act of murder is unethical since it violates a universal desire (not even murderers want to be murdered). This universal desire constitutes the primary principle of the true ethical system.
Thus the "right" to life forms the basis of the true system of ethics followed by other principles derived from universal desires. No one wants to be enslaved, therefore freedom becomes the second principle, and because no one wants to be robbed, stealing violates the third principle - private property. This was all well-stated by Jesus when he offered up the "Golden Rule" - treat others as you want others to treat you. |
No one wants to be poor, therefore there should be an extensive welfare system so no one is poor... right Scot? Oh wait, that doesn't jive with you ethical system (I assume), but it is a universal desire, and you cannot say that it isn't.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Absolute set of ethic is Absolute morality... ie, one set of morals which are the true set of morals, and everything that deviates is wrong.
You need a higher power for this, because you need to know what the source of this absolute morality comes from. If it simply comes from an ideal (ie, life should be protected) then you argue why is that the best ideal to follow, etc. With a higher being, there is no argument... that is what the higher being wants you to do, so the morals that come from his teachings are absolute |
Imran, just because we can't figure out what the absolute moral code is doesn't mean it doesn't exist
To take an analogy, let us regard (don't groan) quantum physics.
You have a particle, and it has quantum uncertainty with regards to its location inside a box. We can do a "measurement" to determine where it is, but if we repeat the same experiment numerous times we will end up with different answers, even though the situation is precisely the same. There are two interpretations to this: either the particle makes a "choice" when you perform the measurement (Copenhagen interpretation) or it was always there and the measurement simply reveals its location (many-worlds interpretation).
Take the location of the particle as the "right" moral code. According to the many-worlds interpretation, just because we don't know where the particle is doesn't mean it doesn't have a location. Even if we can never perform a measurement (ask God), it doesn't mean that the particle isn't located at a definite point in the box (there isn't an absolute moral code).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
Urban Ranger:
I prefer the term "consequentialist" instead of "utilitarian", because "utilitarian" is usually taken to mean that you think happiness/pleasure/absence of pain should be maximized.
Perhaps I should have said "value" instead of "utility" above.
If absolute morality requires a source (why?), can't the universe somehow be that source?
And why would a higher power be a potential source of absolute morality? Why would it be good to do what that higher power says is good?
The only way I could see this happening is because such a higher power would have perfect insight into reality - but then the higher power is no longer the source of morality, it would be there anyhow.
Technophile:
quote:
Reciprocity is required for interactive communication, and without interactive communication you don't have human interaction.
|
Why is reciprocity required for interactive communication? I can secretly think it's my birthright to murder anyone I want (and act like it) and still communicate interactively.
quote:
There are many times when it is justified not to behave reciprocally, for example if an expert is speaking to a layman about the expert's field of study. However, this is justified, and is therefore not inconsistent. |
But how do you know it's justified? If it's justified, there must already be some other principle (such as maximization of utility) to justify it. And when this principle is there, there's no longer any need for reciprocity - you can judge everything by the maximization-of-utility principle.
Why would reciprocity be correct in cases where there is any difference between the situations of two people? i.e., all situations? The "Golden Rule" certainly doesn't follow here, IMO.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-12-2001 21:12
What are you trying to say?
|