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

[metis]

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.

It reminds me of Thoreau's response when he was in jail for non-violent civil disobedience and asked why he was in there, with his response asking why isn't the questioner in there as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

It is not supposed to be consistently accepted even by ourselves as time goes by.

We are expected to learn better even at the individual level.

When I talk about objective ethics, it is not with the expectation of predictability.

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

Yes, we can.

But law has only the flimsiest of connections to ethics. Law is about political expectations and enforcement, not morality and ethics.

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.

We part ways there, then. I have long concluded that right and wrong has nothing to do with law.

 

[joe1776]

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.

Back in the 18th Century, David Hume pointed out that our moral judgments are the product of "sentiment" (intuition) not reason. Over the past 30 years or so, research is proving him right. Those judgments that we refer to as conscience are intuitive. They are immediate judgments that emerge from the unconscious mind.

So, all moral rule-making results in potential biases. This includes the work of moral philosophers, theologians, legislators (criminal law), and the authors of sacred texts of religion. Their work offering moral rules is based on the premise that moral judgments are the product of reason -- and that premise is false.

 

[LuisDantas]

A moral duty to what?

To perceive situations and the difference that our actions and inactions can make in their outcomes and then be true to ourselves.

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.

Fair enough, but that is not what I am talking about. We all have moral duties to everyone else. It can be impractical or impossible to live up to them, but they do not vanish for that reason.

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

Yes.

 

[LuisDantas]

It reminds me of Thoreau's response when he was in jail for non-violent civil disobedience and asked why he was in there, with his response asking why isn't the questioner in there as well.

Indeed. Sometimes we have to explain why we are not being punished for other people's mistakes.

 

[LuisDantas]

Back in the 18th Century, David Hume pointed out that our moral judgments are the product of "sentiment" (intuition) not reason. Over the past 30 years or so, research is proving him right. Those judgments that we refer to as conscience are intuitive. They are immediate judgments that emerge from the unconscious mind.

So, all moral rule-making results in potential biases. This includes the work of moral philosophers, theologians, legislators (criminal law), and the authors of sacred texts of religion. Their work is based on the premise that moral judgments are the product of reason -- and that premise is false.

The observation is reasonable, but I think that your conclusion is premature.

The existence of biases is an obstacle, not an impediment. We can train ourselves to learn to be ethical - and we must.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

We aren't talking about people who have respect for the lives and dignity of others. They dedicated their lives to hatred, violence, and repressive dogma. Clearly them being killed wasn't "going out of our way to be a butcher." They brought war to others, they sent death, and death was sent to them. They were put down like a rabid animal, for the great benefit of humanity who is no longer under threat or danger from such individuals.

 

[LuisDantas]

We aren't talking about people who have respect for the lives and dignity of others. They dedicated their lives to hatred, violence, and repressive dogma. Clearly them being killed wasn't "going out of our way to be a butcher." They brought war to others, they sent death, and death was sent to them. They were put down like a rabid animal, for the great benefit of humanity who is no longer under threat or danger from such individuals.

You are not listening.

 

[Nakosis]

To perceive situations and the difference that our actions and inactions can make in their outcomes and then be true to ourselves.

I've no disagreement here.

Fair enough, but that is not what I am talking about. We all have moral duties to everyone else. It can be impractical or impossible to live up to them, but they do not vanish for that reason.

This is where I wouldn't agree simply because I don't know what is right and wrong for everyone else.My lack of knowledge, IMO, put this beyond the scope of what would be part of my decision process.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

Those things are found, supported, condoned, and commanded in the Bible. The are the ways god told the people to be, how to behave, and their laws. Such as, the Bible not once speaks against slavery, but it does permit a master to beat his slaves.

 

[dybmh]

• 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?

You know you're talking to an optimist, right?

Yes for both.... naturally

 

[LuisDantas]

This is where I wouldn't agree simply because I don't know what is right and wrong for everyone else.My lack of knowledge, IMO, put this beyond the scope of what would be part of my decision process.

That may well be - and very often it indeed is. We have limitations of scope both for moral discernment and moral action.

We also have a duty not to be too confortable about that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are not listening.

I dont think you want to accept that some people are not reasonable, and they are inclined to killing others rather than granting them any sort of respect for being human. Killing one to save thousands is moral. In a way, those such as the US and British governments do share some responsibility for genocide as they enabled Hitler and didn't actually do much to oppose him until it was far too late.

 

[joe1776]

The observation is reasonable, but I think that your conclusion is premature.

The existence of biases is an obstacle, not an impediment. We can train ourselves to learn to be ethical - and we must.

You don't need to train yourself to be ethical. You were born with a conscience. We have to accept its judgments as correct because it's the only moral authority we have. If you're considering an action that is morally wrong, you'll feel it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I dont think you want to accept that some people are not reasonable, and they are inclined to killing others rather than granting them any sort of respect for being human.

I do not want to accept that, but I do know that they exist.

I would very much like not to be their accomplice, too.

Killing one to save thousands is moral.

It can be. But it does not exempt one from the duty to seek better ways after the fact, let alone before.

In a way, those such as the US and British governments do share some responsibility for genocide as they enabled Hitler and didn't actually do much to oppose him until it was far too late. Stalin was the only allied leader who made efforts to oppose Hitler early on.

You are still not listening.

 

[LuisDantas]

You don't need to train yourself to be ethical. You were born with a conscience. We have to accept its judgments as correct because it's the only moral authority we have.

We part ways here. Ethics is very much a learnable skill, and I am not aware of any inborn conscience that would substitute for that need to learn it.

We definitely have both the means and the need to learn better, because there are rational moral authorities that we can not in good faith avoid attaining.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Yes for both.... naturally

You are hereby commissioned to go out and break the news to the world.

 

[Darkforbid]

I must assume that you did not pay attention.

Maybe I didn't, but as that was a post directed at @Shadow Wolf please tell me what brilliant secular incite you posted and how it destroyed my post

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do not want to accept that, but I do know that they exist.

I would very much like not to be their accomplice, too.



It can be. But it does not exempt one from the duty to seek better ways after the fact, let alone before.



You are still not listening.

Then what am I not listening to? Though m does that's not really the issue, rather that I'm not going to shed a tear over someone like them if they are killed, and I wouldnt think about making bringing them in alive a priority. That's a luxury for those acting within normal parameters under more normal circumstances. "Regular murder," for example, where there is a very low risk of doing it again. Not genocidal tyrants who will only continue to kill until they themselves are removed and ended as a threat.

 

[joe1776]

We part ways here. Ethics is very much a learnable skill, and I am not aware of any inborn conscience that would substitute for that need to learn it.

We definitely have both the means and the need to learn better, because there are rational moral authorities that we can not in good faith avoid attaining.

OK, let's leave it there but I'll end with one question:

Since all knowledge begins with the senses; and since we humans can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between a moral act and an immoral act, isn't it obvious that we felt the difference?

Everything we know or think we know about morality, we learned from that moral intuition that we call 'conscience.'