On what ethics has to do with rules, and why it must transcend rules

[LuisDantas]

Hitler? Bahgdadi? The world is better off without them.

That is a popular perception, but not a well demonstrated one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think most religious people in the Abrahamic family will agree that they are duty bound to improve ethically.

That would be in direct conflict with Biblical law and commands. Slavery, killing people for apostacy and worshiping other gods, disallowing women to "usurp authority" and hold it over a man, the Bible has its laws, rules, and policies, but many of them are not ethical. But for Abrahamic to improve things, they must be willing to acknowledge that the laws and policies given to them by god--things they are expected by him to adhere to--aren't good enough and are ethically difficeint.

 

[LuisDantas]

In this case we don't know the right or wrong until we take account of the results?

Arguably not even then.

Kind of how I look at it. I try to make the choices that will, I think, cause the results I desire. To me each situation I face is likely more unique than not so ethical guidelines may not be useful.

While I do use my past experience to try to make to make the best choice, it all geared to the outcome I personally desire. Someone else maybe working for a completely different outcome. This makes it hard to have any kind of universal ethics.

That is one of the reasons, certainly.

I happen to believe that there is such a thing as universal, objective ethics, but I define that as unavoidably informed by several forms of circunstances, including personal inclinations and capabilities. Which apparently means that they are subjective as opposed to objective by the definitions that many people use.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In this case we don't know the right or wrong until we take account of the results?

Kind of how I look at it. I try to make the choices that will, I think, cause the results I desire. To me each situation I face is likely more unique than not so ethical guidelines may not be useful.

While I do use my past experience to try to make to make the best choice, it all geared to the outcome I personally desire. Someone else maybe working for a completely different outcome. This makes it hard to have any kind of universal ethics.

Consequentialist debates are really more about how outcomes effect society rather than just individuals.
Maximizing personal happiness while minimizing personal suffering is more along the hedonism line.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is a popular perception, but not a well demonstrated one.

They killed thousands upon thousands of people. They were very dangerous men, and had they not been stopped they would have kept killing, and it's just not likely they could be rehabilitated. Ultimately, had someone shot Hitler dead during his first failed coup then the European Jewish population wouldn't have been nearly exterminated.

 

[LuisDantas]

They killed thousands upon thousands of people. They were very dangerous men, and had they not been stopped they would have kept killing, and it's just not likely they could be rehabilitated. Ultimately, had someone shot Hitler dead during his first failed coup then the European Jewish population wouldn't have been nearly exterminated.

There is a very good argument to be made that it could have been even worse in that case, though.

 

[Terry Sampson]

That would be in direct conflict with Biblical law and commands.

Nonsense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is a very good argument to be made that it could have been even worse in that case, though.

So? The world is better off without Himmler and Bin Laden as well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nonsense.

Gender equality is moral y superior. The Bible does not allow it. Freedom of religion is superior. The Bible explicitly prohibits it under the penalty of death. If you suffer a witch to live, it's the moral and ethical choice, but it's not what god commanded.

 

[Nakosis]

Consequentialist debates are really more about how outcomes effect society rather than just individuals.
Maximizing personal happiness while minimizing personal suffering is more along the hedonism line.

Fair enough but then I'd think right and wrong would be left to historians to decide. Beyond my personal scope so not something I'd normally take into consideration in my actions.

 

[LuisDantas]

So? The world is better off without Himmler and Bin Laden as well.

We probably would be better off not going out of our ways to be our own butchers, you know.

All the more so when being butchers encourages people to come slay us back.

Even when there is some form of impediment keeping us alive despite their best efforts, that is just a sad, unwise, destructive way of life.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair enough but then I'd think right and wrong would be left to historians to decide. Beyond my personal scope so not something I'd normally take into consideration in my actions.

There are those (myself included) who think that there is a moral duty even if we do not quite perceive it, and if we can not demonstrate whether it was exerced wisely.

 

[Darkforbid]

They killed thousands upon thousands of people. They were very dangerous men, and had they not been stopped they would have kept killing, and it's just not likely they could be rehabilitated. Ultimately, had someone shot Hitler dead during his first failed coup then the European Jewish population wouldn't have been nearly exterminated.

I couldn't agree more! In fact well said,, and that's the problem most theist have with secular morality, a mountain of moralistic waffle with no actual decisions being made. Is not in anyway a substitute for one man prepared to make a decision be it right or wrong

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There is a school of thought that thinks of ethics as obedience to rules. It is more formally called deontology, and somewhat popular among the Abrahamic Faiths.

Deontological ethics - Wikipedia

Competing views attribute significance to the consequences of the actions as opposed to just the actions themselves and their suitability to some set of rules.

One of those competing views is pragmatic ethics, which acknowledges that moral rules should be questioned and improved when the opportunity arises.

Another is virtue ethics, which perceives and describes ethics as a practice, as the expression of wisdom and virtue as opposed simple obedience to the authority of certain rules. By that perspective, ethics are skills that can be learned and trained.

And the last major school of thought on ethics is consequentialism, which states that the moral validity of an action (or inaction) can only be gauged from its consequences.

By my understanding, there is a progression of accuracy in this sequence of perspectives on ethics. Of accuracy, and also of boldness and scope. Deontology is easily the less useful and more limited of the four perspectives, and Consequentialism is the best, most useful, most ambitious one.

It is also the most difficult to delimit, to describe, or to predict. And I see that as a good thing.

Why?

Because ethics are a practical need that arises from the conjunction of the abilities to act in ways that affect the well being of sensitive entities and to discern the likely consequences of our own actions and inactions.

Ethical impact is an unavoidable consequence of the coexistence of those two capabilities, while ethical skill is a permanent and fluid challenge.

It is to some degree everyone's duty to continually create, question and improve ethical models to guide our own behavior and goals. It is an individual duty, because we differ on our abilities and therefore on our ethical parameters; it is a dynamic duty, because the possibilities and consequences of our actions and inactions are limited by circunstances beyond our control; and it is a rational, logical duty that must be guided by awareness and reason, because ethics is applied reason.

I disagree that these categories represent a sort of 'progression' to these families of ethical theories. There is not just one of each kind, and often, the concepts used in one can be adapted for use in the others, and there are many different formulations in each of the categories...the concept of The Golden Rule, for example...

A virtuous person would engage in behavior that would reflect that simple rule. The rule-following person would choose action based on whether or not she/he recognized whether would want to be treated that way. A consequentialist would look at the outcomes of choosing something that would be the way they wanted to be treated.

Kant in his treatment of ethics came up with three very rational versions of the golden rule...but it did not completely negate the idea of consequentialism (whether or not and how a person should act is rooted in part on what the consequences of the act are, but his writings focus on the following of the categorical imperatives, rather than upon outcomes), and strongly suggested that a virtuous person would be the one to follow the categorical imperative in all ethical decisionmaking.

Anyway, for deontological ethics, there are many possible sources of rules...Kant applies 'pure reason' to the actions of individuals...others derive rules from pure reason applied to social decisions and actions. Others are rules laid out by some rule-giver, sometimes human, but sometimes divine, and sometimes a combination. and so on.

Likewise, consequentialism includes versions that look only to the consequences for the individual who has to make the choice...what is better for ME?...while other forms include other individuals, groups, and society as a whole, and even non-humans and the inanimate world. Some versions are only concerned with immediate consequences, while others look at much longer terms...and sometimes are rooted in outcomes following personal death in this world (getting rewarded in Heaven or punished in Hell, or being reborn into an better or worse incarnation...)

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is to some degree everyone's duty to continually create, question and improve ethical models to guide our own behavior and goals. It is an individual duty, because we differ on our abilities and therefore on our ethical parameters; it is a dynamic duty, because the possibilities and consequences of our actions and inactions are limited by circunstances beyond our control; and it is a rational, logical duty that must be guided by awareness and reason, because ethics is applied reason.

I have never thought about Deontological Ethics terminology, before. Its interesting but not that interesting learning all about it. Its good to learn new terms which I don't do often enough.

I agree we have to keep up that continual process, because we drift. Our languages drift. Our meanings drift. Our generations die. Our governments corrupt themselves. There are corruptions in all institutions both secular and religious (or in all institutions in those places where the secular and religious are the same). Yes, there has to be continual reconsideration, because the opposite would be backward sliding.

 

[Nakosis]

I happen to believe that there is such a thing as universal, objective ethics, but I define that as unavoidably informed by several forms of circunstances, including personal inclinations and capabilities. Which apparently means that they are subjective as opposed to objective by the definitions that many people use.

While I'll accept a commonality of human goals of which some ethical guidelines could be based I suspect the scope would be very limited and likely not universally accepted.

Between you and me and a larger group, we could find common goals from which to develop civil laws from.

I generally accept the democratic process of developing civil law as a baseline for right and wrong. Beyond that, what we see as right and wrong is a personal viewpoint.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The dispute would be whether or not the Abrahamic doctrine regarding obedience to a higher power contributes or diminishes towards this goal?

• Can a person do a righteous deed and be _______:
  • an atheist?
  • an agnostic?
  • a Jew?
  • an orthodox Christian?
  • a Muslim?
  • a Baha'i?
  • a Hindu?
  • a Buddhist?
  • a Sikh?
  • a Jain?
    
  • rich?
  • poor?
  • a member of Political Party #1, #2, #3, etc.?
  • a Freemason?
  • a Relativist?
  • a Flat-earther?
  • etc?
• Can a person be a (consistently) righteous person and be ________
  • an atheist?
  • an agnostic?
  • a Jew?
  • an orthodox Christian?
  • a non-orthodox Christian?
    
  • a Muslim?
  • a Baha'i?
  • a Hindu?
  • a Buddhist?
  • a Sikh?
  • a Jain?
    
  • rich?
  • poor?
  • a member of Political Party #1, #2, #3, etc.?
  • a Freemason?
  • a Relativist?
  • a Flat-earther?
  • etc?

 

[Nakosis]

There are those (myself included) who think that there is a moral duty even if we do not quite perceive it, and if we can not demonstrate whether it was exerced wisely.

A moral duty to what?
I accept a personal moral duty to family, friends, co-workers. Folks I personally interact with. I don't presume anyone else accepts the same moral duties I do. Great if they do, great if they don't.

LIke I may feel so moral duty to you. Whether you do likewise to me is up to you.

 

[dybmh]

That would be in direct conflict with Biblical law and commands. Slavery, killing people for apostasy and worshiping other gods, disallowing women to "usurp authority" and hold it over a man, the Bible has its laws, rules, and policies, but many of them are not ethical. But for Abrahamic to improve things, they must be willing to acknowledge that the laws and policies given to them by god--things they are expected by him to adhere to--aren't good enough and are ethically diffident.

I would actually take it one step further...

"But for Abrahamic to improve things, they must be willing to acknowledge that ..." they themselves are flawed. And that is one thing where I think most ( if not all ) religious people in the Abrahamic family agree. They see themselves as flawed. And in that way, if asked point blank: "Are you duty bound to improve yourself ethically?" I think most religious Abrahmics would agree: "Yes, I am duty bound to improve myself."

Isn't the "God Complex" the root of the problem among Abrahamics who believe in Slavery, Genocide, Mysogyny, Death for Apostasy? They think they are God, and they act like it?

 

[LuisDantas]

I couldn't agree more! In fact well said,, and that's the problem most theist have with secular morality, a mountain of moralistic waffle with no actual decisions being made. Is not in anyway a substitute for one man prepared to make a decision be it right or wrong

I must assume that you did not pay attention.