Purpose of ethics

@Ichthus91,

Ichthus91 wrote:

What is the purpose of ethics to an individual (not to society or a group)?

Ethics today is concerned with the determination of morally obligatory, morally permissible and morally impermissible action.

Meta-ethics is largely concerned with the theoretical underpinning of moral worth, the broad class of what falls under the category of "the moral".

Virtue ethics is some fluffy stuff about the conditions for moral identity and character within a community. It's largely concerned with our moral vocabulary and the conditions necessary to apply said vocabulary to individuals (for the successful application implies virtues relative to the individual).

Quote:

If punishment is circumventable; Why should we follow them?

Too broad. Make the question more precise.

Quote:

What standard set of ethics have we chosen or have we made our own changeable set?

Too broad. Make the question more precise.

Quote:

Is society (or any social group), law, parental regulations, or religion necessary to provide one with a certain standard?

Too broad. Societies are a culmination of norms, standards and forms of life. A standard "unto oneself" would be a pretty uninteresting "standard" if not an outright abuse of the concept. So yes, societies are necessary for standards. But this is a chicken-egg scenario. Societies are the contours for standards and norms. A society is a collection of correct or incorrect behavior.

Sounds like a paper topic.

See: Personal Identity and Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

@Ichthus91,

Ichthus91 wrote:

What is the purpose of ethics to an individual (not to society or a group)? If punishment is circumventable; Why should we follow them? What standard set of ethics have we chosen or have we made our own changeable set? Is society (or any social group), law, parental regulations, or religion necessary to provide one with a certain standard?

I believe that the purpose or meaning of ethics is how one should conduct themselves in order to achieve the ultimate good in life, not only for themselves but also for others. One cannot treat people one way and expect to be treated in another way by other people.

I don't believe that law, parental regulations, or religion is necessary to provide one with a certain standard of how to live, though parental guidance is very important for the moral development of a child.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

One cannot treat people one way and expect to be treated in another way by other people.

In what sense do you mean "cannot"? It seems psychologically inevitable that we will engage in this sort of behavior. If you mean there's some kind of psychological or physical limitation which prevents us from doing such a thing, your claim is patently false. We engage in such behavior all the time.

Do you mean "should not"? If so, why shouldn't we?

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

In what sense do you mean "cannot"? It seems psychologically inevitable that we will engage in this sort of behavior. If you mean there's some kind of psychological or physical limitation which prevents us from doing such a thing, your claim is patently false. We engage in such behavior all the time.

Do you mean "should not"? If so, why shouldn't we?

Of course I don't mean that we literally cannot behave or think this way. I'm saying that it is irrational to think this way, and so we should not. You read into that too much.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

Of course I don't mean that we literally cannot behave or think this way. I'm saying that it is irrational to think this way, and so we should not. You read into that too much.

What makes it irrational? And, again, as you did not answer my question, in what sense do you mean "cannot"?

What is the relation between "irrationality" or something's being "irrational" and this "cannot" you speak of.

Are you saying we cannot be irrational? Surely we can be irrational.

These are your words; I'm only reading them. Reading it them is not reading too much into it. Reading it at all is not the same as reading too much into it. So let's can the accusations, and get to the philosophical.

If you don't literally mean that then say what it is that you literally mean.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

What makes it irrational? And, again, as you did not answer my question, in what sense do you mean "cannot"?

What is the relation between "irrationality" or something's being "irrational" and this "cannot" you speak of.

Are you saying we cannot be irrational? Surely we can be irrational.

These are your words; I'm only reading them. Reading it them is not reading too much into it. Reading it at all is not the same as reading too much into it. So let's can the accusations, and get to the philosophical.

If you don't literally mean that then say what it is that you literally mean.

I seem to have offended you, which was not my intent. Don't be so sensitive. I'm just saying that I obviously don't mean that we literally cannot think in that way. You, like me, are a philosopher, and some of us tend to question every minute detail of a statement. It's the habitual tendency to deduct every single thing someone says. Sometimes it is warranted, but sometimes it unnecessary. I didn't mean anything by it.

I don't think that you read into my last post nearly enough. My response was that by cannot I meant that we should not, because it is irrational. How rational does it sound to punch someone in the face and expect the person to smile and give you a kiss afterward?

@hue-man,

Halt. I am not "offended." I am being critical. Can the ad hominem and focus on the philosophical. Do not confuse spice for being offended.

Quote:

This time I don't think that you read into my post nearly enough. My response was that by cannot I meant that we should not, because it is irrational. How rational does it sound to punch someone in the face and expect the person to smile and give you a kiss afterward?

Surely I read your post nearly enough when I first made the distinction between "should not" and "cannot" wherein I asked you to clarify why we should not. I asked the question first, so if your basis for saying that I did not read closely or understand properly enough is that I did not understand that you meant "should not," then perhaps you should re-read my post.

So, onto your justification.

Is "punching in the face" anything like "not tending to one's presumed moral obligation"? One can say "there's nothing moral about punching someone in the face, and if that person deserves to be punched in the face, then that person got what's coming to him. Certainly, I wouldn't expect this person to smile at me, for whatever it is that warranted my punching implies that he'd have no reason to smile at me before the fact of my punching him."

But even then, how is your example representative of all of rationality?

People might act in a morally wrong way and expect to be held blameworthy for such action, but what has rationality to do with this? I do not think that by lying or making a false promise or cheating my friends that I have done something irrational. Indeed, it took a great deal of rationality on my part to outsmart them! What then would make my lying irrational if it took some keen rationality to get my lying off the ground in the first place?

@nerdfiles,

Humility is a good thing.:surrender:

@Ichthus91,

It's not a good idea to tell someone not to feel something.
This is the main reason girls think their boyfriends are insensitive.
"Why do you take it that way?"
"Do not confuse being (whatever) with being (whatever else)."
"Don't be so sensitive."
And so on. That comment alone likely sparked the little rivalry you two have with each other.

@Ichthus91,

Ichthus91 wrote:

What is the purpose of ethics to an individual (not to society or a group)? If punishment is circumventable; Why should we follow them? What standard set of ethics have we chosen or have we made our own changeable set? Is society (or any social group), law, parental regulations, or religion necessary to provide one with a certain standard?

The myth is that there is an individual outside the society/culture/group. This is not to say that physically people aren't seperate and thet they don't have their unique being. Functionally, however, there are no non-social human beings and ethics cannot be considered on a purely personal level. There is are only two documented cases of people growing up alone outside the boundaries of society, and neither of them even learned how to speak even after years of therapeutic attempts to integrate them into society. Both of them showed significant signs of learnign deficiency to the point of metnal retardation, although nothing was chemically of physically wrong with them. If nurture, which partially consists of acquiring an ethical code weren't part of the natural human condition, we would be set free on the world as infants ready to make our way in the world like snakes or birds. It is not an accident that the 'smartest' creatures on earth are the most vulnerable in childhood and raised by their 'mother' the longest. And its not an accident that those same creatures have the lowest per pregnancy number of offspring. It's part of their fitness.

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

Humility is a good thing.:surrender:

Haha! Agreed. But why is it? Obviously humility is important as an individual because of how others will respond to your haughtiness. But if all the world were puffed up with vanity; what harm would it do them? Is humility still a good thing as a group? and why?

@Ichthus91,

I think ethics not only are a way to set us apart from barbaric and wild animals but also mainly to show show our superiority. Individual ethics are non-exsistent, ethics only come with the idea of society. Ethics are designed around the thought that you will be coexisting with other people.

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT wrote:

I think ethics not only are a way to set us apart from barbaric and wild animals but also mainly to show show our superiority. Individual ethics are non-exsistent, ethics only come with the idea of society. Ethics are designed around the thought that you will be coexisting with other people.

So why don't barbaric and wild animals have ethics? According to some scientists: some animals are smarter than humans, usually they are very specific areas in which they are more intelligent. Perhaps intelligence isn't directly related to superiority or ethical principals.

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

GoshisDead wrote:

The myth is that there is an individual outside the society/culture/group. This is not to say that physically people aren't seperate and thet they don't have their unique being. Functionally, however, there are no non-social human beings and ethics cannot be considered on a purely personal level. There is are only two documented cases of people growing up alone outside the boundaries of society, and neither of them even learned how to speak even after years of therapeutic attempts to integrate them into society. Both of them showed significant signs of learnign deficiency to the point of metnal retardation, although nothing was chemically of physically wrong with them. If nurture, which partially consists of acquiring an ethical code weren't part of the natural human condition, we would be set free on the world as infants ready to make our way in the world like snakes or birds. It is not an accident that the 'smartest' creatures on earth are the most vulnerable in childhood and raised by their 'mother' the longest. And its not an accident that those same creatures have the lowest per pregnancy number of offspring. It's part of their fitness.

Integrity is basically doing the right thing even when no one is looking. Why should one have integrity? If we don't have an ethical code and we get it from out parents and the rest of society; where did society originally get it? If we didn't get; we would be like a bunch of wild animals, right?

@YumClock,

Quote:

What is the purpose of ethics to an individual (not to society or a group)? If punishment is circumventable; Why should we follow them?

It renders them void. However even on the flip side of that it becomes just as absurd. Let's say you have completely accepted the fact that you are going to christian hell (what ever that is). Wouldn't it make sense since you accept your fate to just continue to do bad stuff? How much worse could hell be, so why not get in as much sinning as you possibly can, right? So go to town then...

Quote:

What standard set of ethics have we chosen or have we made our own changeable set? Is society (or any social group), law, parental regulations, or religion necessary to provide one with a certain standard?

Well if anything it is clear that Christians do not get their morals or ethics from the bible. If they claim they do, they have not read the entire bible. If they claim they have read the entire bible then they are playing favorites or are in complete denial.

I wouldn't really say we make stuff up but instead we sort of morph them over time as they are challenged. If no one is challenging the current state of ethics then no change happens. Not always for the greater good but it usually is for a more accepting attitude if anything.

@Ichthus91,

The idea of a christian hell being an absolute state is nowhere in the Bible.

Christ talks of financially corrupt people being far worse off than the inhabitants of Sodom. This clearly shows that the heaven/hell dichotomy is a matter of degree.

.....

Lets assume that someone has to lie to save another person from torture. Because he has not read the bible and assumes heaven/hell is a boolean concept, he now believes he is going to burn in an absolute hell for absolute eternity.

So he feels he can do whatever he wants and is now going to go and torture people in order to extort money from them.

Its quite clear, that this person is trying to justify his desire to extort and torture people.
Its quite clear that God would not see a starving person who steals a loaf of bread in the same light as Bernie Madoff or Adolph Hitler.

Regardless of wether or not you accept Christianity or any other form of Theology, it makes sense that to believe that if you wrong someone else, you will be wronged in turn.

...

Consider 2 societies. Both atheist.

In the first society they promote the idea that good be rewarded with good, and bad with bad.

In the second society the idea is promoted that you can do whatever you want, and that if someone does you good, you should take advantage of them.

Clearly the first society will thrive, and the second will self-destruct.

Now consider a 3rd society. Similar to the first except, there is a tendency to tolerate badness, to an extent where it can be tolerated. If someone steals from you, you do not immediately steal back. You try and tell him a story explaining that if he lived in a society where people stole, then society would self-destruct. You wait for him to realise his error, and return what he stole voluntarily. You have as much patience as you can without destroying yourself. Only if the person is blatantly stubborn do you retaliate.

Now consider a 4th society.
They live next door to the 3rd society, and they relaise that this is a tolerant society. So they pretend to not understand its ethics, and steal from them, then beg forgiveness each time (whilst laughing up their sleeve)

After much suffering, the 3rd society declares war on the 4th society. The 4th society cannot defend itself in a war situation because everyone is too busy stealing the military supplies.

Now a 5th society.
Just like the 3rd society except that it believes that absolutely every good and bad will be rewarded by a Deity (with exceptions made for children who do not know any better). So there is no stealing when nobody is looking. Its supply lines will be intact during any war, and it will survive better than the others.

@Ichthus91,

I believe that Ethics is a body of knowledge, just as is Physiology/Anatomy, or Psychology/Sociology. It is a perspective on human beings, in which they are regarded in a certain specific way -- namely, as infinitely-valuable treasures, not to be defiled; as organisms with a wide range of conceptions, perceptions and experience, capable of deep feelings and deep thoughts; as creatures having a story to tell ...if one succeeds in getting them talking ..about their life, including their inner-life.

Dr. Jonathan Haidt, does resarch in Moral Psychology, and has a Moral Foundations page in which he describes universal human nature - whether it is based upon our evolutionary and tribal past, or whether we have brain modules for the way we behave is not the main topic here. But we do tend to behave in certain ways and to believe certain prevalent ideas. Science (especially psychotherapy) has shown this. Procrasination, perfectionism, perversions, fetishisms, over-generalizations are very common among us human beings.
There are ethical fallacies such as racism, sexism, rankism, speciesism, regarding persons as mere things -- and thus it's okay to abuse them, or discard them; or, even worse, treating them as numbers -- and thus it's okay to erase them.

If ethics has a purpose, I would say it is for an indiviidual to integrate his/her outer self with his inner Self; to eventually become aware that we are all one, in a sense. The purpose is to match up with the highest ideals for a human being; to become Cosmic Optimists, to become our humble self, our compassionate self, to gain in empathy, to become aware of where our true interests are: to have Enlightened Self-interest, viz., to know that what helps you, helps me ...if it really helps you ....and conversely.

To say it another way, our purpose is to create, and add, value. If we want to gain value in life we will pursue ethics and morality. The most valuable life is the most meaningful life. We will not want to just drift along, nor to vegetate; we will want to create a meaningful life. Finding out how - and doing it - will be the fulfilment of the purpose.

I'd like to hear your views on all this. Any questions, comments or critiques?

.

Philosophy Forum

Purpose of ethics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know