Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The essence of social ethics

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» The essence of social ethics

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Lately I've been thinking about ethics, in an effort to learn what is basic. I've come to the conclusion that adding value is what it is all about.

Let's discuss human nature for a moment, and let's also do some philosophical analysis as we make some distinctions among concepts.

Psychiatrists have written that those who overburden themselves with responsibilities have "a martyr complex."

The rest of us -- who are not martyrs - often do what feels good. In that sense we act out of self-interest. This however does not mean that we are selfish.

For there is self-interest and there is enlightened self-interest. The former is often taken to be synonymous with selfishness. The latter is an awareness. Let me explain.

To have enlightened self-interest is to have an awareness that what really helps you helps me. What tends toward and facilitates your authenticity also results in my becoming more authentic and in my flourishing. The ideal state of a human life is fulfillment or flourishing. (This includes a cluster of concepts such as happiness, success, joy, contentment, serenity, living a meaningful life.)

To be valuable is to be meaningful. Hence a valuable life is a meaningful life [but the converse is not necessarily true. One may have a full life, about which books will be written, and yet not have lived a valuable life. Adolph Hitler is an example.]

Authenticity and flourishing are ideals for the ethical life of an individual. We are authentic when we are true to our own true self: when our behavior and habits match our own self-ideals. Then the person is in balance. Then one has reduced his own hypocrisy. He "walks the talk." He lives what he claims to believe. To be phony is the opposite of being authentic.

It is though an artificial distinction (made for academic purpose) between Individual Ethics and Social Ethics, since a person is often defined by the social groups of which he is a part - both by his personal identification with such groups and by our mentioning his culture, his times, his society.

In summary, a person has enlightened self-interest

@deepthot,

I wrote an article that is relevant:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/3868-metaphysical-epistemological-account-ethics.html

@deepthot,

All ethics are social, so how are social ethics different from any ethics???

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

All ethics are social, so how are social ethics different from any ethics???

I don't know that all ethics are social. Virtue ethics is more intrapersonal than interpersonal. Social ethics is the part of ethics that deals with how persons should affect other persons and other beings. Individual ethics is more about how you should affect and conduct yourself.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I don't know that all ethics are social. Virtue ethics is more intrapersonal than interpersonal. Social ethics is the part of ethics that deals with how persons should affect other persons and other beings. Individual ethics is more about how you should affect and conduct yourself.

There are no individual ethics... They always come from some where... Every society has its ethics, and ethics are essential to every society...Look at how the word is defined, alternately as custom or character. In fact, societies are defined by a common ethic, as in the gay community, or the christian community; and people are known as Christians or Gays by their behavior... No person is ever a member of any community against their will...They are only so much a member of any community as they share the community ethic...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

There are no individual ethics... They always come from some where... Every society has its ethics, and ethics are essential to every society...Look at how the word is defined, alternately as custom or character. In fact, societies are defined by a common ethic, as in the gay community, or the christian community; and people are known as Christians or Gays by their behavior... No person is ever a member of any community against their will...They are only so much a member of any community as they share the community ethic...

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. By individual ethics, he means how should I affect myself. For example, should I take heroin or not, should I commit suicide or not, etc. By social ethics, he means should I punch that guy in the face or not, or should I rape that woman or not. In other words, individual ethics involves one person and social ethics involves more than one person. It's quite simple, no need to make a debate out of it.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. By individual ethics, he means how should I affect myself. For example, should I take heroin or not, should I commit suicide or not, etc. By social ethics, he means should I punch that guy in the face or not, or should I rape that woman or not. In other words, individual ethics involves one person and social ethics involves more than one person. It's quite simple, no need to make a debate out of it.

Ethics are a form, and a form of relationship as are all forms...You are making the thing impossible to conceive of by trying to think of it as it never is, in vitro, when it is always found in vivo...The individual is a hypothetical... Clearly we all have our separate lives, but we are enculturated, civilized, and embued with all the knowledge humanity finds essential...The philosophy of the individual is one that the modern state and power structures generally have found extremely useful because it robs the people of their natural support structures and gives them nothing by way of compensation... On the other hand, it has not led to individual freedom, and as much as ever, the individual is what he always was: A criminal...Look at some of our individuals... Socrates, St. Paul, Caesar, Dionesius the Great, Napoleon, Nietzsche...They all deserve the recrimination of history...What it takes to cut a new path never makes any person happy, and it only seldom does society any good, so no one should ever leave society, or offend society any more than is absolutely necessary, and then take no joy from it...No person with the perspective of the individuals has the time sight to judge society, or the ethics with which they are raised...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Ethics are a form, and a form of relationship as are all forms...You are making the thing impossible to conceive of by trying to think of it as it never is, in vitro, when it is always found in vivo...The individual is a hypothetical... Clearly we all have our separate lives, but we are enculturated, civilized, and embued with all the knowledge humanity finds essential...The philosophy of the individual is one that the modern state and power structures generally have found extremely useful because it robs the people of their natural support structures and gives them nothing by way of compensation... On the other hand, it has not led to individual freedom, and as much as ever, the individual is what he always was: A criminal...Look at some of our individuals... Socrates, St. Paul, Caesar, Dionesius the Great, Napoleon, Nietzsche...They all deserve the recrimination of history...What it takes to cut a new path never makes any person happy, and it only seldom does society any good, so no one should ever leave society, or offend society any more than is absolutely necessary, and then take no joy from it...No person with the perspective of the individuals has the time sight to judge society, or the ethics with which they are raised...

I guess that last post just didn't stick with you. I agree with what you're saying about the individual and society, but I'm just trying to make you understand what deepthot meant by individual ethics and social ethics. Why you insist on making an issue out of this is beyond me.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I guess that last post just didn't stick with you. I agree with what you're saying about the individual and society, but I'm just trying to make you understand what deepthot meant by individual ethics and social ethics. Why you insist on making an issue out of this is beyond me.

Read this slowly...There is no such thing as individual ethic... Ethics are what bind the person to society, abd without them the person has all the value of an unleashed dog... Think if you can qualify anything... Is there such a thing as property rights??? Can there be without changing the whole nature of rights... T Roosevelt said there are no hyphenated Americans... In fact there are no hyphenated ideas of any sort... Hot dogs are not dogs... Half apples are not apples...People try to capture something of the same idea and the qualify it beyond recognition... The fact is that people do not live in a vacuum... They are all products of society and all raised by a unit, the family, in that social community... They cannot judge morals or find meaning in morals apart from certain reference points which they have culturally, and socially..

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Read this slowly...There is no such thing as individual ethic... Ethics are what bind the person to society, abd without them the person has all the value of an unleashed dog... Think if you can qualify anything... Is there such a thing as property rights??? Can there be without changing the whole nature of rights... T Roosevelt said there are no hyphenated Americans... In fact there are no hyphenated ideas of any sort... Hot dogs are not dogs... Half apples are not apples...People try to capture something of the same idea and the qualify it beyond recognition... The fact is that people do not live in a vacuum... They are all products of society and all raised by a unit, the family, in that social community... They cannot judge morals or find meaning in morals apart from certain reference points which they have culturally, and socially..

You are being incredibly hard headed. Read this very slowly . . . I said that I understand what you're saying and I agree with you about the ethical standards of a society and it's impact on the individual. I am simply trying to make you understand what he meant by individual ethics. Just forget what I said, Fido.

@deepthot,

Forgetting what you both said is incredibly easy...If you want to talk nonsense you will have to do it alone... Personal ethics, social ethics, ethics ethics...If you want to make a distinction; justify it...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

... The fact is that people do not live in a vacuum... They are all products of society and all raised by a unit, the family, in that social community... They cannot judge morals or find meaning in morals apart from certain reference points which they have culturally, and socially..

While I agree with the above statements, I would venture to point out that The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
in its section on Ethics reminds us that among the principles most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions are some known as these -- and I quote:

Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or physical body.
Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety..

They are described as follows:

"The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights are based on moral rights."

While most of the principles they list are socially-oriented, human rights (such as the right not to be arbitrarily imprisoned -- for political thoughts and speech; or the right to put one's sensitive conscience into practice, to act on one's empathic, enlightened beliefs - in other words, the right to liberty or freedom expressed by Thoreau and Tom Paine and Voltaire) are a matter of Individual Morality. So is growth in insight, tolerance, widening of perspective, maturity, empathy, awareness that we are all connected, and other qualities that I would name: moral development.

In fact, I have a unique definition of "morality" that I would like to propose. I define the term as: increasing correspondence between one's self and one's Self -- where by "Self" I mean: one's self-concept (which includes one's self-image and all that is connoted with it.) By "self" I mean the observable, bodily self (including how others see us, our actions, etc.) The Self also refers to our inner life, our appreciation of our heritage -- how we, as humans, evolved from that new missing link, just discovered the other day in Germany -- and the suffering humanity had to go though to get us where we are today. [I am aware that many of us lack this appreciation, and do not have an educated, sensitive conscience.]

Hence, morality - as I understand it - is an increasing correspondence with an improving self-ideal. It is a very dynamic concept.

To learn more about what I mean by Individual Ethics, and moral living, see these links to some of my writings:
Work For World Peace - Ethics As Science

or here: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3

or, if that appears too technical or too lengthy, you may want to read this populariization of it, entitled "Living The Good Life." at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd
See especially Chapter 3 which explains more about Morality.

Morality, as I see it, is a matter of degree, rather than all or none. Morality is moral value. And like financial value, we can possess more or less.

Moral growth is very analagous to advancement in health in the physical body. One can be morally sick: this is known as Immorality. The latter is comprised of various bad habits, of perversions, perversity, and of the entire list in the Psychiatric Handbook of diagnoses.

In sum, Individual Ethics is that department of Ethics which deals with the individual and his moral development: whether he acquires a sense of balance ( a feeling for justice ), a desire for sustainability, an appreciation of his interdependence, and the need to cooperate, to share, to be kind, etc.

I believe it is useful to divide Ethics into the two departments of Individual Ethics and Social Ethics, for purposes of teaching the subject. I would further claim that the Individual Ethics should be taught first -- for once the person is clear about who he is, and once he accepts himself - warts and all - he will be more likely to create himself (in the sense of: develop his talents and gifts) and then is likely to give these gifts to the world ... to the ultimate benefit of us all. As the Oracle of Delphi said: KNOW THYSELF ! This is profound wisdom.

If you read any of my references offered above, let me know what you thought of them.

@deepthot,

Principals and rights are themselves ideals as ethics are, and as such, are forms of relationship...None of those moral forms are just hung out in space... They are all dependent in their meaning...We cannot prove the existence of our principals of justice and autonomy, or rights... These forms have meaning because we find that we, that is, society cannot live without them... They forms are shared, like our lives that we conceive of as inependent, but which are in fact entirely dependent...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Forgetting what you both said is incredibly easy...If you want to talk nonsense you will have to do it alone... Personal ethics, social ethics, ethics ethics...If you want to make a distinction; justify it...

I justified the distinction. You're just ignoring what I said and making it into a matter of the ethics of society, which I happen to agree with. You need to learn how to not be an ass.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. By individual ethics, he means how should I affect myself. For example, should I take heroin or not, should I commit suicide or not, etc. By social ethics, he means should I punch that guy in the face or not, or should I rape that woman or not. In other words, individual ethics involves one person and social ethics involves more than one person. It's quite simple, no need to make a debate out of it.

Thank you, hu-man. You really grasp what I'm driving at.

You state it very clearly. I appreciate that. I would like to hear your comments after you have read more of my supporting arguments in the three essays to which I offered links in an earlier post. deepthot is Dr. Katz. {As part of my efforts at authenticity I have not attempted to disguise that fact in a ploy to be cute.} Even though I am not the best writer in the world, to say the least, I am not ashamed that I write my thoughts down, and strive to clarify my thoughts. When I employ the word 'science' in connection with 'ethics' I mean it in the sense of a cumulative body of knowledge. I do not fear that it will put Moral Philosophers out of work - for they can become philosophers of (moral) science. Philosophy of science is still philosophy. Wouldn't you agree? There are still plenty of concepts for everyone to analyze. A brief bio on me - I didn't write it - is found at this site:
Marvin Charles Katz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my original post here I presented some ideas. No one yet has said whether they concur with the ideas I explored, whether the presentation makes sense to them, whether it could, or should, be utilized by other teachers and professors as the essence of (social) ethics. I hope that those ideas resonate with the discussants here; and if they do, I'd like to be informed of it. Better yet, if anyone can constructively build on them, and extend the discipline by following through and rounding out the frame of reference offered ... that would be super!

All constructive comments are highly welcomed !!!!

@deepthot,

You may be right Hue-man...I have seldom seen where I did not think another was being an ass that it was me being the ass, and a true ass at that... So, let me suggest that I don't think the distinction as made is valid, and it has not been justified...I am not saying morals are of society and not of the person, and I reject out of hand that morals are of the person, and not of society... They are both together and so, no matter what ones perspective is...Ethics is how we fit into society...Whether we talk of ethics or any subject, meaning is something we find together...Actually, whether we think of ourselves as individuals or not, it is impossilbe to say where society leaves off, and the individual begins... Usually only conscious action on the part of society can put a person out, and no one can be put out of humanity no matter what their crime...

@deepthot,

deepthot wrote:

Thank you, hu-man. You really grasp what I'm driving at.

You state it very clearly. I appreciate that. I would like to hear your comments after you have read more of my supporting arguments in the three essays to which I offered links in an earlier post. deepthot is Dr. Katz. {As part of my efforts at authenticity I have not attempted to disguise that fact in a ploy to be cute.} Even though I am not the best writer in the world, to say the least, I am not ashamed that I write my thoughts down, and strive to clarify my thoughts. When I employ the word 'science' in connection with 'ethics' I mean it in the sense of a cumulative body of knowledge. I do not fear that it will put Moral Philosophers out of work - for they can become philosophers of (moral) science. Philosophy of science is still philosophy. Wouldn't you agree? There are still plenty of concepts for everyone to analyze. A brief bio on me - I didn't write it - is found at this site:
Marvin Charles Katz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my original post here I presented some ideas. No one yet has said whether they concur with the ideas I explored, whether the presentation makes sense to them, whether it could, or should, be utilized by other teachers and professors as the essence of (social) ethics. I hope that those ideas resonate with the discussants here; and if they do, I'd like to be informed of it. Better yet, if anyone can constructively build on them, and extend the discipline by following through and rounding out the frame of reference offered ... that would be super!

All constructive comments are highly welcomed !!!!

I'm aware of the involvement of science in the study of values. However, science can only report on what people value and why they value them. Science cannot say what people should value; that's when philosophy takes over. Science is the objective study of observable phenomena. Science can say what people should do if they want to achieve a certain end, such as the good, but science cannot say what is good in absence of the sentiments of the perceiver because there is no convincing way to go from 'is' to 'ought'. I believe that the line between philosophy and science is thinner than both sides would like to admit. Philosophers should look at science as an ally, not an opponent.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

...We cannot prove the existence of our principals [sic] of justice and autonomy... ...shared, like our lives that we conceive of as inependent, but which are in fact entirely dependent...

What can you prove the existence of?? And what proof method will you use?

My original post stressed our interdependence so I quite agree with you on that.

My manual, EtHICS: A Colleg Course, a link to which you see below, drew (using the basic three value dimensions as tools of analysis) a distinction among three concepts: Dependence, Independence, and Interdependence, showing they are on a spectrum; and agreeing with you that they are all relationships. They are indeed stages in a child's growth, as pointed out by Erikson; and in our moral growth, as pointed out by Lawrence Kohlberg, of Harvard University. See pp. 56 ff. in that ETHICS manual for further clarification on the topic of moral development and 'selfless acts.'. http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3

---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

hue-man wrote:

I'm aware of the involvement of science in the study of values. However, science can only report on what people value and why they value them. Science cannot say what people should value; that's when philosophy takes over. Science is the objective study of observable phenomena. Science can say what people should do if they want to achieve a certain end, such as the good, but science cannot say what is good in absence of the sentiments of the perceiver because there is no convincing way to go from 'is' to 'ought'. I believe that the line between philosophy and science is thinner than both sides would like to admit. Philosophers should look at science as an ally, not an opponent.

You write: "science can only report on what people value." Since human nature is highly-relevant to Ethics as a discipline, the facts about what people do value I should think would contribute greatly to clarity in the field of Ethics.

You further write: "Science is the objective study of observable phenomena. Science can say what people should do if they want to achieve a certain end, such as the good, but science cannot say what is good." Are you aware of Appendix One of my manual, ETHICS, which describes a new science, the science of value. The "good" itself can be analyzed in some precise ways now, thanks to the work of a genius named Robert S. Hartman, a true poly-math. See his bio in Wikipedia:
[url]http://[URL[/url]="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman"]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman[/URL]

As to the Is-Ought relationship, see pages 41-45 in the treatise, ETHICS: A College Course, which discuss this very topic, and which argies that the "ought" may indeed be based on the "is." You are right, though, that the person, and his bundle of judgments, enters into it ... we cannot dispense with subjectivity. Even the objectivity that you mention in your definition of science is inter-subjectivity, it is a sharing, an over-lapping of thoughts, like the intersection in a Venn diagram.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I'm aware of the involvement of science in the study of values. However, science can only report on what people value and why they value them. Science cannot say what people should value; that's when philosophy takes over. Science is the objective study of observable phenomena. Science can say what people should do if they want to achieve a certain end, such as the good, but science cannot say what is good in absence of the sentiments of the perceiver because there is no convincing way to go from 'is' to 'ought'. I believe that the line between philosophy and science is thinner than both sides would like to admit. Philosophers should look at science as an ally, not an opponent.

If what you say about science and observable phenomena is correct, moral forms is no provence of science... When ethics do not work and moral forms fail humanity, it has much in common with a train wreck... The damage is done, the wreckage is everywhere; and now you have to find what went wrong to even presume there is some form to go right that did not go right... For us, the situation is much better than for Socrates, or even Nietzsche...Every time civil society breaks down the evidence mounts up, but we are no where near saying this is that about moral forms... No one has yet captured a justice live, and put it in a zoo...People say justice, but it is in short supply and on scant evidence...They rather presume the existence of justice from injustice, which is all too common...

@deepthot,

deepthot wrote:

You write: "science can only report on what people value." Since human nature is highly-relevant to Ethics as a discipline, the facts about what people do value I should think would contribute greatly to clarity in the field of Ethics.

You further write: "Science is the objective study of observable phenomena. Science can say what people should do if they want to achieve a certain end, such as the good, but science cannot say what is good." Are you aware of Appendix One of my manual, ETHICS, which describes a new science, the science of value. The "good" itself can be analyzed in some precise ways now, thanks to the work of a genius named Robert S. Hartman, a true poly-math. See his bio in Wikipedia:
[URL="http://%5BURL"]http://[URL[/URL]="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman"]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman[/url]

As to the Is-Ought relationship, see pages 41-45 in the treatise, ETHICS: A College Course, which discuss this very topic, and which argies that the "ought" may indeed be based on the "is." You are right, though, that the person, and his bundle of judgments, enters into it ... we cannot dispense with subjectivity. Even the objectivity that you mention in your definition of science is inter-subjectivity, it is a sharing, an over-lapping of thoughts, like the intersection in a Venn diagram.

The facts about what people do value does greatly contribute to the field of ethics. The facts show that values vary, not only between societies and cultures, but also between individuals, and sometimes these values can contradict each other. What science cannot say is whether morality should be relative merely because people's ideas of morality vary, though there is some underlying commonality between all ethical systems, and that's the cooperation between individuals within a group.

The 'is' to 'ought' problem says that a moral sentence cannot be justified based on the principle alone. The claim that you can go from 'is' to 'ought' as a justification of morality is circular logic. Moral sentences do not state objective facts about nature. There is nothing inherently good or bad about the functions of the universe or the actions of the beings within the universe. Things are only good or bad based on the perceiver. For example, someone may say that killing someone is bad because it causes harm, and therefore killing is morally wrong, but that same person will say that killing in self-defense is right. If you adopt the 'is' to 'ought' argument, then killing in self-defense is also wrong because it causes harm. A lion eating you for dinner is also morally wrong because it causes harm, and vica-versa. Nothing in nature is objectively right or wrong, or good or bad, and so 'is' to 'ought' fails as an argument for morality.

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» The essence of social ethics

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The essence of social ethics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know