Ethics

[Mudhammam]

It seems to me that the trouble with objectivist theories of morality are twofold: 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. 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?

[Pyrrho]

It seems to me that the trouble with objectivist theories of morality are twofold: 1) It doesn't address the question as to what "the good" actually is ...

That isn't true.  Take a look at:

---

Ethical objectivism[edit]


Main article: Moral realism


According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe (or fail to describe) a mind-independent reality. When they describe it accurately, they are true—no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. When they fail to describe this mind-independent moral reality, they are false—no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels.


There are many versions of ethical objectivism, including various religious views of morality, Platonistic intuitionism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, and certain forms of ethical egoism and contractualism. Note that Platonists define ethical objectivism in an even more narrow way, so that it requires the existence of intrinsic value. Consequently, they reject the idea that contractualists or egoists could be ethical objectivists. Objectivism, in turn, places primacy on the origin of the frame of reference—and, as such, considers any arbitrary frame of reference ultimately a form of ethical subjectivism by a transitive property, even when the frame incidentally coincides with reality and can be used for measurements.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivit...bjectivism


Probably the easiest to explain example of ethical objectivism is:

---

Bentham, who takes happiness as the measure for utility, says, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong".[1]

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism



For more on ethical objectivism, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

[Mudhammam]

Granted, there are many approaches, I don't think it's possible to describe a mind-independent reality of "the Good" that everyone can agree on... shifting the good to happiness or utility makes it no more objective or solvable when two parties conflict in their conception of happiness or utility or the means of achieving it.

[robvalue]

I think religion tries to make morality way more complicated than it is.

I don't think we would have survived as a species if we didn't develop a natural inclination towards cooperation. All you need to do is weigh up benefit and harm. This is pretty easy to explain to children, and it largely comes naturally.

Stuff like christian "morality" is just a snapshot of an attempt to write up the ethics of that time. Trying to apply that today is ridiculous, and this is clear when most christians ignore most of their so-called objecte morality. Which isn't objective at all, it's subjective to God, and has no guaranteed correlation with our actual wellbeing.

I think the problem is religion's insistence on a black and white truth to everything. They don't like having to consider the subtleties of each situation or that it may be somehow a matter of "opinion". Which of course it is to a degree, but that's only because we're not all identical. Yet we still agree on many fundamental things.

[bennyboy]

To be honest, it's mostly by a hedonic state that kind of whispers to me: "This is as it should be." For example, if I wake up on Christmas day and my son is jumping on my bed freaking out and my daughter is locked in the bathroom cuz she's just at that age where they do that, I think "Yup, this is how things go. Everyone's acting as they should. This is good." Or like when my son was born and he wasn't crying and I held my breath until I heard that first scream. That siren-like wailing was good, too.

Or when I'm in the store, and some lady just abandons her shopping cart in the middle of the aisle, blocking the ten people moving directly behind her, then I think, "Nope. She should at least be aware enough that she sees she's inconveniencing others. This is bad." Then, about one time out of a hundred, the lady turns around, sees what's happened, and says embarrassedly, "Oh, dear me, I'm blocking everyone. I'm so sorry!" My brain says, "Yes. This is as it should be. She SHOULD be embarrassed, and the fact that she is confirms her humanity and her basic goodness."


I'd say the essence of a moral system is that of expanding one's view of how things should be to be more inclusive and understanding (taking joy in the "enthusiasm" of someone else's child, rather than being offended that the child is not being restrained and scolded), and avoiding as far as one can giving others the experience that anything is not as it should be in the world (by shouting "Just fucking goooo!" at a red light, for example).

Most importanly, an ethical person has to educate himself in the kinds of things that people of different backgrounds, ages, etc. will see as functional. There is a fundamental goodness in young adults being able to go out and cavort; it is their job at that age to take risks, to explore the world and their place in it, and to be a little out of control, and to be a little selfish, and their lust of life is essentially good, even when it is annoying to others-- because they are playing their part in life well. There's also a fundamental goodness in older people who want peace, tranquility and stability, as they provide a mediating force that will prevent the youngsters from getting completely out of control and bringing society to its knees.

I'd define wisdom as the ability to see in all non-dysfunctional human action this basic goodness: this person is acting as a person in his/her place in life should be expected to act, and while I don't enjoy the actions, I appreciate that it is as it should be. So the woman who leaves her cart in the aisle is so engrossed in thinking about her kids' needs that she isn't paying attention, and that is good. The guy saying "Just fucking gooooo!" at the red light is probably late for work, and cares about his job and about inconveniencing the boss and wasting everyone's time, and that is good. The kid who TP's my house on Halloween is role-playing for popularity among his friends, is lashing out against neglect or abuse by his parents in a relatively harmless way, and that is good.

[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?

[Mudhammam]

Dammit, where's my kudos button! D-:

[Mudhammam]

@Dystopia
A moral nihilist?

[Dystopia]

I'm missing kudos as well.

BTW everyone - How do I quote like in the former system? When I click the quote button it changes from + to - but nothing happens.

@Nestor, to some extent I may be a moral nihilistic but I don't think everything is absolutely stripped of moral value - I simply believe that because different people can have different conceptions of what's moral or not it's impossible to determine what's right or wrong - Thus everything is permitted.

Oh, and considering there's no objective ethics - Then I guess we can safely say that there's no such thing as universal human rights (not that I believed this before anyway)

[Pyrrho]

Granted, there are many approaches, I don't think it's possible to describe a mind-independent reality of "the Good" that everyone can agree on... 

That is a ridiculous standard, both because it can never be met, due to the fact that there is probably nothing upon which everyone agrees (ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?), and also because it is generally irrelevant to what is true.  Agreement does not mean that one has reached the truth.

If everyone suddenly agreed that God existed, God would not suddenly poof into existence.  Generally speaking, what people believe and what is true need not have anything to do with each other.


Also, "mind-independent" does not mean the same thing as "objective."  "People have minds" is an objective statement (whether it is true or false), and it clearly deals with minds, so it is not "mind-independent."

 shifting the good to happiness or utility makes it no more objective or solvable when two parties conflict in their conception of happiness or utility or the means of achieving it.

First, objective and solvable are entirely different ideas.

Regarding objectivity, "objective" is contrasted with "subjective."  If ethics were purely subjective, purely a matter of personal preference, then utilitarianism would be false.  According to utilitarianism (and for the sake of simplicity, I will stick to Bentham's version), what is good is what brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number, not what one simply prefers.

Whether Bentham's principle is true or not is irrelevant to whether it is an objective concept or not.  "Yesterday I drank a gallon of beer" is a statement that is objective, regardless of whether it is true or not (it is not a matter of mere opinion whether or not I drank a gallon of beer; it is a matter of objective fact whether or not I drank a gallon of beer yesterday).

Now, if you want to use the phrase "ethical objectivism" in a nonstandard way, I cannot stop you from doing so, but if you want to effectively communicate with others, it is good to keep to standard usage of expressions as much as possible.

As for the concept of solvable, you are going to have a very hard time determining whether or not I drank a gallon of beer yesterday.  Your inability to solve the problem (or, if you prefer, your inability to know the truth or falsehood of the statement) has no bearing on whether it is true or false.  Likewise, if Bentham is correct, it is entirely possible that you may never know it.

Just to be clear, I am using Bentham as an example, and am not endorsing his views or any form of utilitarianism.  The point is that it is a form of ethical objectivism, and it has, at least conceptually, a very clear notion of what it is to be good.  There are many other examples of ethical objectivism, and they generally do not rely on the existence of a god.  Ethics and religion are two separate areas of thought, which you should know from having read Plato's Euthyphro.