• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Focus: ethics/morality

ebola?

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Sep 21, 2001
Messages
22,070
Location
in weaponized form
Which unified ethical framework do you subscribe to and why? On what grounds is it justified? Do you consider ethics distinct from morals (I don't)? How so?
...
I...I actually am quite dissatisfied with every take on this matter I've yet come across (yet I still usually try to act ethically), so your input is greatly appreciated.

ebola
 
Because humans are far from perfect and flawed by drives such as fear or sex, I believe in a somewhat duality of ethics.

While attaining such a light and dark principle is impossible, the very understanding and practice of harnessing the energy ultimately defines your most powerful/true self.

Regardless, to me, the sharing of knowledge, power and the allowance of nature to disperse energy freely ultimately leads to the most powerful unity of human power. We instinctively seek out pleasure, but how could "seizing the moment" create an unbalance to not only yourself, but others around you?

I may not have answered your question in the way you would like, but the above is how I will answer it to the best of my abilities.
 
For the most part I don't think ethics and morals exist outside of human bonds. They are social and familial structures meant to enhance trust and cohesion, to help identify members of one's tribe, and when linked to self-concept, they are also programs that make sense of one's purpose and existence. I think morals and freedom do not go together. If freedom is truly sought and understood, then nothing is ever wrong no matter what action. But I think to really embody freedom means that you're operating at a level where moral law is inherently obvious and doesn't need to be told to you.

Most morals and ethics are ultimately predicated upon individual or collective benefit. Like I said earlier, for the most part. I do believe that a very small percentage of humanity has achieved a sufficient level of heart-centred awareness where more objective-seeming laws to govern a graceful way of living are understood. These people are probably more in touch with the origins of our most common universal morals, instead of merely obeying them.
 
Hmmm another of these 'focus' type questions. This is an important topic. I shall log-off, reflect, and come back with an answer. Thanks for the question, @ebola?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Foreigner said:
For the most part I don't think ethics and morals exist outside of human bonds. They are social and familial structures meant to enhance trust and cohesion, to help identify members of one's tribe, and when linked to self-concept, they are also programs that make sense of one's purpose and existence.

I agree, but I still fail to see how this demonstrates why what emerges is ultimately good.

I think morals and freedom do not go together. If freedom is truly sought and understood, then nothing is ever wrong no matter what action.

But what of positive conceptions of freedom cast widely? One can often realize far more in collaboration rather than in opposition to others (or in particular, lacking their assistance).

ebola
 
I agree, but I still fail to see how this demonstrates why what emerges is ultimately good.

It's good because it enhances our collective survival, since we are a social species. It reduces conflict and increases collaboration, mostly.

One can often realize far more in collaboration rather than in opposition to others (or in particular, lacking their assistance).

Yes, which is the only core reason why morals exist. A social species without moral or cultural agreements self-destructs. Compare us to non-social species that mainly get together to mate. When they're done mating they try to eat one another.
 
It's good because it enhances our collective survival, since we are a social species. It reduces conflict and increases collaboration, mostly.

Yes, yes, but why is this good? This question might seem thick-headed, but my problem with all systems of ethics I've yet encountered is that at some point, one hits a wall whereby something must be defined as "self-evidently" good. This is somehow dissatisfying.

A social species without moral or cultural agreements self-destructs.

Really? I'd say that it's a bit of a stretch to argue that non-humans hold ethical principles, and there are numerous non-human social species.

ebola
 
Yes, yes, but why is this good? This question might seem thick-headed, but my problem with all systems of ethics I've yet encountered is that at some point, one hits a wall whereby something must be defined as "self-evidently" good. This is somehow dissatisfying.
ebola
Heh, when you have an orgasm are you critical of it in the moment? If not, then you know what a self-evident good is. Otherwise, you're looking for an epistemology that doesn't reduce to foundationalism. Good luck scratching that skeptical itch.
 
Yes, yes, but why is this good? This question might seem thick-headed, but my problem with all systems of ethics I've yet encountered is that at some point, one hits a wall whereby something must be defined as "self-evidently" good. This is somehow dissatisfying.

"Why?" is a distinctly human thing. No other animal asks this question. You can ask why ad infinitum and will always be dissatisfied. Nature doesn't ask why, but it provides the how.

If the end of the question is always to arrive at some kind of self-evident "goodness", then I can think of only a couple reasons:
1) The individual you are communicating with requires that ethical framework for their stable function and to navigate reality, and thus for them it's "good" beyond any intellectual measure. They will always defer to that embodied "goodness" because of a survivalist need to make sense of the world. In other words, ultimately, the cause does not exist in "reason". It's a non-mind relationship, even if mind can weigh in on it.
2) There is something core in all of us, perhaps linked to our genetic evolution or maybe something more esoteric, that really is an objective truth in defining ethics and morality. (i.e. the difference between subjective human law vs. universal objective law.) This operates on the premise that if you actualize to a certain level, you will see that there are overarching themes that govern all of existence which are irrefutable. All human ethics, morals, and laws stem from these "spiritual" origins, regardless if people actually understand them or are simply carrying them out as a result of duty or cultural programming.
3) There really is just inherent good, without reason.

Really? I'd say that it's a bit of a stretch to argue that non-humans hold ethical principles, and there are numerous non-human social species.

There's plenty of recorded footage of animals helping one another, adopting orphans (even of different species), coming to the aid of others, etc. Ever since I was a kid I read stories of dolphins and whales saving humans, haven't you? Animals have empathy, and that's one of the cornerstones of morals and ethics. Just because we can't translate their framework doesn't mean there isn't one.

The difference is that humans have abstract intellect and discrete language, so we have created entire transmittable systems (to one another) that detail these morals and ethics in great complexity. In nature... I think the rules exist more in unspoken ways.
 
Last edited:
Which unified ethical framework do you subscribe to and why? On what grounds is it justified? Do you consider ethics distinct from morals (I don't)? How so?
...
I...I actually am quite dissatisfied with every take on this matter I've yet come across (yet I still usually try to act ethically), so your input is greatly appreciated.

ebola
This is an interesting and important topic. I have several friends that are studying psychology and I have been discussing this topic with a few of them recently.

One may approach ethics and morals from different viewpoints, although I think that societal values play a large role in what one may consider as ethical. "Society", as we know it, encompasses such a massive plethora of concepts; cultural, spiritual, physical, mental, historical, and so on.

I think, as humans, that we all crave happiness; we all want it; we all strive for it. Generally we all enjoy happy feelings, hence it is no surprise we chase them. Usually happiness refers to a feeling: a sense of pleasure, gladness, or gratification. However, like all other feelings they slip away every time, no matter how hard we try to hold onto them. The other meaning of happiness is to live a "rich and meaningful life"; if we live a full life in this sense, it means we feel a full range of emotions – not just happiness.

It is through communicating that many of our morals appear physically, and it becomes apparent what ethical nature each being has, or aspires to. None of us are born with assertiveness skills, it is learned behaviour, and therefore it is something we can all work at. Assertiveness begins with respect for ourselves and for others. It enables us to make a choice about what we feel is important in our lives and the ability to act on that choice.

Along the line of thought that assertiveness is important for society, in terms of moral and ethical standards, assertiveness is being able to stand up for yourself; making sure your opinions, feelings, and needs are considered and not letting other people always get their way (whether these people’s agendas are deemed as ethical or unethical is irrelevant in this sense, but morals will often guide whether we allow them to have an impact on us in a physical or mental way). We can be assertive without being forceful or rude; this often comes to mind when I think about wars that have been, and are, being fought; could these have been averted if people just learned proper communication skills in the first place?

Ethics can be expressed through assertiveness; it is a skill that is learned; it is about communicating and behaving with others with respect and helps us to become more aware of our own selves and the morals that we have gained over the course of our life. No matter how confident we are, there will be times in our lives when we will find it difficult to deal with certain situations or people; ethical standards are different in each culture and society – it may be that religion drives a moral code in some societies, whereas in others that moral code may be learned through education, passed down to us as children (from our parents or guardians), or other ways.

Wants and needs are an important part of morals, and the sustainability of ethics. In this sense, it may be beneficial to work out what we want versus what others want, and finding the middle ground through this by being assertive and communicating effectively.

We likely all have a "friend" who always wants to borrow money and is "forgetful" about paying it back. Often we deal with situations of this nature by losing our temper, by saying nothing, or giving in; this can lead to us feeling unhappy, angry, out of control, or anxious – the problem is not solved most of the time if this is the case. Communication is so important in this sense.

Learning what behaviour is ethical or moral can be done through communicating effectively, not in an aggressive or passive way:
- when we take a passive stance to our needs, feelings, rights, and opinions we avoid conflict at all times and generally try to please others; in the short term this can lead to reduction of anxiety, avoiding guilt, and a sense of martyrdom; in the long term there may be a continuing loss of self-esteem, and increased internal tensions leading to unethical behaviour as a result of stress or feelings of low self-worth.
- when we take an aggressive stance to the same facets as mentioned in the above point, we are expressing "my needs are more important than yours and I am ignoring or dismissing yours"; in the short term we may have a sense of releasing tension or feeling more powerful; in the long-term there may be some guilt and shame, putting the responsibility for anger onto others, and resentment.
Being assertive is being both helpful and honest. We should ask for what we want/need openly and directly, expressing and respecting the rights and needs of others, and expecting others to do the same (sadly this is not always the case). If we are assertive we cannot expect others to magically know what we need/want, we cannot violate people’s rights, and we should not avoid difficult issues. The result of effective and assertive communication is an expression of ethics and morals that can be beneficial for society as a whole, and I think that is the way things should be.

That’s all I have for now, but feel free to criticise my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, yes, but why is this good? This question might seem thick-headed, but my problem with all systems of ethics I've yet encountered is that at some point, one hits a wall whereby something must be defined as "self-evidently" good. This is somehow dissatisfying.

When stepping this far back as to why morals are good then they become unimportant. If you remove the human (as well as other animals) framework then good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral have no meaning. Without life these things would never exist. Nothing would be good. Nothing would be bad. Everything would simply be.

"Why?" is a distinctly human thing. No other animal asks this question. You can ask why ad infinitum and will always be dissatisfied. Nature doesn't ask why, but it provides the how.

I don't believe this to be true. Many other animals ask this questions in varying depths of understanding.. we just don't understand them when they ask.

Animals have empathy, and that's one of the cornerstones of morals and ethics. Just because we can't translate their framework doesn't mean there isn't one.

Hell yeah they do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBpKgykXXRo

It doesn't mention it in the video but the gorilla actually takes the kid to the part of the enclosure that was easiest for people to get to.

I'm surprised you think that ebola?

livescience said:
In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. And when a car hit and injured a dog on a busy Chilean freeway several years ago, its canine compatriot dodged traffic, risking its life to drag the unconscious dog to safety.

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

This one is well worth a watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPznMbNcfO8

Skip to about 2:50.. Chimp morals that differ from each other within the same family unit.
 
Last edited:
Foreigner said:
If the end of the question is always to arrive at some kind of self-evident "goodness", then I can think of only a couple reasons:
1) The individual you are communicating with requires that ethical framework for their stable function and to navigate reality, and thus for them it's "good" beyond any intellectual measure. They will always defer to that embodied "goodness" because of a survivalist need to make sense of the world. In other words, ultimately, the cause does not exist in "reason". It's a non-mind relationship, even if mind can weigh in on it.
2) There is something core in all of us, perhaps linked to our genetic evolution or maybe something more esoteric, that really is an objective truth in defining ethics and morality. (i.e. the difference between subjective human law vs. universal objective law.) This operates on the premise that if you actualize to a certain level, you will see that there are overarching themes that govern all of existence which are irrefutable. All human ethics, morals, and laws stem from these "spiritual" origins, regardless if people actually understand them or are simply carrying them out as a result of duty or cultural programming.
3) There really is just inherent good, without reason.

These potential explanations are quite well put, and I think that I am partial to something like possibility 1. Our sense of ethics begins empathetically, and while causally explicable, it is this set of pre-rational gut-feelings that guide our ethical judgments. To make our own and others' behavior intelligible, we create symbolic systems to justify our gut feelings and actions (and also to coordinate across varying and sometimes discordant urges between and within individuals). However, it might be in principle impossible to fashion a symbolic system adequate to capture how our empathy guides us. Maybe the latter condition is what frustrates me so much.

So why don't I think animals have ethics?

Well, I think you actually put it quite succinctly:

Foreigner said:
"Why?" is a distinctly human thing. No other animal asks this question. You can ask why ad infinitum and will always be dissatisfied. Nature doesn't ask why, but it provides the how.

An animal can act in a way we can judge as ethical. An animal can cause good, and perhaps animals can hold emotions similar to those held by humans exercising good will. But animals won't ask themselves why what they're doing is good.

Just because we can't translate their framework doesn't mean there isn't one.

Is it a framework per se though? Sure, you will observe some structure to the behavior and emotional reactions of social animals, but this structure won't rest on a system of justifications; they lack means to pose ethical questions and engage their answers.

ebola
 
Is it a framework per se though? Sure, you will observe some structure to the behavior and emotional reactions of social animals, but this structure won't rest on a system of justifications; they lack means to pose ethical questions and engage their answers.

ebola

If ethics and morals are pre-rational/empathic as you mentioned earlier, then animals have it too. Morals and ethics are not rooted in why, they are emotion based. Just because they don't have rationality to back them up doesn't mean animals lack morality.

I grew up surrounded by animals and I find them to be quite compassionate. Animals who are raised around humans as family members take on some human moral characteristics.
 
If ethics and morals are pre-rational/empathic as you mentioned earlier, then animals have it too.

Maybe I was insufficiently precise. I was arguing instead that pre-rational, empathetic motivations form the basis of ethics but do not themselves constitute ethics (we can call these experiences "proto-ethical"). Rather, we construct ethics in response to these desires/feelings/urges. I doubt animals (perhaps with the exception of some higher primates to which researchers taught rudimentary sign language) perform this latter operation.

This does not mean that social animals always act without compassion, lack empathetic capacity, or never engage in altruism; proto-ethical motivations are very often just as valuable as ethics-proper. However, I wouldn't call these non-human practices ethics per se.

ebola
 
Maybe I was insufficiently precise. I was arguing instead that pre-rational, empathetic motivations form the basis of ethics but do not themselves constitute ethics (we can call these experiences "proto-ethical"). Rather, we construct ethics in response to these desires/feelings/urges. I doubt animals (perhaps with the exception of some higher primates to which researchers taught rudimentary sign language) perform this latter operation.

This does not mean that social animals always act without compassion, lack empathetic capacity, or never engage in altruism; proto-ethical motivations are very often just as valuable as ethics-proper. However, I wouldn't call these non-human practices ethics per se.

ebola

It seems like language is the key to your rationale.

Does this mean that humans who lack complex language (i.e. children, people with language disabilities, deaf/mute people, etc.) are only operating out of empathic motivations and lack a system of proto-ethics?
 
It seems like language is the key to your rationale.

Almost. It's more that symbolic reasoning of some sort is necessary. Otherwise, by which means can actions be judged in generalized terms?


Does this mean that humans who lack complex language (i.e. children, people with language disabilities, deaf/mute people, etc.) are only operating out of empathic motivations and lack a system of proto-ethics?

Not really. Remember that I accorded "proto-ethical qualities" to empathetic organization of behavior among animals. It's more that those lacking symbolic reasoning outright lack ability to reason ethically. Those cognitively debilitated but still possessing some means to reason symbolically would still hold some capacity for such judgment (remember that I included higher apes trained in sign-language as potential ethical agents). And don't we give children and the developmentally delayed more leeway in behavior by virtue of assumed reduced capacity to make ethical judgments? The example of deafness seems moot, as nearly all of those deaf acquire some form of language (be it a sign-language or verbal abilities acquired prior to their deafness).

ebola
 
I think the question is biased depending upon where you listen. To hear what others have to say, then abide by it creates a person whom passes as acceptable ethically to the demographic which they choose to identify.

Morality is a matter of listening to ones inner desires. Very hard to distinguish for most, as the acceptable social standard is so strongly intertwined ad nauseam. Yet I think it very possible to please no one but yourself, being of strong morals. Strong ethics will in most cases have others tipping their hats to you, while you feel empty in your actions.

In short, I doubt highly that both can coexist in an absolute form, thus a balance must be struck. To try and achieve this, is to try and be universally accepted. Looking for an answer for that a reasonable questions fails to exist prior.
 
Unfortunately, every code of morality ultimately comes down to circular, emotional reasoning. I find this makes them feel somewhat unsatisfying. The alternative, however, is a complete lack of values.

I guess my own system is based on these basic points:

1) The primary determinant of an action's morality is its effect on other people. If it hurts them, it's wrong. Otherwise, it's probably fine. This concept is incorporated into most of the other items on this list

2) Do not adopt societal moral standards for the sake of conformity. This leads to all sorts of bigotry and judgmental, inconsistent values.

3) To the extent that this is humanly possible, everyone should be held by the same standards, regardless. any social, gender, racial, ethnic, or any other group they belong to. For example, rape does not suddenly stop being horrible because a man is the target. Promiscuity does not suddenly become a negative personality trait when women display it instead of men; it must be judged in the same way for both.

4) Calmly correcting a character defect is usually preferable to feeling severely remorseful over it.

5) Loyalty is only admirable up until to the point that you stand by and allow someone to be harmed.

6) Anger may be justified, but that does not necessarily make it useful.

7) Some people deserve horrible fates like rape and murder, but that does not give anyone the right to administer them, for vengeance or "justice". Some lesser forms of retaliation are acceptable, if unnecessary.
 
Kantian categorical imperative. which is essentially longspeak for the golden rule (don't do things to other people that you would not like to have done to you). ethics are not meant to tell you exactly what to do. 'cause that would not be ethical =D. Neither would a perfect unitary ethical system be, for the same reasons. justice is not without mercy. So you're going to have to think about it. well, for yourself really
 
Last edited:
ethics are not meant to tell you exactly what to do. 'cause that would not be ethical .

Hah. Okay, this leads me to view the CE in a whole new light, as from the frame of view you present, having a 'merely subtractive principle' is not a problem.

ebola
 
Top