Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

An important distinction to consider in ethics

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» An important distinction to consider in ethics

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

AN IMPORTANT ETHICAL DISTINCTION TO BE CONSIDERED

Is the criterion for moral behavior to be effectiveness (an Extrinsic Value), or is it to be the degree of personal involvement (even to the point where one may sacrifice a desire or preference for the sake of serving others)? The latter is an example of Intrinsic Value.

Most people seem to believe that the degree of personal sacrifice incurred is more relevant than the degree of success of the behavior. By most people's calculus, Bill Gates is perceived as having given some extra millions (pocket change to him), money he really didn't need and couldn't possibly spend on himself anyway,causing himself no personal sacrifice--whereas Mother Teresa is perceived as having sacrificed virtually her whole life.
The distinction between Systemic (as well as Extrinsic) contributions and impulses to humanity, as we see in philanthropy, and benevolence via a charity, in contrast to Intrinsic interaction with a person who needs help {such as one who is hungry yet too poor to buy food; or one who is extremely lonely and needs someone tone to listen and/or converse with.} Gates exhibits Benevolence [S-love]; Borlaug's Systemic reasoning led to effective consequences [E-value] and as a result he was able to help feed the hungry of the Earth. He cared about humanity and did something concrete about it, but there is less involvement than the one who takes a homeless person home to give him a meal. It's an interesting distinction.

It is far less ambiguous and far more informative to claim that Mother Teresa's personal sacrifice was greater than that of Gates and Borlaug, than it is to claim that Mother Teresa was morally superior to Gates and Borlaug. Likewise, it is far less ambiguous and far more informative to claim that Gates and Borlsug relieved the pain and suffering and saved the lives of far more people than Mother Teresa, than it is to argue that actually Gates and Borlaug were morally superior to Mother Teresa.

Is it so that the word "moral" and its cognates and synonyms almost always can be dispensed with and replaced with language that is less ambiguous and more informative. Can you give some other examples of this sort of replacement?

Are these distinctions worthy of being discussed? Perhaps they are. What do you think about it?

@deepthot,

Ultimately it boils down to your fundamental perception of ethics -- utilitarian or deontological. If you are utilitarian, the distinction you outline above is irrelevant.

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey;78208 wrote:

Ultimately it boils down to your fundamental perception of ethics -- utilitarian or deontological. If you are utilitarian, the distinction you outline above is irrelevant.

What if your perception of ethics is both? And also virtuous too; and confuscionist; and buddhistic; and shinto; and zen ethiccs? In other words, a synthesis of several and varied viewpoints. That's what Hartman/Katz axiolgical ethics is.

@deepthot,

I was simply pointing out a context of discourse in which the distinction becomes irrelevant.

@deepthot,

Empathy is an amazing study.

Can you imagine being born from a synthesis of genetic encoding, that right-out-of-the-gate, enables you to sync with like frequencies? Then imagine variable conditioning that empowers you to communicate on much more quantifiable frequencies, and resonate value in such a myriad of ways?

Some problem solvers say, indeed, that this is the greatest problem facing humankind - becoming so limited in scope that our species will exponentially accelerate entropy.

Sustainability integrates proximal ethics and may be the solve that humanity needs in order to persist at our highest potential.

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey;78208 wrote:

Ultimately it boils down to your fundamental perception of ethics -- utilitarian or deontological. If you are utilitarian, the distinction you outline above is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? Could you be so kind as to clarify what you mean by this?

@deepthot,

[SIZE="3"]A question - how do you reconcile the idea of gauging the ethical merit of an act in terms of its effectiveness vs degree of personal involvement with the traditional requirement that individuals act spontaneously in an ethical manner (i.e. perform 'random acts of kindess', or gratuitous, ethically positive acts without calculation or forethought)? How are individuals supposed to internalise these rules so that they can automatically apply them moment-by-moment in their actual life?

Also, how does this account for intention? The Bible, for example, gives examples of those who were not able to give very much, but gave it in such a way that it was understood as meritorious. ('The Widow's Mite' comes to mind.) Is this what is meant by 'degree of personal involvement'? And how and why do you measure that? Traditionally, these are things known only to God.

Or perhaps what you are getting at is not actually the basis for a personal ethical code, but a way of judging the ethical characteristics of a given individual or population? If so, why? What is the tangible benefit for developing a quotient of ethical purity? How is it going to help the Mother Teresa Mission, or the Bill Gates Foundation? Or is it just another tactic to subordinate morality to positivism? I don't understand the point. Perhaps you could provide some additional explanation as to the purpose of this idea.[/SIZE]

@deepthot,

doing a good or moral deed does not necessarily make a person ethical, and i think you would have to judge the person and what he has done separately.

i dont believe it is necessary that a person suffer in order to qualify as having done a superior moral deed-in other word it is not necessary to 'give until it hurts'. nor do i say that if doing good deeds brings a person joy they are only being selfish.

i also dont believe the number of people who benefit from a certain deed is relevant to the degree of morality involved. i dont think there can be a degree of morality...an action is either moral or it is not, though it may be perceived differently by different observers and the person initiating the action. in other words, people may differ on whether an act was moral or not according to their standards, but how can it be said one act is more moral than another?

i know a lot more about what i dont believe than what i do believe. right now i am considering the possibility that the intent is the gauge of whether a person has high moral standards, while the end result of an act is more related to the act itself than the person who performed it.

@salima,

First of all you need to give good examples and mother Theresa is not exactly the example of ethical sacrifice.Can we truly give an example of ethical charity? You have to look at the reasons and if they are self serving.I think Bill gives a good example of a man driven by success and seeks happiness in giving back some of his wealth.Its the joy in giving, not the academic ethical reasoning.I get a little smug when giving my few quid to charity,its just as much for my benefit as the charity.

@deepthot,

Yea, let's not oversimplify this. Ethics includes many aspects that could - by virtually any standard - complicate the bejesus out of the subject. Yes, extrinsic value and personal involvement do play a part, but I'd agree that these two (at least from my perspective) play a relatively small part.

@Khethil,

Khethil;78773 wrote:

Yea, let's not oversimplify this. Ethics includes many aspects that could - by virtually any standard - complicate the bejesus out of the subject. Yes, extrinsic value and personal involvement do play a part, but I'd agree that these two (at least from my perspective) play a relatively small part.

:lol:you want to invite forrest gump for a chat? "life is like a box of chocolates. you never know what you're going to get."

didnt know if you were being sarcastic or serious, khethil-but it struck me funny anyway...

@salima,

salima;78615 wrote:

... i dont think there can be a degree of morality...an action is either moral or it is not...

...the possibility that the intent is the gauge of , while the end result of an act is more related to the act itself than the person who performed it.

Hi, salima

Thank you for your kind response. You raise some interesting points.

As you willl recall from the second paragraph, of Post #7 at this link:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/4608-goodness-good-person-true-justice.html
I do hold that there are degrees of morality -- as the term is defined in my model for Ethics. I argue as follows:
Morality (in my paradigm) is moral value.
Value is a matter of degree.
Therefore, morality is a matter of degree.

As I shall argue below, there are degrees of value. * Systemic thinkers insist that things are black or white; open or shut; have got to be this or that. It is also known as "Either-Or thinking." Intrinsic thinkers see myriad possibilities. [S-Value has a finite cardinality; I-Value has the cardinality aleph-one.]

If you want to make "intent the gauge of whether a person has high moral standards", consider that in a court of law it is very, very hard to prove intent. It often is as difficult as mind-reading.

*) Since value is a function of meaning, the more meaning, the more value. Some lives are more meaningful than others. All else being equal, the watch with more qualities is the better watch. Better means more valuable. Hence there are degrees of value.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;78574 wrote:

A question - how do you reconcile the idea of gauging the ethical merit of an act in terms of its effectiveness vs degree of personal involvement with the traditional requirement that individuals act spontaneously in an ethical manner (i.e. perform 'random acts of kindess', or gratuitous, ethically positive acts without calculation or forethought)? How are individuals supposed to internalise these rules so that they can automatically apply them moment-by-moment in their actual life?

Also, how does this account for intention? The Bible, for example, gives examples of those who were not able to give very much, but gave it in such a way that it was understood as meritorious. ('The Widow's Mite' comes to mind.) Is this what is meant by 'degree of personal involvement'? And how and why do you measure that? Traditionally, these are things known only to God.

Or perhaps what you are getting at is not actually the basis for a personal ethical code, but a way of judging the ethical characteristics of a given individual or population? If so, why? What is the tangible benefit for developing a quotient of ethical purity? How is it going to help the Mother Teresa Mission, or the Bill Gates Foundation? Or is it just another tactic to subordinate morality to positivism? I don't understand the point. Perhaps you could provide some additional explanation as to the purpose of this idea.

The theoretician, or academician, does analyses, such as "gauging the ethical merit of an act in terms of its effectiveness vs degree of personal involvement". This is a Systemic activity and it is worth infinitely-less than committing random acts of -- i.e., creating -- kindness. {The latter is of Intrinsic Value.} As I explained in my booklets on ETHICS, -- see the "college Course" pp. 60-63 On Character Development. Here is a link to the manual: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3
-- the habit of being kind is a character trait that a child can learn at an early age, and that once acquired does thereafter appear to be spontaneous and uncalculated to the observer. Many after reading this have accused me of giving undue emphasis to Virtue Ethics. That's their problem. :sarcastic:
I only wrote about the implication of where the model leads us:

Once we cultivate a moral character we do not have to stop and calcul.ate before we act as to whether this next act is right or wrong: we know it is likely to be the 'right thing to do' because we are dedicated to Goodness, to becoming a good person. We are devoted with 'our heart and soul' to reaching such a goal, to becoming one with the highest of high values, and we are aware that even if we fall short we will be far ahead of where we would have landed otherwise. Sure we will blunder! Sure we will act stupidly now and them. We may even exhibit the behavior of the absent-minded professor.

As the value scientist might note about us at that point (in his technical jargon), we have managed to take some formal norms of the Ethics discipline, and change them into facultative norms, and then into obligative norms: viz., we have integrated into our self-concept the moral habits which form the ethical character. Once more of us have done that, we'll be closer to having an ethical world. Then, eventually, the human species will be considered to be our family.

As to the next issue you address:

People do now engage in judging "the ethical characteristics of a given individual or population." Maybe we would all be better off if they did not engage in this practice. They love to do it. If you can build a logical proof that this results in more disvalue than value, and your findings would get disseminated by the media, it would become the task of educators, child-caregivers, teachers, and life-coaches to educate their wards, their students, their clients, out of this kind of behavior.

Next point:

Yes, 'the widow's mite' is an illustration of personal involvement. But it is extremely hard to measure intention in the moral sphere. Ask trial lawyers and judges in court about intent. They are aware that people have been known to decieve, deliberately, and/or unintentionally; and that people often engage in self-delusion. And let's face it, people "kid themselves" at times. So I would like to see on the part of philosophers a good account of intention. I can't myself account for it -- yet.

@deepthot,

deepthot;78903 wrote:

Hi, salima

Thank you for your kind response. You raise some interesting points.

As you willl recall from the second paragraph, of Post #7 at this link:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/4608-goodness-good-person-true-justice.html
I do hold that there are degrees of morality -- as the term is defined in my model for Ethics. I argue as follows:
Morality (in my paradigm) is moral value.
Value is a matter of degree.
Therefore, morality is a matter of degree.

As I shall argue below, there are degrees of value. * Systemic thinkers insist that things are black or white; open or shut; have got to be this or that. It is also known as "Either-Or thinking." Intrinsic thinkers see myriad possibilities. [S-Value has a finite cardinality; I-Value has the cardinality aleph-one.]

If you want to make "intent the gauge of whether a person has high moral standards", consider that in a court of law it is very, very hard to prove intent. It often is as difficult as mind-reading.

*) Since value is a function of meaning, the more meaning, the more value. Some lives are more meaningful than others. All else being equal, the watch with more qualities is the better watch. Better means more valuable. Hence there are degrees of value.

thank you for your response. i would say that intent can best be measured by the intender if he is honest with himself-and that is the ultimate accountability, isnt it?

i like your thoughts very much, and most of all your intention (which i presume to be able to identify because of your sincerity and frankness) and i would like to add my ideas.

i submit that there are degrees of value, but not of morality.
by measuring the value of an act, the morality of the doer has not been measured. acts in themselves cannot be said to have the quality of morality or evil without being put in context of a situation and the perspectives of the person or persons involved. intention, awareness, so many variable conditions and qualifiers come into play that it is not possible to form a scale that may effectively be universally applied.

likewise, I dont think a person can be said to be moral or immoral, because just as there is a little bit of bad in the best of us there is a little bit of good in the worst of us. if we try to measure people on a scale of from one to ten, i am suggesting that it is not their morality or the morality of their behavior at all that can be rated, but the effect of their acts and intentions.

virtue or morality cannot truly be realized because we are unable to view any issue as an outside observer-there is no such thing as an objective observer in this world. we can only create an ideal of ethics and try to reach that. the same would apply to justice, beauty, truth, and so on.

there are no simple solutions. for instance, take the following questions:
is speaking an untruth without knowing it to be untrue the same as telling a lie?
is it less dishonest to tell a lie to protect someone's feelings than it is to try to falsely accuse someone?
is it more charitable depending on the number of people who are helped, who the beneficiaries are, the
proportion of loss to the giver, the net amount of the gift, how the gift will be used, etc?
is it more charitable to volunteer service and time than to give money? must it involve a sacrifice?

behaving ethically is not enough to make a change in the human psyche. rather than being taught, it can be studied as a concept. it can be learned, practiced and embraced as a path of life. believing in the value of ethics is what may bring about change in society.

we can define the concept and create the ideal, then attempt to live up to it. my current definition of virtue is this: expression, experience and realization of only those desires, intentions and actions that are conducive to expansion, growth and evolution towards unity and harmony (a paradox in itself) of the self, not only when it is individually perceived, but also within the context of all existence as well as identifying that self as being the sum of all...

even without numbering and analyzing such a definition, an idealist can come to believe in it and cherish it and build his life on it. this thought held in the back of consciousness will eventually guide the thinker when he ponders the individual questions of morality that face him daily.

probably nothing i have said has any meaning for someone who has no ideals, though. the term idealist seems to be used to mean 'fool' or 'dreamer'. but a rose is still a rose...

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» An important distinction to consider in ethics

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

An important distinction to consider in ethics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know