What do you believe ethics are?

@captpicard12,

My Views on Ethics are broadly the same as Wittgenstein's, so I shal make the choice to quote him rather than make my own somewhat poor reply.

'certain experiences constantly tempt us to attribute a quality to them which we call absolute or ethical value and importance, this simply shows that by these words we don't mean nonsense, that after all what we mean by saying that an experience has absolute value is just a fact like other facts and that all it comes to is that we have not yet succeeded in finding the correct logical analysis of what we mean by our ethical and religious expressions.......I see now that these nonsensical expressions were not nonsensical because I had not yet found the correct expressions, but that their nonsensicality was their very essence. For all I wanted to do with them was just to go beyond the world and that is to say beyond significant language.....Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science. What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense.'

@RDanneskjld,

Ethical statements are expressions of sentiment toward some type of action or the specifics of an action that falls under a type. It is generally held that in order to be ethically consistent, one must hold the same sentiment for all actions of type X.

Say that you believe that stealing from charities is wrong, but you would steal from a corporation with money to spare. You do not believe that stealing is wrong, but then why do you think that stealing from charities is wrong? Because they put the money to a use you agree with? Clearly that cannot hold if you are going to agree that it is wrong to steal from you. So you might find another example or reason. What it comes down to, however is that; you would rather not have your goods taken from you, you would rather not be killed, you would rather not have action of type X applied to you. Further, you might find it the case that because you have some implicit social connection with humans, you do not want action X applied to them, so you will refrain from applying action X to them.

If you do not consider it likely that everyone will refrain from applying action X to you, then you might attempt to enter into a social contract to help prevent action X in general.

I think that the human psychology seems to be suited to the clause:"Treat others as you would like to be treated."

@captpicard12,

Quote:

As a new member, I'm going to start simple: what do you think that ethics are, and their place in society? Are they something humans are born with, or something that must be strived for? Are they individual, or are they something that is upheld together by a society?

I feel like this topic has been discussed many times on this board, but I'll let it go.

There is no ONE ethical code that ALL humans abide by. There are even different "layers" to each individual as far as their own ethics. Some they adopt by society or groups they belong to, perhaps even as small as family. While others might be developed completely solo to all other influences, and not always for the betterment.

This is clear and obvious to me, and a really great example was from a story from a UN peace keeper stationed in Kenya. His guide told him one day about the rebel war leaders and the customs of the area. He told him that if he were to be captured that the rebel war leader would eat him. He asked why this man would want to eat him. The guide told him that it is their custom that they believe eating a brave person will allow their bravery to pass onto them. So he asked his guide if he had ever eaten a person before and the guide said yes. Then he trying to make light of the conversation asked, "Is it true what they say, does it taste like pork." The guide responded, "I would not know, I am Muslim."

I must have laughed for several hours after hearing this story. How odd it is from my perspective that he would never eat a pig because it is forbidden in his religion to do so, but to eat another human being is quite alright.

So when ever I hear people trying to make the claim that ethics is a natural human trait, I can't help but laugh at such ignorance.

@captpicard12,

captpicard12;83809 wrote:

As a new member, I'm going to start simple: what do you think that ethics are, and their place in society? Are they something humans are born with, or something that must be strived for? Are they individual, or are they something that is upheld together by a society?

Hi there,

Good question. I often use the word, but it certainly has lots of ambiguity.

For me, it is the way I present myself in a relationship. It is how people may expect me to act, when presented with tough choices in regards to that relationship. My ethics might change from relationship to relationship. For example, my ethics for my family are different than the ones I use in my profession.

Some of my ethics I've learned. Others, I believe I am born with. Like everything in life, I think it is a mixture.

Thanks for asking the question.

Rich

@captpicard12,

Krumple;84205 wrote:

"Is it true what they say, does it taste like pork." The guide responded, "I would not know, I am Muslim."

That is an hilarious story but somewhat undermined by the fact that cannibalism is also haram - forbidden - in Islam.

Besides, what would it prove?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;84267 wrote:

That is an hilarious story but somewhat undermined by the fact that cannibalism is also haram - forbidden - in Islam.
Besides, what would it prove?

it would prove a faith allows one unethical thing and forbids another, assuming both acts are unethical. and of course religions are like that, whether it is a case of false interpretation or politics or whatever, there are a lot of contradictions.

where did you hear that cannibalism is haram? it is definitely not forbidden in the qur'an, so it would have to be a hadith. have you got the source? i mean why would the subject have even come up in the time of Mohammad? (sorry, weak history. maybe they ran into cannibalism in africa?)

however, i fail to see anything unethical in cannibalism-i mean if the person is already dead, so what? if it is a tribal thing to cook their enemies after they kill them, they have still only committed one crime or unethical act as i see it, and that is the killing.

@captpicard12,

I am no Islamic scholar, but there is a list of 41 specific acts classified as Haram which I understood to be common knowledge. It is replicated here. Certainly cannibalism would have been encountered in Africa. I think it has been known throughout human history.

'Failing to see anything unethical' in cannibalism kind of knocks me for six, really. I don't know if I have an answer for that. I think whoever posted this topic is asking a serious question, albeit without much detail, and the question is indeed a serious one, so perhaps we ought to take it a bit more seriously. As I mentioned elsewhere, it is easy to overlook the fact that moral standards that were once 'engraved in stone' are now basically matters of individual perogative. It is actually very challenging to consider the implications of all of that. Maybe more attention needs to be given to it in the education of children. This was traditionally the role of religion, but not so much any more (and many just think it is brainwashing, anyway.)

I think the point that the story was making was that of 'cultural relativism': one culture says one thing, another says another. Or perhaps: cultures are full of contradictions when it comes to morality, so how can we expect to rely on cultural morality? Notwithstanding the tastelessness of the example that was given, these too are serious questions.

@captpicard12,

islamic law-
this article lists 41 specifics that are according to a particular school of shariah, of which there are four major ones. the qur'an is the ultimate authority in islam, while hadith is second, then shariah, which is much weaker. weaker in one sense, but if you live in an islamic country where it is imposed it is of course the strongest of all, in fact inescapable.

however, it did remind me of the fact that the qur'an says meat can only come from an animal that has been slaughtered in a particular way, and i suppose it would be possible on the field of battle, but cannibalism itself isnt prohibited. it is haram to eat the flesh of an animal that has been killed before you discovered it and its blood has stopped running-so roadkill is also out. i havent spent a lot of time pondering this issue since i am a vegetarian!

so if you believe it is immoral to eat the flesh of animals that have not been killed according to haram, you would have to insist any human flesh would have come from people who were killed in the proper way. there are implied concepts as well, such as it would be forbidden to do that which would degrade human beings-would cannibalism be degrading? i dont know. if the spirit is that important, what is the body but a piece of meat? of course murder/homicide is prohibited. and burial is also mentioned-that could be a problem...showing up on judgment day without all your parts. i am also amused by the rationale used to prescribe what is moral/immoral by different societies/religions/nations.

sorry, i know it is off topic but i wanted to clarify, couldnt let it pass. we dont need any more misunderstandings about religions than we already have!

@captpicard12,

captpicard12;83809 wrote:

what do you think that ethics are, and their place in society? Are they something humans are born with, or something that must be strived for?

We can't be born with our ethics, the vikings didn't care about the "you shalt not kill", haha:shifty:.

@captpicard12,

I wonder why the fact that 'we can't be born with ethics' is important? Would somebody care to explain? We can't be born with language or culture either, yet we have the capacity to learn them. The fact that these things are not wholly innate does not seem to undermine their importance for our lives, does it?

@RDanneskjld,

R.Danneskjöld;83817 wrote:

'certain experiences constantly tempt us to attribute a quality to them which we call absolute or ethical value and importance,"

Good call you nailed it with Wittie. Ethics unlike the other constants language and culture, that jeeprs mentions, is open to individual psychological interpritation. We all have ethics, they just vary with enviroment and the input during formative years certainly moulds them. That we pick and choose what is ethical depending on the circumstance surrounding the happening as exampled by Zetetic with the "steal from a charity/ steal from a corportion" scenario shows us the malleability of our ethics base.
Shamefull really, but that is what we are at our base, we are hard wired to preserve our own self interests first and last. Ethics is a display of morality to those around us and we hope it promotes positive reception of our characters to them. Ethics is for public display, that is why we do unethical things in secret. That is of course discounting the sociopaths amongst us who do not value the acceptance of their peers above their own desires.

@captpicard12,

So - there is/is not a moral law?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;84461 wrote:

So - there is/is not a moral law?

Jeepers there is no innate moral standard, it varies with the circumstance and who we are dealing with. We need a moral standard to ensure transactions and interactions between humans has a base of understanding, and an understood expectation of outcome for the event. Without the assurance or expectation of morality we would not have fluid interpersonal relationships, which form the basis for all our transactions with others. So there is a moral law, but we apply it with discrimination.

@Psycobabble,

Psycobabble;84593 wrote:

Jeepers there is no innate moral standard, it varies with the circumstance and who we are dealing with. We need a moral standard to ensure transactions and interactions between humans has a base of understanding, and an understood expectation of outcome for the event. Without the assurance or expectation of morality we would not have fluid interpersonal relationships, which form the basis for all our transactions with others. So there is a moral law, but we apply it with discrimination.

you mean we have to write the moral law that is based on cause and effect experience in dealing with each other? we as a closed society (one of the many on earth) have to come to a consensus based on our collective understand and observation and write it?

@captpicard12,

I think that is part of it. But I also believe that something that is overlooked is our relationship with the earth, with all of the creatures on it, and with life itself. Secular society generally only considers social relationships - our relationships with other people. But actually, we are related to everything, and if there is an ethical code, it needs to reflect that, I would think. This is why it amounts to much more than just civil law isn't it?

The other thing is also that a code of ethics needs to unite what you are with what you believe and what you do. In short it unites heart, word and deed. This is the very essence of integrity, isn't it? Now this big push to disband religions and replace them with 'scientific thinking' - can science function in that seamless way? I don't really think an ethical code can be completely objectified - certainly it has objective elements and is rational and sensible. But ultimately it needs to come from the heart, doesn't it, signifying, that which is innermost, the very seat of your being.

@salima,

salima;84620 wrote:

you mean we have to write the moral law that is based on cause and effect experience in dealing with each other? we as a closed society (one of the many on earth) have to come to a consensus based on our collective understand and observation and write it?

Salima, if I understand you, you are outlining the concensus required and thereby the agreed moral codes and ethic that society would embrace. I am suggesting that the moral code, self imposed, or by cultural concensus is flimsy and varies with enviroment and circumstance. I mentioned the importance of morality, but the application was my point.

---------- Post added 08-22-2009 at 01:05 AM ----------

jeeprs;84625 wrote:

Now this big push to disband religions and replace them with 'scientific thinking'

I believe that the demise of religion has made society more insular, the old, who knows their neighbour. There is also a direct link between the demise of religion in the west and law and order issues.

@captpicard12,

The thread asks what I believe ethics is. I will be concise.

"Ethics" is that discipline that arises when individuals are seen as Intrinsic Values, i.e., as precious treasures of value, not to be defiled in any way, but to be loved and appreciated. [
Further details and a fuller explanation are offered in my other posts at this forum.

The ethical perspective - with regard to an individual - contrasts with the anatomical/physiological perspective (which is only Systemic); and with the social/psychological perspective (which is largely Extrinsic ...except for organic psychotherapies; logo-therapies; and rational-emotive therapies. They are Intrinsic for the most part.)

@captpicard12,

captpicard12:

For you, and for any other readers who may have missed it, here is a link to a document that explains in more detail what ethics might mean and the larger implications of that definition
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd

And to supplement that, see the chaper named "What is Ethics?" in this manual which is titled ETHICS: A Collete Course
http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3

@captpicard12,

To me ethics is a question of what is fundementally right or wrong, simple.
Cheers!

Philosophy Forum

What do you believe ethics are?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know