In Search of Ethics

So chrissy, are you speaking morally, or ethically? Or perhaps it is more epistemological? There is equal truth in both parts of a lie. Besides what is goodness, a moral or an ethic?

I am so sorry if I've trod on a few genteel toes here, but as ethics overwhelm science, law, health, education, behaviour, one must now consider what cannot be debated, and if that which cannot be debated is moral, there is very little hope for humanity. Answer the question next time, as I think I raised a very good point.

Very well said, Chrissy! And correct me if I'm wrong, DaScouser, (as I'm sure you will), but I believe that ethics and morals are very closely interrelated. It is hard to discuss one without the other being intertwined...especially when personal opinion and sentiment are involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaScouser

So chrissy, are you speaking morally, or ethically? Or perhaps it is more epistemological? There is equal truth in both parts of a lie. Besides what is goodness, a moral or an ethic?

I am so sorry if I've trod on a few genteel toes here, but as ethics overwhelm science, law, health, education, behaviour, one must now consider what cannot be debated, and if that which cannot be debated is moral, there is very little hope for humanity. Answer the question next time, as I think I raised a very good point.

---

You're so cute when you're an ***.

By the way, Da Scowl ser, not all of us have attended a university, as of yet. Some of us, like myself, are fresh out of high school and are not incompetent or incapable of intelligent thought as you seem to think we are. Though I agree we are most likely not as versed in omnipotence as you seem to be. You said we were 'rabbitting on about culture'. You should read all the posts before you respond, because apstudent did pose a question about culture; he even asked for comments on specific time periods. When you talk about the decline of ethics in America, I believe it would be difficult to exclude American culture from the discussion.

Wax, your a star awaiting to be born anew. As for the rest, debate is not the same as discourse: discuss, for God's sake.

I've had a long thunk about this one and one of the conclusions I've come to is that there ain't much difference between morality and ethics but anyway my take on the subject is this -
Society rewards conformity and conformity to societies values is what morals and ethics are commonly seen as.
There is no such thing as an absolute morality/ethic - look through various human societies and you will find a culture somewhere that regards as acceptable behaviour that others would find moraly repugnant - I cannot think of a single act which hans't been condoned by one society or another at some point ( I've looked into this at great depth - I've even found examples of necrophillia being acceptable.). Take for instance rape - both the US as and the UK have at some point believed it acceptable in some instances - in the States before the civil war you owned a slave in body and therefore could not be accused of raping one, in the UK as late as the 1980s it was legaly impossible for a man to rape his wife ( yet consenting anal sex could in principle be punished by life imprisonment).

Each generation forms its own views as it grows up and those will differ from those of the generation before it. As the new generation replaces the old in positions of power ( meaning anything from policitican to teacher, parent, judge etc ) there will come a point where the new values are starting to displace the old - this of course tends to get noticed and touted as a decline in moral standards even when it is seen by others as an improvement in the situation. Eventualy the old values go or are sidelined as ridiculed as being old fashioned and the new views take over to be replaced in their turn by the next generation.
Morals and ethics don't decline, they merely change.
What I think is happening at the moment is that people are starting to think more for themselves, to me that can only be a good thing. Instead of doing what they're told because they are asked to by the govermentment people are asking why they should and refusing to do it if they don't agree with the reasons why - understandably this upsets those who are trying to make the rules.
I think as a whole we should be doing all we can to encourage non conformity and independent thinking - the papers bang on about the decline of church attendence and unmarried couples living together but can any of them give a rational argument as to why these are bad things - maybe if people keep questioning they might actualy train the press and politicians to at least try to give a rational argument instead of expeting people to inherently trust them. Social upheaval and change always leads to a few causalties but on the whole I think they are a good thing,
I think D.H. Lawrence was on the right track when he published 'A Sane Revolution' :

http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poem=28775&poet=6619&num=5&to tal=105


so I've just outed myself as a pagan atheist with poltical views somewhere between the Kahn dynasty and the Marx bothers,
do I care?
Downer

The distinction I like to make about the difference between morals and ethics is that the first is more about controlling others by fear and the second is about logical reasons for the social rules that we create, which implies that they are not absolute and are debatable as the norms and conventions of society change with time. For example, I consider myself to be highly ethical, yet i don't believe in marriage, absolute truth, and many other things, which would be considered immoral. sadly, what many claim to be the downfall of society (i.e. drug use, casual sex, etc.) seem to me to be of lesser importance than the human need for power and control ultimately causing war and inequity between people. I apologize for any naivete in my reply.
thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zootopia

The distinction I like to make about the difference between morals and ethics is that the first is more about controlling others by fear and the second is about logical reasons for the social rules that we create, which implies that they are not absolute and are debatable as the norms and conventions of society change with time. For example, I consider myself to be highly ethical, yet i don't believe in marriage, absolute truth, and many other things, which would be considered immoral. sadly, what many claim to be the downfall of society (i.e. drug use, casual sex, etc.) seem to me to be of lesser importance than the human need for power and control ultimately causing war and inequity between people. I apologize for any naivete in my reply.
thanks.

---

That was probably the best reply so far . . . but now that apstudent is knee-deep in the **** somewhere in the Gulf, there is no reason to keep yacking back and forth like this unless you think that he will take time out of his busy schedule of P.T. to visit us small folks who are still trying to get a piece of that pie while we're still around to gobble it up. Maybe he will come back and thank us for keeping him in our thoughts even while he was away. Maybe, in the hours just before dawn . . .

Well, apstudent may or may not still be interested in the conversation, but since it has somewhat wandered off the original question, that's not important (no offense, ap :) ). I just wanted to put in my two cents on this subject, which has really gotten me interested; you can read this or ignore it, whatever you want to do.

Certainly I think morals and ethics are interrelated, but not everything that might be considered immoral is considered unethical. I think the question of morals encompasses a greater area than does the question of ethics. In general, to ask, "Is this ethical?" is to ask "Do I, or does anyone, have a right to do this?" If the action hurts someone else in any way, then the answer is no. Thus anything that is dishonest--lying, cheating, stealing--is unethical. Ethics are vital because they are the standard for a universal code of conduct that everyone in a society agrees on, and if everyone doesn't agree on it, then the subject is debated until they do. People might not abide by those ethics (take Enron, for example), but everyone agrees that they should be punished for that. And as Downer said, ethics don't decline, they merely change.
I do think that morals have declined, and this is why. Morality is more of a standard for an individual code of conduct, so not everyone has to agree on it. However, it wasn't always that way. The idea of morality basically came from religion, and America's idea of morality is mostly based on the Christian religion. In the past, Christianity was the standard, as was Christianity's set of morals, so everyone in America did agree on how an individual should act. I would say that this universal code of morality--how an individual should act when it doesn't affect others--came in conflict with the growing idea that it is unethical for anyone to say what anyone else should do, so the universal idea of morality eventually dissolved. Most controversial topics today are decided (legally, that is) on whether or not it's ethical; the question of morality is set aside.
So I would say that while there has been a decline in morals, ethics are still as important as ever, though ethics have changed over time. Whether you look at a decline in morality as a good or a bad thing depends on whether or not you hold with traditional morals.
Anyway, if you've read this far, thanks for your time.

On the other hand there are always circumstances in which it may be necessary to harm another individual or where stealing, lying etc do no harm whatsoever. the over used and typical example is someone starving stealing. A different example would be my habit of poaching rabbits and other small game - I'm clearly breaking the law and stealing as I don't have the land owners permisson although the land itself is open access to anyone. I know for a fact that the owners do not take game there themselves so I'm not depriving them of anything so as far as I'm concered the ethics boil down to whether it's ok to kill an animal for food which is a deeply personal issue.

I don't think that you can ever say that everyone in a society will agree on a particular set of ethics but it depends on how you actualy define a society in that sense - it can mean anything from a country and its people as a whole to a a definable set of individuals in that society that share a common belief system.

In any group you will always have people who don't agree with the system of rules, I can honetsly say that I don't abide by the rules of the society I'm in and from an anthropological point of view you could argue that I'm not part of that society - I just mix with it.

When you get onto issues such as assisted suicide ethics become even more clouded, it may get debated and defined in law but people are still not going to agree on whether helping another individual to kill themselves is ethical regardless of what the law says.

I wonder though if what's happening with the increase in unmarried couples, polygamy etc is merely us reverting to our more natural ape society behaviour, we'rer at a point where there is very little suvival pressure on our populations as a whole so the advantages of staying with one individual long term and raising offspring via one partner are greatly reduced. What we're seeing could just be a return to a more 'normal' chimp like society ( you really should read Will Selfs 'Great apes'. )
Downer

I wonder if issues such as assisted suicide can really be up for debate forever, because of the very fact that a society's ethics often change. I'm thinking of slavery--at one time, hardly anyone anywhere questioned whether slavery was ethical, and now it is pretty much universally acknowledged to be a great wrong, at least in most cultures (as you say, there are always exceptions). There was a great deal of struggle and debate before that change in thinking took place. But then again, one could argue that that was a necessary change for the good of mankind and had to happen sooner or later.

From a scientific standpoint, isn't a species' survival better insured when individuals don't stay with only one partner? At least, I thought that was the theory. In any case, I don't think survival instincts ever had that much sway over humans' actions. People will run when their life is in danger, but survival really has nothing to do with someone staying married because they vowed "till death do us part." Since marriage is a religious institution, it's unnecessary for survival purposes; people might just as well live together without it. And, of course, they do. But I think that the reason this is more common now than it used to be is simply because it is no longer a social taboo. And maybe it was just as common in the past, but not as widely known or accepted.
Thanks for the book recommendation :)

sorry for the digression, but on the issue of slavery, I feel that most people did feel it was wrong but because of a pluralistic ignorance? they disregarded their better judgement. That is that in their gut, most people felt it was wrong, but because very few people questioned it, they themselves did not want to be the dissenting party. Authority was able to suppress dissent. In the present time, in the USA for example, many people want to be part of the winning group. As an example let's take presidenential elections, where most people vote Democrat or Republican even when they know that a third party candidate may be the better choice. So from a social psychology perspective, most people want to be on the winning side even though they may know better.

To Nome and Downer, and those in the relativistic morals realm:

Slavery: if everyone is free to define their own ethics and morals, then why shouldn't I be able to say slavery is good? After all, it serves my perposes, as well as my budget, not to pay the person working for me. I don't have a problem with it. Why is slavery wrong?
Because it infringes on the right of the other person? But you forget, I can define my ethics!
As Downer blatently put it, we are all going back to our natural "chimp" society. And that's a good thing? Because you have no transcendent truth for a moral system, you are content to revert to your most base instinct?
But what if you're wrong? What if there is a transcendent truth? What if your base instinct is clouding your judgement and your reason? Can you entertain the possibility, just for a moment?
Please at least hear me. If everyone has a right to define their own morals, then let me express mine. However, I believe mine are transcendent, thus binding to you, too.

First, from your point of view, I can't think of any reason for bothering to keep morals/ethics in your vocabulary. If you define how you should live, and there is no universal standard, don't cheapen the words ethic and moral. Say what you really mean: living the way you want to.

I think the debate over the difference of morals and ethics is moot. I use them interchangably. By morals I mean a transcendent moral code.

I do not attempt morality because I fear hell. I do not attempt morality because I have a nagging guilt that it is what I should be doing. I do not attempt morality because I think it a fast track for the good life. I do not attempt morality because I feel it will give me fulfillment and happiness.

I attempt morality because I know that that is what pleases God. I was created to worship God, and to live in the way he proscribes.

What you mean when you say morality is living your way. What morality really means is living God's way. Thus, any way beside the way God proscribes is a false morality.

Now, is morality in the United States in decline? Yes, and no. More later. Outa time.

You are perfectly free to say that slavery is right and you wish to practise it just as we are free to try to stop you if you do so, my point is that there were cultures in the past, and if insist on bringing religion into it, strongly Christian cultures that believed that slavery was right and natural.
to quote Richard Bach ( to bring this back into the literature realm ) "We are all free to do whatever we want to do."
You may well believe that your morals are transcendent but you have no way of binding me to them any more than I have a way of binding you to my system - you can't force people to believe ( except maybe by brainwashing ).
As for living the way god wants you to live ( deliberate small G there ), this has always been and will continue to be a source of raging arguments over interpretation of assorted works of literature and over which bits apply and which bits don't, even by honing down to a single book, interpretations may vary and which chapters are included varies over time.

Personaly I am best described as a Pagan atheist ( I have no specific deities ) but I enjoy reading the religious texts of other religions.

I don't think I am cheapening 'ethic' or 'moral' by saying I live the way I want to - my choice of morality is a deeply personal thing, there are boundaries I will not cross even though it would be true to say I have no concept of 'sin' but then does sin equate to breaking moral boundaries anyway, I also don't rule out the possiblity of crossing those boundaries in extreme circumstances.

It is nice to see someone who to paraphrase "does attempt morality because they have a nagging guilt that it is what they should be doing." - I have never understood my mother who goes to church because she "hasn't been for a while and what will people think ". I have no problem with christianity or any other religion other than those that practise it out of habit or guilt ( my appologies if you're not actually a christian, it's just the most common religion round my parts, assume 'if not C of E state other' counts as a religion ).

The practical upshot of my system is that I support anyones right to live how they want - within reason, there are limits and there have to be otherwise the end result in mob rule though I must admit my political ideal like Gore Vidal ( desperate attempt to bring books back into the fray again ) is enlightened anarchy - but it would never work.
My limit is basicaly this - if it doesn't impinge directly on unwilling others too badly then what's the problem, if someone objects to a couple kissing in public - tough, someone playing music in the middle of town so lound you can't hear anything else is a different matter. It's not a matter of reverting to base instinct, I just like to question all of societies rules - Why do we do this and not that, what are the historical reasons and the social reasons for social conventions. If I can't see a sensible reason for something I'm likely to reject it - I analyse, pick holes, find threads to pull at and things to disect - far from base instinct though in the case of issues such as ( safe sex ) promiscuity i see nothing wrong with base instinct.

Anyway if you've got this far I'm bloody impressed, concise writing is one of my weak points, probably explains why I like Peake and Vidal. Speaking of why Titus Groan is a classic example of what I'm talking - questions his societies rules and decidies 'tradition' is not a good enough reason, nearest I get to a heroic figure,
I'm gonna stop or this will turn into some sort of a thesis,
love and hugs
Dower

A couple of excellent books that examine this topic would be
God Who is There
Escape From Reason
both by Francis Schaeffer.

He examines how "the line of despair" has spread from philosophy, through art and music, to even theology.

Stefan