Are ethics real or are there just winners and losers?

T

TimeTraveler

Immortalist
Registered Senior Member
We all know, that in survival of the fittest, winning at any cost is the main value. The question is, are ethics real or were ethics invented to allow "winners" to have a psychological advantage?

Is it ethical to lie, cheat, steal your way to victory if victory is all that matters? Are ethics real?
 
Winning can mean many things in evolution. It's not survival of the fittest individual, but survival of the gene pool. Consider the worker ants that will sacrifice themselves for the colony. Humans have discovered that if we practice good ethics and morals, more of us will make it to the future.
 
spidergoat said:
Winning can mean many things in evolution. It's not survival of the fittest individual, but survival of the gene pool. Consider the worker ants that will sacrifice themselves for the colony. Humans have discovered that if we practice good ethics and morals, more of us will make it to the future.
Click to expand...

No one cares about the species, at least not many people, Maybe I do, but most people only care about themselves and no one else.

I agree with you, ethics are about survival of the species, but please explain to me why people don't care about the species?
 
TimeTraveler said:
We all know, that in survival of the fittest, winning at any cost is the main value. The question is, are ethics real or were ethics invented to allow "winners" to have a psychological advantage?

Is it ethical to lie, cheat, steal your way to victory if victory is all that matters? Are ethics real?
Click to expand...
Prove ethics are not real!

I heard someone who said they had read it in a book that they saw an ethic once.
Also the epistemological supportive evidence exists proving the ontology of ethics. Whoever is trained in the epistemology of morality can find the ontology of ethics.

Also the energy field that surrounds our corporeal natures is never lost but it is transported and reincarnated within a new form.
Thusly ethics follow us about in our endless quest for Godliness.

Thanks Sciforums!!!!
 
spidergoat said:
Winning can mean many things in evolution. It's not survival of the fittest individual, but survival of the gene pool. Consider the worker ants that will sacrifice themselves for the colony. Humans have discovered that if we practice good ethics and morals, more of us will make it to the future.
Click to expand...

Winning means reproducing the most.
And worker ants are sterile. They've already lost.
 
Roman said:
Winning means reproducing the most.
And worker ants are sterile. They've already lost.
Click to expand...

Uh, so you are saying you are elite? Please, am I supposed to believe that you aren't a worker ant like the rest of us?

99% of the world are worker ants, 1% are wealthy forever. 1% is being liberal.

Anyway, tell me why on earth you WANT to think of yourself as a mere worker ant, even if you are, what reason will people have to work? What drives you to continue working?
 
TimeTraveler said:
No one cares about the species, at least not many people, Maybe I do, but most people only care about themselves and no one else.

I agree with you, ethics are about survival of the species, but please explain to me why people don't care about the species?
Click to expand...
I think ethics are about selfishness. It's a calculated risk. You might not get everything you want immediately, but in the end, you do benefit. People do care about their immediate surroundings, your peers, family, friends, maybe even your neighborhood.

Ethics are a codified means of caring for the species. You don't even have to really care about the species, just as long as most people live and let live, don't steal, ect...

Dawkins describes the evolution of cooperation in terms of the game, Prisoner's Dilemma,
http://www.iterated-prisoners-dilemma.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
 
spidergoat said:
I think ethics are about selfishness. It's a calculated risk. You might not get everything you want immediately, but in the end, you do benefit. People do care about their immediate surroundings, your peers, family, friends, maybe even your neighborhood.

Ethics are a codified means of caring for the species. You don't even have to really care about the species, just as long as most people live and let live, don't steal, ect...

Dawkins describes the evolution of cooperation in terms of the game, Prisoner's Dilemma,
http://www.iterated-prisoners-dilemma.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Click to expand...

So what about people who hate the species?
 
There will probably always be a few sociopaths, but I think most people accept some kind of ethical code, even gangsters.
 
spidergoat said:
There will probably always be a few sociopaths, but I think most people accept some kind of ethical code, even gangsters.
Click to expand...

Sociopaths rule, literally. Being a sociopath is a leadership quality. Sociopaths are also quick thinkers, they make just in time(JIT) type decisions, and respond quicker, because if you don't have to consider morality, you just do whatever you want to whoever you want.

Don't get me wrong, all of us can act like sociopaths when in certain situations, but sociopaths feel no guilt, and this is why they are better at certain things, like kicking ass, and dominating the planet. Just because you say the majority of the world has ethics, it does not mean that the majority of the world has any power. The majority of the world usually will ask their sociopath for permission, while the sociopaths are the movers and shakers who take whatever they want whenever they want it.

Why should a sociopath care about ethics, or ask permission, when the world operates on takers, for takers, by takers? Sociopaths are just people who are better at taking what they want. So make a better case for ethics.

If you don't care about the species, if you don't care about life, and you exist only to get as much as you can get while you can get it, what do you need ethics for besides to help you get what you want? So yes sociopaths follow ethics, the main ethic is, "what is the best way that I can get what I want with the least resistance?", if there is too much risk and too much resistance and there is an easier way, and you arent likely to get caught, thats ethical.
 
perplexity said:
If only on the odd occasion somebody would be kind enough to acknowldege my ethical code, let alone accept it.

More often they want to impose their own.

--- Ron.
Click to expand...

Ron, ethical codes are freedom restricting, these are internalized laws. Yes these laws exist to protect the world from you, yes these laws protect the future so that a future is guarenteed to exist, and yes these laws are rational in the long term.

The question, why have a long life of poverty which you can have a short life of bliss? Why sacrifice for long term success, when you can drop out of school, do drugs, have sex all the time, and be a gangmaster?
 
TimeTraveler said:
Sociopaths rule, literally. ....
Click to expand...
I think they don't, in the end their lives usually end rather badly. Society usually expells these outcasts in one way or another. I'm not sure what your point is about them.

Those that do live ethically tend to lead a harmonious existence with the rest of society, and enjoy the consequent benefits of peace, prosperity, and happiness.
 
spidergoat said:
I think they don't, in the end their lives usually end rather badly. Society usually expells these outcasts in one way or another. I'm not sure what your point is about them.

Those that do live ethically tend to lead a harmonious existence with the rest of society, and enjoy the consequent benefits of peace, prosperity, and happiness.
Click to expand...

Have you read Hobbes? Survival of the fittest? Perhaps life is supposed to be short and brutish.

Make the case for a long life, use logic only, as emotions are not universal.
 
TimeTraveler said:
Have you read Hobbes? Survival of the fittest? Perhaps life is supposed to be short and brutish.

Make the case for a long life, use logic only, as emotions are not universal.
Click to expand...
Life could be short and brutish if you wish. You see, society has a choice, as do individuals. I think living ethically has already proven it's worth, but you don't have to accept it. Ignore it at your own peril.

Personally, I'll earn my money and pay for what I want, not harm others, and try to help when I can. It's worked for me so far.

Survival of the fittest doesn't imply brutality, that was an early misconception of evolution. Many species cooperate for mutual benefit.
 
We all know, that in survival of the fittest, winning at any cost is the main value.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is!

The real trick is understanding how some means of survival threathen your future survival. As for ethics, they are the means by which the winners survived (and maybe won, too). The ones who thought diffrently are no longer here to contest about it :)


Perhaps life is supposed to be short and brutish.
Click to expand...

Only way to know is to find out. And you can't find out without living long enough to find out. And sure, you can do that. Nothing's stopping you. But threathen my existence and know you threathen your own.

Ethics are just a notebook on successful methods. They might seem stupid, but then again, they have mostly been written by people who have more experince than you (ie. they lived longer). Good action is a good action, action done well. A well done job won't come back to haunt you. Likewise, a good action does not require you to later fix things, or contribute more energy than already contributed. The "good guys" keep their slates clean so when shit hits the fan, they don't have to worry about extra suprises backstabbing them. They can FOCUS on the subject at hand. They also only use necessary energy and do not need to constantly fix and change what they've done. They plan so that every action benefits them and that not one ounce of energy they spend is wasted. Possibly even planning it so that what they've already done will suffice for them to win (by, for example, using energy to learn how to properly respond to all situations, instead of thinking every occurance as a separate event).

lol thats just my opinions.

If only on the odd occasion somebody would be kind enough to acknowldege my ethical code, let alone accept it.

More often they want to impose their own.

--- Ron.
Click to expand...

They are eager to teach you! They want to improve you! They might also be stupid, but they might also be right. That is to say, two men war in order to agree or determine who is right. If you view an attack only as an intention to hurt, you'll only be hurt.
 
jesus christ ron let this die PLEASE.
i don't like some things on this board either but i sure as hell ain't gonna cry over a bruised ego and start putting people on ignore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top