Ethics

Off Topic
61

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Most people act the way do because of fear…including the ones in this thread claiming they don’t. Whether that be fear of social consequences, fear of afterlife consequences, or fear of litigation, most people do not act the way they do just because they are nice.

[/quote]

I agree with fear being at the heart of the reason.

Before the communities, laws and churches I think encountering a stranger would be dangerous and if you are going to kill/fight them you had better make sure they have no family around and you have the upper hand. I would think these would have been the original fears.

62

To the OP, the question in itself can be answered correctly by anyone who considers themselves moral. Those who are moral regardless of the act, are those who think what they do is best for them OR who think whats best for others or society as a whole, there is no real correct answer because if I chose to do the wrong thing by others (act immoral) I may well be doing the right thing for myself, so thus acting moral towards one self, the thing with ethics is that it is self contradictory unless their is a set rule or principle, such as what Kant states with his categorical imperative or rule Utilitarianism. The act of morality is an individualized concept, to steel food may be immoral, to kill may be immoral, but it contradicts itself because of the self preservation rule. This is a question of personal belief, experiences and self justifications. It cannot be answered wrong unless viewed from a particular standpoint, with rules and ideologies.

63

I hear what you’re saying and find it very interetsting. A lot of ethical theories state that morality lies in self-interest. So if killing is in your best interets, then it IS moral. Kantian ethics state that your best interest has nothing to do with the good. A moral person does what is moral regardless of whether or not you want to. His imperatives state that a person must DO X, Y, and Z to be good - even if they personally think that those things would harm them. I believe this battle can be summed up as egoism (doing what’s best for ME) vs utilitarianism (doing what’s best for society, even if it hurts me), vs Kantian type stuff (do what’s right regardless of consequences).

Now, that being said, I’m a HUGE fan of Kant. I think that we all know what is and what is not moral, semantics aside. Where they came from, who made them, whether we agree or not…Whatever. But we all know what’s good and what’s bad (except for psychologically troubled people maybe). So, with that said, I think that morality lies in doing what’s good wheter or not you want to. I may want to steal your wallet sitting on a table, but then I’m immoral. Wanting something doesn’t make it moral according to Kant.

Now, I also think that human nature leads people to largely ignore this ethical system. People typcially do things that make their lives easier, often times at the expense of others. I believe that if people did what Kant suggested then we’d have a MUCH better world. I agree with Hobbes’ state of nature claims - that peopel suck and will try to take advantage of one another without a damn good reason not to. But I’d like to see people act more like Kantians.

Great/fun discussion fellas. Right now I’m balls deep in Hobbes, Hume, and Sidgwick. Next up I have to read some Plato for an ancient philo class then write a paper on Hobbes’ state of nature. So much work that I’m probably not going to leave my appt until Monday for class…

But T Nat is the BEST study break!

64

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I do it because of honor and my vow of Chivalry.[/quote]

I would venture that most people who see themselves as religious act the way they do for fear of afterlife repercussions…along with a selfish need for self righteousness.

Mind you, I believe in a higher power and I believe in God. I just don’t follow the same pattern of thinking as most when it comes to how these concepts fit into our reality.[/quote]

I am glad you believe in God.

Well, I have to agree with you there is two kinds of fear that people do things because of the afterlife. Fear of hell and fear of God. The latter is the most noble. It is not the fear of punishment, but the fear of losing divine sonship. If that is what you mean by fear, then yes. I try and do all things out of fear of losing heaven.

But, most of things that people do out of fear, as in fear of punishment I do not deal with. That isn’t to brag. I just don’t.

I was taught to be forgiving, but I was never taught to be nice. And, really I’m not nice at all.

Here is an article on what I mean: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0373.htm [/quote]

Do you feel that if you didn’t believe in God and heaven, you wouldn’t act the same way?

65

[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Do you feel that if you didn’t believe in God and heaven, you wouldn’t act the same way?[/quote]

Matters.

In this society? I would have acted similar, but no not exactly. I wouldn’t do religious stuff.

I also wouldn’t have the same motivations.

Take for example…Charity. Before I became Catholic (I was always Catholic since I was baptized 10 days after my birth…not the point), I experienced bland all encompassing Christianity (everyone is a Christian, even if they don’t think they are…because all paths are valid–except one…though I don’t know it…this was my first instance of Christianity), Presbyterianism, Calvinism, agnosticism and skepticism.

When I was dabbled and was part of those things, I did charity…you know take out some money from my paycheck and give or tutor disadvantaged kids, give cans to soup kitchens, &c.

I thought I was all good, I was a more well rounded person for having given. Charity was something I did to make my life fuller, along with travel, getting an education, &c. Like a bullet point on a resume…I could say, “Yeah, I donate to the poor.”

But, when I became Catholic. It was pointed out that Charity isn’t something we just do…it is how we “love” God. Service was the overarching aim of everything on the list of things I do.

Go to school, so you can get a good job, and take care of your family and those in your community less fortunate. I don’t just go to school for myself. I go because it will help me serve others better.

Even something as simple as…why do I eat…so I am healthy, why, so I can serve my family and others for a longer time than if I was unhealthy.

So, I have no doubt that those who do not believe in my God are generous and live morally, and all that other good stuff. I know I did, if that was because of the values instilled in me from my some-what Christian parents or if that was because of the Christian society, &c. I don’t know. But I was always a good person.

Though the kids on the play ground do sometimes call me a meany head. :wink:

66

^ I’m not Brother Chris, but I’ve noticed something.

A lot of different people/ethical theories have a lot of ways of telling people why/how to be moral. But the end result is usually the same. Do good. Whether that command comes from God, from gov’t, or from common sense, that’s USUALLY the rule. Ethical relativism is much more flexible, and I hardly consider “Do whatever benefits you the most” to be ethical.

One thing I have beef with in Kant’s work, though, is that there is NO wiggle room. I mean, if somebody were to kill your whole family, brutalize them, etc…you’d probably want to kill them. But even if you feel justified, and really really wnat to, you CAN’T. That may seem extreme. Insert your own example. Basically the point is that there is no ‘humanity’ in his philosophy. But it is hard to create a system that accounts for weird ethical situations and outliers. Overall, though, I’ve concluded that Kant is the most ‘solid’ ethical philosopher. But I’ve only begun my philosophical learning a few years ago, so I have a lot to learn.

67

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
^ I’m not Brother Chris, but I’ve noticed something.

A lot of different people/ethical theories have a lot of ways of telling people why/how to be moral. But the end result is usually the same. Do good. Whether that command comes from God, from gov’t, or from common sense, that’s USUALLY the rule. Ethical relativism is much more flexible, and I hardly consider “Do whatever benefits you the most” to be ethical.

One thing I have beef with in Kant’s work, though, is that there is NO wiggle room. I mean, if somebody were to kill your whole family, brutalize them, etc…you’d probably want to kill them. But even if you feel justified, and really really wnat to, you CAN’T.[/quote]

Says who?

68

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
Morality is easy when there are lots of resources and life is comfortable. In a true ?state of nature? things are very different. Once people start getting hungry its Thunderdome. Look at Somalia. The real question isn’t whether or not you would be moral when you didn’t have to be but how immoral you would be when it was necessary to survive. . [/quote]

True. In a situation like that you don’t have the luxury of deciding whether to be moral or not. In the event of social breakdown, your level of morals depends on how immoral the people you encounter are.

Some would fall back very easily on immoral behaviour to survive, and that would have a ripple effect.[/quote]

Morality is a luxury of society.

I need three more words that end in “y,” and all of them need to be pussy.

69

hiss09, Kant never made a great amount of sense to me, personally. I think his ideology that you cannot morally perform an action unless you can will it that every person do the same thing given the circumstances is a tenuous basis at best for a moral yardstick. That’s a personal problem with the philosophy though, and obviously execution and personal analysis is something completely different from the validity of the argument itself. Have you read any Aristotle?

A lot of professed theists have been posting here. I have a question for you: Do you ever feel uncomfortable, instinctually, in following the moral code that your religion condones? More specifically, if you draw your moral code from the bible, is there anything therein which you find morally questionable, or are such feelings suppressed in light of your duty to adhere to the religion? I’m not trying to work anybody into a corner here, I honestly just want to know. I’m not interested in theistic debate.

70

I don’t know if the religion thing was geared at me or others, but I don’t really believe in any religions. But I’d imagine people would be hard-pressed to believe 100% of everything out of the Bible, Torah, etc…whether or not they admit it.

As far as Kant. I don’t think the willing your actions to everyone is necessarily 100% literal. I think it’s kind of a ‘mental litmus test’ lol. I bet Hitler would’ve willed his actions to everybody, but that doesn’t mean his shit was moral ya know? I believe that it’s just one of the many tools we can/should use to come to a conclusion as to the morality of any given action.

Kant’s ‘willing your action to all the world’ thing is cool though. It basically means that we should do things we don’t want to do. It would be VERY easy for me to take a purse from an old lady. And that would be cook, b/c I’m in school adn I could certainly use the money more than some old hag! But, would I want everybody to do similar stuff? Would I want somebody to steal my grandma’s purse? Or my mom’s? If the answer is no, than it’s probably not moral.

I also think that this stuff is pretty ingrained in us from our upbringing (assuming we’re normal). I don’t think about this stuff on a day-to-day, real-world basis. I just know right from wrong. But when it comes to academia, or formal debates/enquiries, then I get down like I am now. But yeah, I understand what you’re saying about Kant.

I don’t think any ONE philosoher can have all the answers. B/c there are holes and loopholes in EVERY system of ethics.

71

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
100% of everything out of the Bible[/quote]

Found yourself a sucker, right here. :wink:

72

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Edevus wrote:
If someone needs help, in example of transport, and I don’t help (for a logical reason, like, I missed it, too far away, etc.) I feel terrible. It’s not what other people think (they don’t care), it’s not for religious reasons (atheist), it’s certainly not for fear of the law or authority (no crime), but it’s because I could have helped and I haven’t.

Maybe the reason of why I help is selfish, I do it to not feel terrible.

My point is, being ethic is not always about fear of “something”. I like to help and if I can help, I do it. [/quote]

? I don’t understand your scenario. You feel bad for not helping because of the selfish need for feeling good about yourself. Not because you really care about everyone equally. If you did, every charity would get the same attention…until you went broke.

Do you also give donations to every homeless person with a sign on the corner?

If not, why not?[/quote]

I kinda feel bad for people who need to look for food in the trash bins. Many of them may have gotten there for their own merits, but some other were just unlucky, etc.
I don’t give money to everyone, but if I do it’s usually street musicians or some specific kind, those very old women who can barely hold themselves and they are sitting there, begging at the entrance of the Old Town, no matter what’s the weather. It really depresses me to see them when it’s freezing.

73

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Prof X, I was mainly joking lol. But yes, I like your freeway analogy.

And Edevus, altruism is a weird thing. I don’t view many altruistic actions as truly altruistic because the person doing the ‘good’ is usually only doing it for the reward/image/whatever. But that’s just my skepticism. [/quote]

I get no reward. I don’t even feel like “Ohhh, I did a great thing”. More like, “You could help him and you did it, so you did what you had to do”.

I also help people without them realizing and I make sure it stays that way. This requires very specific scenarios and it’s usually small things, but it’s again the same, if I can help, why not do it? But sometimes I don’t, for whatever reason. Hard to understand or analyze.

74

[quote]Edevus wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Edevus wrote:
If someone needs help, in example of transport, and I don’t help (for a logical reason, like, I missed it, too far away, etc.) I feel terrible. It’s not what other people think (they don’t care), it’s not for religious reasons (atheist), it’s certainly not for fear of the law or authority (no crime), but it’s because I could have helped and I haven’t.

Maybe the reason of why I help is selfish, I do it to not feel terrible.

My point is, being ethic is not always about fear of “something”. I like to help and if I can help, I do it. [/quote]

? I don’t understand your scenario. You feel bad for not helping because of the selfish need for feeling good about yourself. Not because you really care about everyone equally. If you did, every charity would get the same attention…until you went broke.

Do you also give donations to every homeless person with a sign on the corner?

If not, why not?[/quote]

I kinda feel bad for people who need to look for food in the trash bins. Many of them may have gotten there for their own merits, but some other were just unlucky, etc.
I don’t give money to everyone, but if I do it’s usually street musicians or some specific kind, those very old women who can barely hold themselves and they are sitting there, begging at the entrance of the Old Town, no matter what’s the weather. It really depresses me to see them when it’s freezing.

[/quote]

I’m not saying all homeless have a mental illness but a large majority of them do, so there is nothing wrong with being sympathetic to their plight. The mentally ill ones are the ones who slipped through the cracks and can’t get help.

75

Yeah, I agree^. I had a guy tell me to do nice things for people, and NOT tell them or ANYBODY else, including himself. It’s really hard to be TRULY altruistic, for the sake of nothing other than helping somebody else.

76

Is something good because god says or does god say it is good because it is good?

in other words:

could god proclaim that torturing an innocent child solely for fun was ‘good’? is it possible for god to take something like that and make it good solely because he says so?

if the answer is ‘yes’ then something is good because god says so

(do people really believe that?)

alternatively

it might be the case that god sees what is good and reports that to us (e.g., for those who believe the bible or conscience or whatever is a voice from god). if that is the case then why worry about god? why not just figure out what it is about the good that makes it good (because presumably god sees that).

one might even think that one should use ones god given gift of rationality in order to see the good (that that is what god uses that enables him to see it).

i’m an atheist. but theism / atheism is typically thought to be irrelevant to ethics because of the euthephro dilemma (the problem of whether god says it is good because it is good or whether it is good because god says)

77

[quote]alexus wrote:
Is something good because god says or does god say it is good because it is good?

in other words:

could god proclaim that torturing an innocent child solely for fun was ‘good’? is it possible for god to take something like that and make it good solely because he says so?

if the answer is ‘yes’ then something is good because god says so

(do people really believe that?)

alternatively

it might be the case that god sees what is good and reports that to us (e.g., for those who believe the bible or conscience or whatever is a voice from god). if that is the case then why worry about god? why not just figure out what it is about the good that makes it good (because presumably god sees that).

one might even think that one should use ones god given gift of rationality in order to see the good (that that is what god uses that enables him to see it).

i’m an atheist. but theism / atheism is typically thought to be irrelevant to ethics because of the euthephro dilemma (the problem of whether god says it is good because it is good or whether it is good because god says)[/quote]

Ultimately pointless because any rational religious thinker should follow that the universe is a closed system and at the very least its impossible to ascribe any meaningful qualities to a god that is outside of it. But since lots of them do, it is equally and to me much more likely that a god would be morally ambivalent or the concept is irrelevant. Much like a bored owner of an ant farm god could just throw down hardships to make the viewing more interesting for him.

Pragmatically speaking almost everyone believes and acts as if there is moral responsibility this is much like what is the common idea of free will. People might argue where moral law comes from and that in some situations there should be less moral culpability, but these are all exercises in mental masturbation since I have never met anyone that doesn’t act as if they believe in moral law.

I do think there are some predators that may have escaped any compunction or learning of moral law and we could perhaps study them to learn why they don’t, but I suspect even they might have an understanding of it, but simply choose to not follow it.

78

[quote]Edevus wrote:

I get no reward. I don’t even feel like “Ohhh, I did a great thing”. More like, “You could help him and you did it, so you did what you had to do”.

I also help people without them realizing and I make sure it stays that way. This requires very specific scenarios and it’s usually small things, but it’s again the same, if I can help, why not do it? But sometimes I don’t, for whatever reason. Hard to understand or analyze.[/quote]

Are you sure there’s no pattern concerning those you’re inclined to help? Theoretically we’re more likely to act altruistically towards those who look like us. I believe it’s called the Green Beard Effect

79

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
100% of everything out of the Bible[/quote]

Found yourself a sucker, right here. ;)[/quote]

This is an important point! It seems to me that a lot of religious people and religious groups pick and choose which stories in the Bible (Qur’an etc.) by which they want to live. If they’re choosing which stories represent moral principles, then their standard of morality existed before exposure to the religious text. The moral standard predates the religious standard, and even creates the religious standard.

80

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
In my ethics class we recently discusses Hobbes’ system of ethics. Mainly his view on the State of Nature and the consequences.

Essentially, Hobbes believes that without a sovereign in power to keep the people in check, then people will live in anticipation. Due to scarcity of resources, competition, and general paranoia, peoples’ lives will be “brutish, nasty, and short.”

Hobbes goes on to say that people should submit to a sovereign that has the power to force people to comply to a social ‘contract.’ He essentially states that people should be moral for their own benefit. My teacher sums up Hobbes’ morality as “enlightened self-interest.” It would be better, according to Hobbes, to act morally and not have to fear for your life, etc…

So, the question:

If there were NO reason to be moral (ie no enforcing power), would YOU be moral? As an example, think of the Ring of Gyges story - basically states that if you were to be able to wear an invisibility cloak, and therefore not be held accountable for your actions - would you submit to ethics and morals, or would you steal, etc?

…Or any other discussion in the field of ethics! [/quote]

I guess you kind of missed the big picture with Hobbes and Leviathan. His whole point is largely concerned with the fact that we would NOT behave with morality if we were reduced to living in a State of Nature or War. That is the only state in which no reason to act morally exists. To Hobbes, morality consists of choosing to do the right thing only within the framework of the social contract. Without the social contract there is no reason to act morally because it is a given that SOME people will take advantage of the State of War/Nature (as is their right to do so) by taking whatever it is they can from others. The social contract simply sets up a system in which people are punished for this and there is a final, absolute power that is above and beyond all laws, the Sovereign.

To Hobbes (and many others, including Locke, Bodin, King James I & VI, and de Mornay), it is completely against the nature of Man to act in anything but self-interest or to act in a manner that clearly is not beneficial to the individual. In a State of War/Nature, since we WILL be attacked by others and our property will only be defined by what we can hold onto or take ourselves, the ONLY morality is that which keeps us alive. Within society, within the social contract, the only morality is that which protects the state, namely subservient obedience to the state and its laws. In Hobbes’ civil society, there is no private property, only public property.

So really, in order for this discussion to advance further within the framework that Hobbes laid out, you should point out that Hobbes’ idea of morality is entirely different from ours. Our own idea of reality largely centers around religious origins and an innate sense of Right and Wrong, whereas Hobbes’ morality is defined by actions for or against the Sovereign. The Sovereign wants to take your property and you think protecting it (given the impact your property has on the welfare of your family) is moral? Not according to Hobbes. The Sovereign demands that you do something “immoral” in advancement of the State and you think to resist is moral? Sorry, not according to Hobbes.