Ethics

[Dystopia]

1) It doesn't address the question as to what "the good" actually is, and whether virtues are means to achieving the good or if virtues themselves are in essence the good.

I think it is completely impossible to define what good actually is - You can use pain as a measure but it ends up being subjective. If I grew up in two different cultures I would end up believing different ethical values

2) Let's just say, like Protagoras, that "man is the measure of all things," though in the sense that our conception of the good must be in relation to some definite ideal person, such as the life of a man who enjoys happiness, security, and freedom in the fullest degree, intellectually and sensually, with a high reputation among his peers, enjoying financial prosperity that enables him to live freely, acting to the benefit of his friends and family because he wills it to be so and is able to accomplish whatever his liberal heart desires. Now, in striving to achieve this form of the good, "the good life," as it is called, it seems like we run into the following difficulty when evaluating the morality of behaviors: the individual versus the community (be it family or state) versus the whole of mankind. There are clearly many instances in which the good of the state may conflict with the good of the individual, as demonstrated, for example, in the current debate over the balancing act of individual privacy and state security, and numerous other cases that could be offered. And clearly, sometimes what is good for the state is disastrous to the good of other nations, or humanity as a whole. So, how do you define, and how do you measure, what is good? By you and yours, or by the community, or by mankind?

This depends on the ideological root you prefer - Liberalism tells us that the individual and individual freedoms are valuable as an end itself but socialistic conceptions or even fascist ones will tell us that doing what's best for the community is better and that hedonism is bad - Is any of the former right? No, it all depends on historical context. Fascist States made sense back then as a response to poverty, crisis, capitalism and excessive individualism; liberalism made sense as a response to despotism and absolutism; after WWII the Welfare mentality of helping others and reforming capitalist oppression made sense because people felt compassion towards society - And all of this is shaped by the past, present and our achievable future.

Myself, I prefer to think "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end" (Trotsky) - And I believe moral and ethical measurements are detrimental to defining what's good. Using popular examples - Why shouldn't I kill someone who is about to kill 1 billion people? It seems to be that this could be considered immoral

Nestor, what would you call me if I claimed everything is completely lacking in moral/ethical values?