Let us make a distinction between two concepts "mores" and "moral principles as derived from a coherent theory of ethics."

The former are what you were speaking about: a society's mores.

In contrast, the latter - moral principles - are what we deduce from the models of a good system, say from the Unified Theory. Of course this theory needs vastly-more development before it can account for more of the many data of ethics.

{Eventually the internal structure of I-value (of Intrinsic valuation) will be spelled out by an advanced formal system of Relevance Logic, Relevance Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or by some appropriate branch of math. When applied to Ethics it will generate many useful theorems. These will serve as hypotheses to be tested empirically. Discovering that logic is a job that Philosophy professors are working on now. They can use your help, readers, if you know math or logic. Just send me a private message, and I'll put you in touch with them.}

This idea of ethical theorems based in equations of value is a very interesting and scientific approach to determining moral choices. I would imagine that for common, everyday moral choices, a set of rules would be devised which would probably be very like what are taught to children in this country. These would be taught and possibly established through some institute of legislation and law enforcement. The study of different practices of child-raising and education would need to be a source of knowledge for such a moral science, as children are valued Intrinsically and will become the adults of the future, who will want to continue and improve the application of scientific ethics to their lives. (For more unusual moral situations, established equations of moral good would be applied.)

Recourse to knowledge from the social sciences might help determine the most ethical responses to infractions of said rules. For example, there might be a general rule against stealing. If someone steals from you, what is the best thing to do based on this science of morality? If an adult person steals for "fun and profit" (as opposed to for "meeting some necessity") what is the best course of action for each person or institution involved? The answers to these questions could, theoretically, be determined, taught, and instituted in a rational society.

This thread raises the question, though, of how one would get from where we are now to a society in which people are willing to apply such a science of morality. What would motivate them? How could they (we) be convinced that it is in their own best interest to behave ethically? How can adults who, as children, were beaten for misbehavior, be convinced to raise their own children in a more compassionate and ethical manner? If several schools of ethics arise and compete for the hearts and minds of the populace, how would they be sorted out?

I think that the widespread implementation of an ethical system that was supported by scientific research could truly elevate human society to a new level. The tragedies of war, famine, poverty, pollution, destruction of other species, etc. could be solved and the quality of life for all of humanity and for the planet as a whole could be greatly improved. But it would take widespread faith in such a system for it to be implemented. By faith, I mean the willingness to trust without reservation, to follow without hesitation, and to participate without rancor in the evolution of the precepts of the ethical system.

I have said before, and will say again here, that the foundations of such a system is already being built within the organization of the Baha'i Faith. For more about this, see my blog.

the study of ethics is never a joke

it could be the difference of Humanity surviving in the big picture or not

the study of ethics is never a joke

it could be the difference of Humanity surviving in the big picture or not

As the title reads, Is it a joke to study ethics? if so please explain why. be honest even if you could give a $hit less.:poke-eye:

Is it not an ethical question, this inquiry as to the value of studying ethics?

As the title reads, Is it a joke to study ethics? if so please explain why. be honest even if you could give a $hit less.:poke-eye:

The only thing that would call the study of ethics a joke would be the mass society. But generally, that is too stupid to know what is good for it.

As the title reads, Is it a joke to study ethics? if so please explain why. be honest even if you could give a $hit less.:poke-eye:

I never understand what people mean when they talk about 'ethics' or 'morality'. I understand that people have tacit agreement and expectations from other people, and develop guideposts for they life. But I do not know why anyone think there is anything else to it. Value is something that is inside you, and is only 'part of the world' insofar as you are part of the world. Nobody have to do anything except what they want.

I think they half my time in philosophy class talking about ethics, make less sense than Plato.

The answer is simple, but tragic.

Most people are not intelligent ~80%, ~14% are intelligent, ~0.5% are very intelligent and ~0.0001 are extremely intelligent.

When most talk about ethics and morals, they often speak of it from a very selfish point of view, where it's the inner most selfish desires that are the values, often mixed with a bit of tyrrany.

Most think they can do a little good to some close friends, then act like an idiot towards others they don't care about, and still think of themselfs as "good".

If everybody only cares about themselfs, society would break down, sure our western society can handle alot of egoists, but we need people who will pose a threat towards dictatorship and tyrants.

Self possession without a need to reference 'standards' or 'laws' that we do not find to be really useful to ourselves is deadly enemy of despots. Enslaved very strongly those who become possessed by idea, rather than having possession of idea.

All things are self-satisfaction. Their is no consciousness outside of intentionality and the will, there no sense to 'value' outside actual value-scales of actual subjects at a definite time and place. Value only remains coherent as value felt, and value actually felt is the impetus for all purposeful action.

The thing about ethicism being a joke is that no matter what arguments you present, or receive, your opinion will most likely not change.