Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Most people broadly believe the same values apart from a few differences, but what is the reason that something is good is that way?  Typically there two major sides to the idea: deontological and utilitarian.  In summary these are the general assumptions.

Deontological: Things are good simply because they inherently are.  (Example: You should not steal.  Thus, stealing to feed one's family is unethical.)

Utilitarian: Good things are defined by what benefits the most people the most. (Example: If you can save your family's lives by stealing, that theft is ethical.)

Granted, they can be more nuanced than just this, but I find that these are good starting points.  I personally lean towards a deontological view, but obviously that's just my own view.  What are yours and why?  Bear in mind, regardless of whether you might think one thing, the other, or not have any definitive stance, please be respectful of others and keep personal attacks to a minimum. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I am more in favor of virtue ethics:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

https://jme.bmj.com/content/29/5/297

The most important reason for this is because I don't believe we can codify or make a set of rules for what is good and what is bad in absolute terms. It is too late to elaborate, maybe tomorrow :thumbsup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Personally I am more in favor of virtue ethics:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

https://jme.bmj.com/content/29/5/297

The most important reason for this is because I don't believe we can codify or make a set of rules for what is good and what is bad in absolute terms. It is too late to elaborate, maybe tomorrow :thumbsup:

without that everyone can build their code... So for some make dishonored things must be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is truth in all of the above. I think context and perspective are everything. I believe that there can be good and bad in everything. Everything needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Sometimes there aren't any straight answers. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s kind of hard to draw a line. And the line would not be the same for everyone.

Here’s a well known example called the Heinz Dillema. The version used by Lawrence Kohlberg, a well known American psychologist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

In Europe, a woman is near death from a specific type of cancer. There is one drug that the doctors know will save her. It is a prescription discovered and developed by a local druggist in the same town. The drug is very expensive to make but the druggist is only charging ten times what the drug costs for him to make. In other words, it costs the druggist $200 to make this wonder drug and, in turn, he turns about and charges $2,000 for a single dose of the drug. The cancer-riddled woman's husband, Heinz, goes to everyone he knows to borrow the money, but he can only get together $1,000, half of what it cost. He goes to the druggist and shows him the $1,000, explaining that his wife is dying. Heinz then pleads with the druggist to sell the drug for the $1,000 or let him pay later. The druggist denies Heinz’s request with, "No! I discovered the drug. I should make money from it. I cannot simply give it away. If you cannot pay for it, others can." Heinz becomes desperate. He waits for nightfall and breaks into the druggist’s store with the idea to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have broken into the store and stolen the drug?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many man commits horrible acts convinced, they are doing the right thing.

Spanish destroy many doing the right thing.

Today some people try fight against the patriarchy because is politically correct. I with this I mean try use hateful speech like "kill them" .

Is same as French revolution or Roman rebellion. Later some wars for democracy or for some kind of political view.

Quote

I'm not saying is bad being Nihilist, but is hard because humans doesn't agree in simply things.

We can use France and recent events?

I don't believe in modern democracy, that the speech to make things against people and other people.

 

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok this post can go explore many human aspects and fields the Science is ethic or must be.

Quote

Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

— Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), Jurassic Park

 

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

without that everyone can build their code... So for some make dishonored things must be fine.

It is already the case. Even codified ethics like deontology can be twisted to do what we will consider bad things today. See the following

Quote

Many man commits horrible acts convinced, they are doing the right thing. 

Take an example from the history of deontological ethics, with Calvin and Luther. Their ethics is based on the natural law of God, the belief that what is good and bad is already explained by God. They killed a lot of people, they have forbidden art because of this way to see what is good or not. Most of the theological tyrannies are based on the same mental process of building a moral code from a deontological perspective.

Even the deontological ethics of Kant take in account the motive of the person. The only difference from the virtue ethics is that Kant believes in golden rules, as never lying in any occasion (which has cause a lot of debate and contradiction). I really suggest to read this debate about the categorical imperative of Kant from a nazi perspective, there :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/19/evil-trial-eichmann-morally-responsible

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-arendt-adolf-eichmann-banality-of-evil

The problems arising in the deontological perspective is often the same: contradicting rules. The trial of Eichmann is in fact solved by calling what we called virtue. I agree totally with MacIntyre for this, in the end all ethics end to the virtue to solve their own weakness.

 

 

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes human thinking is some kind of problem, because Fanatism.

The fanatis creates this things, for example, a simple tv show or product can have fan base, and they grown sometimes with a leader or with some group of people.

Example. A Football team (Soccer in some countries) they can express some kind of violence or racism some times.

Spoiler

 

Why this behavior if only was an e-sport. This happens in Argentina. Recently.

the psychology of this is basic "my" things vs "them"(the opposite)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201411/fanaticism-is-disease-alcoholism

The whole concept is part of  a term called sense of belonging that isn't bad.

Quote

Having a sense of belonging is a common experience. Belonging means acceptance as a member or part. Such a simple word for huge concept. A sense of belonging is a human need, just like the need for food and shelter. Feeling that you belong  is most important in seeing value in life and in coping with intensely painful emotions. Some find belonging in a church, some with friends, some with family, and some on Twitter or other social media. Some see themselves as connected only to one or two people. Others believe and feel a connection to all people the world over, to humanity. Some struggle to find a sense of belonging and their loneliness is physically painful for them. 

Each human can incurring in to make a fault because a misconception of other group. I can and you can.

http://www.winnersports.co.uk/psychology-of-football-fanatics-11464

Is bad be fan of team ? Or is bad throwing stones? Or is bad throwing stones to a group of people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

By writing about Eichmann, Arendt was trying to understand what was unprecedented in the Nazi genocide – not in order to establish the exceptional case for Israel, but in order to understand a crime against humanity, one that would acknowledge the destruction of Jews, Gypsies, gay people, communists, the disabled and the ill. Just as the failure to think was a failure to take into account the necessity and value that makes thinking possible, so the destruction and displacement of whole populations was an attack not only on those specific groups, but on humanity itself. As a result, Arendt objected to a specific nation-state conducting a trial of Eichmann exclusively in the name of its own population.

This was in the second link. Is other psychology aspect we must have in account. Sense of superiority, like a god, like a leader, like influencer, like a Journalist... Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Genava55 said:

The problems arising in the deontological perspective is often the same: contradicting rules. The trial of Eichmann is in fact solved by calling what we called virtue. I agree totally with MacIntyre for this, in the end all ethics end to the virtue to solve their own weakness.

I would say that while you do give valid points, but in my opinion the issue of a deontological system is usually due to flawed interpretations of the practitioner, not necessarily contradictions inherent to the moral code.  A good example would be in Isaac Asimov's Robot series, where the three robotic laws can take wildly different interpretations.  Are they flawed because of that?  The only way to fully critique the merits of a deontological ethical system is to examine the actions of someone who followed one perfectly, which is admittedly difficult to do.  Luther and Calvin, while they could be called "good" men, were more than willing to admit their own faults.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

the issue of a deontological system is usually due to flawed interpretations of the practitioner

Although I would agree that this often the case, that is a matter of opinion, and another person would claim that you yourself are in fact misinterpreting the rule. It's like some kind of a weird catch-22. Do you now add rules to interpreting rules? Where does that stop? Everything needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. 

 

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

not necessarily contradictions inherent to the moral code

The moral code uses human language, not some kind of absolute mathematical algorithm. Language can be pretty abstract, changes over time and place. Laws are supposed to be clear and understandable, but they often become very elaborate and complex to cover all the possible nuances. This in turn makes them more difficult to understand for non-specialists. If somebody doesn't understand the rules, how liable are they really? 

I would definitely agree that a (strong) moral code is a good thing, but how would it apply to people who can not survive without breaking it? For example homeless people born and raised in cities or countries that passed strong anti-homeless legislation. Man needs to sleep, but you have no place to legally rest your head...

 

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The only way to fully critique the merits of a deontological ethical system is to examine the actions of someone who followed one perfectly, which is admittedly difficult to do.

I think this is the point. Perfection is a divine quality, that we, mere mortals, are not imbued with. Human nature is primarily geared towards survival, not living up to a moral code. Human nature is also inherently corruptible. Respecting a moral code is a side-effect of society/culture. If the conditions for basic survival aren't met, the moral code flies out the window. Under ideal circumstances, laws might work as intended, but as of now too many people are forced into impossible situations (poverty, war, disease, natural disasters, various forms of persecution and repression). People in those kind of extreme situations, of which there are many, can't be expected to be pre-occupied with not breaking the rules when it's a matter of survival. 

Rule based society is a necessary evolution in the human condition. Since we don't live in small semi-nomadic family groups anymore, but in a large urbanized world. We need rules to survive as a group, a country, a global society. I just fear that our technological developments have far outpaced our biological evolution, and we simply aren't as physically and mentally adapted to the modern world as we like to think. There are a lot of unexpected and misunderstood side-effects of the modern world, which makes interpreting the rules or anything else we take for granted a lot more difficult. Creating rules implies that you know what is right and what is wrong, but so many things in this world are counter-intuitive. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Most people believe that their doing the right thing, yet we live in world with a lot of suffering. 

 

Quark: "Let me tell you something about hoomans"

 

 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I have been framing the concepts from the wrong starting point.  Yes, deontological ethics tends to derive itself from various codes, but where do those codes come from?  In most cases, the deontological ethicist would argue that it is from something similar Plato's ideas about forms.  The codes are a written form of various moral truths that exist, just as mathematical proofs represent various natural constants that exist.  

...And here's something else.

Image result for smbc ethics ethics

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me to define good, you need to define the  evil.

What mean this for mostly of humans?

 

------------------------------

I'm not sure if all religions ave a definitions, some scientists doesn't believe in this term.

I and even they have reason even in some religions perspectives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Perhaps I have been framing the concepts from the wrong starting point.  Yes, deontological ethics tends to derive itself from various codes, but where do those codes come from?  In most cases, the deontological ethicist would argue that it is from something similar Plato's ideas about forms.  The codes are a written form of various moral truths that exist, just as mathematical proofs represent various natural constants that exist.  

...And here's something else.

 

-Even with actual technology, sience, and other humans aspects, we constantly make this questions.

-The values of each generation changes...

What kind of answer are you finding, as we statement before, depends.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 5:41 PM, Sundiata said:

Rule based society is a necessary evolution in the human condition. Since we don't live in small semi-nomadic family groups anymore, but in a large urbanized world. We need rules to survive as a group, a country, a global society. I just fear that our technological developments have far outpaced our biological evolution, and we simply aren't as physically and mentally adapted to the modern world as we like to think. There are a lot of unexpected and misunderstood side-effects of the modern world, which makes interpreting the rules or anything else we take for granted a lot more difficult. Creating rules implies that you know what is right and what is wrong, but so many things in this world are counter-intuitive. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Most people believe that their doing the right thing, yet we live in world with a lot of suffering. 

Seems like you read Yuval Noah Harari :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Imarok said:

Seems like you read Yuval Noah Harari :D

Nope, lol, but reading a bit about the concepts he writes about (wikipedia :P ), I can definitely relate... I should probably give his works a proper read. 

 

Quote

In a 2017 article Harari has argued that through continuing technological progress and advances in the field of artificial intelligence, "by 2050 a new class of people might emerge – the useless class. People who are not just unemployed, but unemployable."[39] He put forward the case that dealing with this new social class economically, socially and politically will be a central challenge for humanity in the coming decades.[40]

:lmao:So, true... There is so much to be said here, I'm not even going to start. The implications for morality in the dystopian future we seem to be heading for are scary.

 

Another Israeli writer, Dan Ariely, actually fundamentally influenced my views on human nature, and our programming and motivations behind our decisions. He's not some great philosopher or anything, bringing him up here might even be a bit silly, and the implications of his writing on morality might not be immediately apparent, but fundamental nonetheless, imo. The modest little book was called Predictably Irrational, and illustrates how nonsensical much of our decision making process is, especially in a modern market. We're not nearly as rational as we like to think. In fact, we are literally predictably irrational, in ways that can be easily manipulated, especially for profit. We're in large part just input/outputs. Cave man logic kind of thing. I think that morality is more of a hind sight thing we use to rationalize our actions. We're not nearly as conscious of our own mind as we like to think, and if we can't even correctly assess our own actions, how could we accurately judge the actions of others?

 

On 12/11/2018 at 12:14 AM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The codes are a written form of various moral truths that exist, just as mathematical proofs represent various natural constants that exist.  

I'd argue that there are indeed moral truths, but I'd be arguing from the perspective of a theist who believes in something absolute. Something perfect. But those things are highly contentious, and from a philosophical perspective, comparing moral truths to mathematical proofs sounds kind of metaphysical. I don't think there have been many other constants in moral truths other than the morals derived from the basic survive and reproduce. In the past, human sacrifice was a common practice, and considered moral. Some cultures even practiced cannibalism, and it was considered moral. Expansionist wars and even genocides have been moralized to various degrees during history. Extreme forms of oppression of women in some parts of the world, or even slavery and caste systems are still unpleasantly common place today. Within those societies those acts are often considered moral. Disregarding the draconian rules of some cast systems is considered so immoral that it will get you publicly lynched. Of course these are extreme examples, like female genital mutilation, most of us can agree that they are a crime against humanity. But what about male circumcision? Some people consider it just as bad as FGM, while other people consider it an integral part of their culture, good for hygiene, a harmless religious commandment... I think examining moral truths is interesting from a philosophical perspective and necessary to continue developing our moral codes, but they're also very difficult to apply universally to the infinite complexity of the human experience. The codes would need to be infinitely complex themselves, to be correct, and it would somehow end up subtracting from our humanity.            

 

On 12/10/2018 at 6:33 AM, (-_-) said:

Should the husband have broken into the store and stolen the drug?

Man, that druggist is a d*ck... Considering a human life is worth far more than 1000 dollars... Dead people can't pay interest on a loan either... If she dies, he looses a potential life time customer... If the husband steals the drug and gets caught, he should be released under mitigating circumstances. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

I can definitely relate... I should probably give his works a proper read

I have both of his books and can totally recommend them. :thumbsup:

 

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

I think that morality is more of a hind sight thing we use to rationalize our actions. We're not nearly as conscious of our own mind as we like to think, and if we can't even correctly assess our own actions, how could we accurately judge the actions of others?

So true, but nevertheless we shouldn't stop trying to act morally. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Imarok said:

but nevertheless we shouldn't stop trying to act morally. :)

Absolutely. One of those things that separates us from animals. Just notoriously difficult to define.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sundiata said:

I'd argue that there are indeed moral truths, but I'd be arguing from the perspective of a theist who believes in something absolute. Something perfect. But those things are highly contentious, and from a philosophical perspective, comparing moral truths to mathematical proofs sounds kind of metaphysical.

That's fair.  My point wasn't to declare that there were moral absolutes even if I do believe in them.  The point was to establish that a deontological ethical system generally starts with a presupposition like that.  The question of why there are such wildly different value systems if there are moral absolutes that deontological ethics bases itself around is fair, but I think that the point that would be the easiest explanation is that to a deontologist, there is a perfect set of rules to follow to live a moral life.  Not everyone or potentially even anyone fully understands them or can articulate them. 

As a secondary point, although I can assume that you are generalising about the people who do or do not believe in moral absolutes, it stands to reason that even an atheist might believe in them.  Why they would, I'm not sure.  

What I do find interesting is that by and large, you don't seem to argue for any specific universal morals, which seems sensible since as far as I gather, conscience comes from personal experience in your opinion.  What use then, is there in attempting to use moral 'truths' if they are simply a result of the human mind?  Humans are fallible and any similarity could be considered mere coincidence   It seems better to use logical reasoning with utilitarian ethics to create coherent system that could potentially be applied to any context regardless of socio-cultural differences.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

What I do find interesting is that by and large, you don't seem to argue for any specific universal morals, which seems sensible since as far as I gather, conscience comes from personal experience in your opinion.  What use then, is there in attempting to use moral 'truths' if they are simply a result of the human mind?  Humans are fallible and any similarity could be considered mere coincidence   It seems better to use logical reasoning with utilitarian ethics to create coherent system that could potentially be applied to any context regardless of socio-cultural differences.

I agree :) That's why I believe in the importance of universal human rights. The UN might be a bit of a bogged down bureaucratic mess, but together with it's even more troubled predecessor, the League of Nations, have served and continue to serve humanity for the better. Concepts like democracy, collective security, written constitutions, separation of church and state, freedom of speech etc have done a lot of good, and we must guard against those forces that wish to undermine this progress. 

I do actually believe in specific universal morals, it's just that they are rooted in my faith, which is something I understand not everyone shares, and therefore difficult to use as the basis for arguing for the existence of moral absolutes. But it is obvious to me that we do indeed need some global set of morals that we can all agree on, otherwise we're right back to the default settings of "might makes right", mentioned by Loki in another thread.

 

4 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

As a secondary point, although I can assume that you are generalising about the people who do or do not believe in moral absolutes, it stands to reason that even an atheist might believe in them.  Why they would, I'm not sure.  

Well, humanism in large part evolved from a strong Christian substrate, so... Of course not every atheist is a humanist, but most secular traditions are at least superficially rooted in their religious predecessors. I'm not saying atheists wouldn't be able to independently construct strong moral codes, just that they are influenced by their environment. As societies become less religious, the collective of atheist moral codes also becomes more divergent. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

As societies become less religious, the collective of atheist moral codes also becomes more divergent. 

I'd say (and I'm not alone with that) humanism is a religion. A religion without any deity, but a religion.
To reference Yuval Noah Harari: A religion is any belief system that helps coordinating a big crowd of people. Its use is that all people of this crowd have a common base, so they know how someone totally foreign, but from the same group, will behave.

An atheist is not someone without religion, but someone who does not believe in any deity.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the first post:

IMO "good" is not a property of anything. People rate things as "good" or "bad" instead.

Just a little trick to make more people believe that what one thinks is not just an opinion of that person ;)

The more rational way of "And that's good!" would be "I like it!".

(Ofc. a society is based mainly on sharing values so this little (self) deception may actually be quite important for getting people to work together. I still don't like it very much and would prefer "Hey, that's what I want, too! Lets do it!".)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 5:24 AM, FeXoR said:

Regarding the first post:

IMO "good" is not a property of anything. People rate things as "good" or "bad" instead.

Just a little trick to make more people believe that what one thinks is not just an opinion of that person ;)

The more rational way of "And that's good!" would be "I like it!".

(Ofc. a society is based mainly on sharing values so this little (self) deception may actually be quite important for getting people to work together. I still don't like it very much and would prefer "Hey, that's what I want, too! Lets do it!".)

I love this,that was good Fexor, is important the nature of the people is good point but the acts  of people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...