Ethics and Morality, Huh?

[Baron Max]

10 years later, Island B has imploded when they had no one left to fight so they formed two groups and attacked each other, killing everyone there in an orgy of blood. Island A rebuilt itself without comprimising it's ethical standards and took over Island B, discovering a previously unidentified vein of valuable mineral ores, which they sold to become rich.

But another previously-unknown group heard about the valuable mineral ore that group A had stupidly sold on the open market, thus revealing its source, and subsequently attacked group A, killed thousands, enslaved the rest to dig out that ore, and kept all the ore for themselves.

Oh, yeah, they gave the slaves of group A a thin soup made from cockroaches to keep them strong to work in the mines!

Baron Max

 

[iceaura]

The B's have developed a much more pragmatic and violent way of life.

"Pragmatic" and "violent" are not commensurable.

With centralized control over the economy, most entrepreneurial spirit and cooperative enterprise dissipated in pointless feuds, and the loss of most contribution to progress from half the population, B is perpetually stagnant and frequently splintered into petty battling factions.

Nothing pragmatic about that. At least A enjoys a few years of prosperity - and there will be renaissance's and the like whenever B goes through one of its cyclical internecine massacres, and the As get a chance to flourish for a while.

The Bs never get that chance.

Or viewed another way: A periodically suffers the fate of being reduced to B's normal condition, during B's occasional Golden Ages of martial unity.

 

[Balerion]

This thread is NOT about any one particular ethical standard or morality, but about the general concept of ethics and morality. I'd rather not get into particulars except as examples that might help illustrate a point.

Oh, so when you're asked to be more specific as to what you don't agree with, or what would bring you to the conclusion that a hypothetical set of ethics would have lost us WWII, you bail? Dude, you're the one that brought up a specific conversation you were having with a person, so don't play all of a sudden like you want to keep it general. This isn't about generalities. YOU made this about what you called liberal ethics.

Agreed. But you'll notice that almost everyone who posted here is considering ethics as something that can change on a whim. Which is, of course, what most of this thread is all about -- how can you hold to the concept of ethics, then turn around and change them whenever the situation changes?

It's not changing ethics. It isn't. Saying you don't think war is always the answer is not the same as saying war is never the answer. I'm pretty sure most people, liberal and conservative, agree that war is often inevitable. How is that changing your ethics? How is taking a peace-first approach, and then going to war when it fails changing your ethics?

You display a fundamental lack of understanding on this subject.

No choice? What about NOT going to war? That's a choice that conforms to the high falutin' ideals that we hold as a freakin' society, ain't it?

Not exactly. Again, sometimes war is in our best interests.

Yeah, we had a choice ...Hitler did nothing to us, and didn't directly threaten the USA in any way. Oh, yeah, sure, there were and are people who would claim to be able to read the future, but ....do we believe always people who make that claim?

Once we saw Japan attack us, it become far easier to imagine Germany doing the same.

'Course we also had another choice ....we could have tried talkin' him to death about ethics! Or maybe just into a coma?

If you've ever seen the video, Hitler read a letter from the President asking him not to invade a list of countries he had provided.

Hmm, on the playgrounds of America, we teach little kids that retaliation is not ethical. And yet, when we get older, we can just change those ethics whenever we want? See? I don't think that's ethical, do you?

Who teaches kids that retaliation is not ethical? My parents taught me that if someone hits me to hit them back twice as hard.

Just because the Japanese attacked us and we allied with Germany, is no sign that we should have attacked German forces in Europe. I don't see how the two are connected at all.

We allied with Germany?? When??

And also, if we hold ethics of basic non-violence, why didn't we just defend ourselves against another Japanese attack instead of retaliating? Self-defense is a much better justification of negating ethics than going on the attack, isn't it?

Had the declaration of war been given when it was intended to, we would have been better prepared for the Japanese attack, and it would have been far less catastrophic to our forces. And again, we didn't negate ethics.

I think you need to read up on what ethics are before you continue this conversation. You sound like a European trying to explain an inch.

I'm trying not to, but you've used my examples to repudiate something that was only an example ...of convertible ethics. And your post has shown that you, also, hold ethics as a convertible ideal that you can change whenever you want to. I don't think those are real ethics ...there's just bullshit from my perspective, nothing but high-falutin' talk.

I really don't know how to be any more clear than I have been. It isn't wise to be a person who takes a cement ideology that does not take into account variables. To say we will never go to war is ridiculous and dangerous. To say that you will always or never do anything is ridiculous and unrealistic. My ethics are that we should never go to war unless we have to. I don't see how that is unreasonable or how you could not understand it.

But please remember, this isn't about those examples, it's about the ideals of ethics that we claim to hold dear, yet flaunt whenever the mood strikes us. And it's not about the war in Iraq, or WW II or anything else, it's about the ethics we hold.

What ethics do you refer to? Whose ethics? DO you even know, or are you simply ranting vaguely about nothing in particular? (I'll take the latter)

Are ethical standards really any good to anyone?

Of course they are. But you understand ethics to be something else, something that they are not in reality. I don't know where you got the idea that ethics are scripture, so to speak, but they aren't.

 

[spidergoat]

But another previously-unknown group heard about the valuable mineral ore that group A had stupidly sold on the open market, thus revealing its source, and subsequently attacked group A, killed thousands, enslaved the rest to dig out that ore, and kept all the ore for themselves.

Oh, yeah, they gave the slaves of group A a thin soup made from cockroaches to keep them strong to work in the mines!

Baron Max

Too late, Island A already used it's wealth to build a huge wall.

 

[Baron Max]

You display a fundamental lack of understanding on this subject.

You'll notice, I hope, that even the title of the thread had a question mark in it. And I thought I was somewhat clear in my original post ...and attempted to clarify it in a later post.

Yes, I lack fundamental understanding of ethics. But that being said, from the other posts here, I think that's generally true of most people. You, too, for instance!

Once we saw Japan attack us, it become far easier to imagine Germany doing the same.

Sounds somewhat like the position some are taking on Iran's nuke situation and the possible attack on Israel? Iran has made several public threats to Israel's existence. So, ...we should attack Iran now before they can do the dirty deed? ...like we attacked Germany?

If you've ever seen the video, Hitler read a letter from the President asking him not to invade a list of countries he had provided.

Interesting. No I didn't see a "video"? But do you think one nation should give such ultimatums to another nation? To attempt to place demands on another nation? To try to control the destiny of another nation? And then attack them when they don't kowtow? Is that "ethical"?

It seems to me that if something like that was actually ethical, then it would be ethical for everyone, wouldn't it? Or is ethics only for "us" and not "them"? Or vice versa?

I think you need to read up on what ethics are before you continue this conversation.

Oh, I've read a lot about ethics, but that doesn't mean I understand it. As I see it, from reading and from what y'all have posted here, ethics is much like a turd on the ocean ...flowing up and down on the waves, following the tide and the wind, without any clear understanding of direction. Hmm, I like that!

As I see it, ethics is much like a turd on the ocean ...flowing up and down on the waves, being moved about by the tide and the wind, without any clear understanding of direction.

And as I've said before, I don't see how we can make pronoucements of ethics violations of others when we, ourselves, treat ethics as little more than ...well, a turd on the ocean.

On several threads about it, when asked, most here would say that lying is okay under certain situations. I.e., they, themselves, determine when and when not to lie. Yet, there are posts after posts here that decry politicians lying. So, ...is lying ethical or not?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Too late, Island A already used it's wealth to build a huge wall.

Ahh, Spider, I see you and I have the same understanding of ideal human societies ...segragation from those who are different, and isolation from everyone.

It's just as nature/evolution has deem it for all the other animals on Earth ...segragated and isolated (as much as possible).

Baron Max

 

[spidergoat]

I didn't say that.

 

[Balerion]

You'll notice, I hope, that even the title of the thread had a question mark in it. And I thought I was somewhat clear in my original post ...and attempted to clarify it in a later post.

First, giving the thread a title does not mean the contents will match it.

As for being clear...no. You were clear only that you had discussed ethics with a friend of yours, and that by his means we would have lost WWII, and then asked why have ethics if we are going to throw them aside. You made it sound as if this person was typical of most, and then failed to discuss what his or her stances were that you disagreed with, despite making pretty big claims about them. If you didn't want to discuss those particular ethics, why did you judge them publicly and talk about them so much?

Yes, I lack fundamental understanding of ethics. But that being said, from the other posts here, I think that's generally true of most people. You, too, for instance!

I don't see what would bring you to that conclusion.

Sounds somewhat like the position some are taking on Iran's nuke situation and the possible attack on Israel? Iran has made several public threats to Israel's existence. So, ...we should attack Iran now before they can do the dirty deed? ...like we attacked Germany?

Comparing Iran to Germany is like comparing Mike Tyson to Mohamed Ali. Germany was running through nations like a hot knife through butter; Iran's last war was a decade-long stalemate with Iraq--a nation that we toppled in a weekend...twice. The point I'm trying to make here is until Iran displays anything other than a skill at rhetoric, there's no justification for attacking them.

Interesting. No I didn't see a "video"? But do you think one nation should give such ultimatums to another nation? To attempt to place demands on another nation? To try to control the destiny of another nation? And then attack them when they don't kowtow? Is that "ethical"?

To Nazi Germany our appeal to not invade a nation we saw as an ally or the loss of which posed as too great a threat to an ally must have seemed ridiculous. To us, however, it was a polite request that was made to an ambitious nation. We did not offer an ultimatum, as far as I am aware. So again, ethics don't really come into play here.

It seems to me that if something like that was actually ethical, then it would be ethical for everyone, wouldn't it? Or is ethics only for "us" and not "them"? Or vice versa?

To paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, any truth you know is dependent on your perspective. There are no universal truths--only truths based on your point of view. For example, from your perspective, it is wholly acceptable for government to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage (don't want to get into it, just giving an example), because it reinforces what you consider to be an equal legal standing for all parties. People on the other side of that argument view it as oppression, because it takes away a basic human right.

I hope you can look beyond the surface of the example, and see the point.

Oh, I've read a lot about ethics, but that doesn't mean I understand it. As I see it, from reading and from what y'all have posted here, ethics is much like a turd on the ocean ...flowing up and down on the waves, following the tide and the wind, without any clear understanding of direction. Hmm, I like that!

Again, if you could be specific as to how anyone here has ever viewed ethics that way, I'd love to hear it. As it stands now, you're just making noise.

And as I've said before, I don't see how we can make pronoucements of ethics violations of others when we, ourselves, treat ethics as little more than ...well, a turd on the ocean.

Without an example of this...I can't help you.

On several threads about it, when asked, most here would say that lying is okay under certain situations. I.e., they, themselves, determine when and when not to lie. Yet, there are posts after posts here that decry politicians lying. So, ...is lying ethical or not?

Baron Max

I would hope that your worldview isn't as black and white as you make it seem. Lying isn't either OK or not OK. There are obviously times when lying is the best, most ethical option. There are obviously times when it isn't. Calling a politician a dirty liar is an indictment of their ability in the eyes of many to never tell the truth ever, and to lie in order to only advance their agendas and win elections.

 

[Baron Max]

Dawg, you typed up a long, involved post apparently to show that I don't know what ethics are ...which I've readily admitted from the outset. Yet in all of that typing, as if you're an expert in ethics, not once did you explain to me what ethics are. Why? Why not just tell me what ethics are and save all that typing?

Lying isn't either OK or not OK. There are obviously times when lying is the best, most ethical option. There are obviously times when it isn't. Calling a politician a dirty liar is an indictment of their ability in the eyes of many to never tell the truth ever, and to lie in order to only advance their agendas and win elections.

So if it's okay for you to lie sometimes with you making that judgement, why isn't it okay for a politician to lie and for him to make a similar judgement about it? Or anyone else, for that matter?

Why is it okay for you to lie, yet not okay for, say, a used car salesman to lie about one of his cars?

If YOU can decide when YOU can lie, why can't others decide when they want to lie?

See? Ethics isn't nearly so simple as you seem to think. And judging from the number of respondents, I'm left to think that no one really can explain ethics in any real way.

I would hope that your worldview isn't as black and white as you make it seem.

I think in terms of ethics, making the worldview black and white is what it's all about. the more muddled it is, the less ethical anything/anyone becomes. And once again, if you can muddy the waters of ethics and call it acceptable, why can't others do the same?

So, see, I'm back again ....what the hell is ethics? And why talk about them when we can't even explain them? And if we keep making exceptions to them, why can't we allow other to make other exceptions?

Baron Max

 

[GeoffP]

The Germans, specifically the Prussians, and the Japanese both had this exact theory about the US. We were seen as pussy liberals who had no stomach for a fight.

Not wanting to fight and not being able to fight have no relation to each other.

But the counter by the US was only possible due to a favourable accident of geography. Same for the Brits. Context. How would either have done if they'd shared a border with the Hun?

 

[Balerion]

Baron! Where ya been!

Dawg, you typed up a long, involved post apparently to show that I don't know what ethics are ...which I've readily admitted from the outset. Yet in all of that typing, as if you're an expert in ethics, not once did you explain to me what ethics are. Why? Why not just tell me what ethics are and save all that typing?

I don't recall you asking what ethics are. But since you asked, ethics is like an offshoot of philosophy. According to Wikipedia, "(ethics) is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct."

So if it's okay for you to lie sometimes with you making that judgement, why isn't it okay for a politician to lie and for him to make a similar judgement about it? Or anyone else, for that matter?

It's subjective, of course, so it depends on who you ask. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm only lying when it will protect me from something with no negative consequences to the other party. Of course, even this is flexible; if a gunman is asking me a question, and me telling the truth will mean we both live but he'll get away, and lying will let me live and cause him to die, then I'm probably going to lie.

It's all about perspective, really. From my perspective, the politician is hampering my ability to make an informed decision on whom to vote for. From his perspective, he could very well be trying to win the office at all costs because he knows he can change things for the better.

Why is it okay for you to lie, yet not okay for, say, a used car salesman to lie about one of his cars?

First, I never said it was always OK for me to lie. I said it could be OK under the right circumstances. In the case of the car salesman, it could very well be OK for him to lie about a car. Maybe he needs medicine for his child, or needs money to save his own life from the mafia...who knows? But from my perspective, probably not knowing this information, I'd be pissed that the guy lied about the car he sold me, because it negatively affects me.

If YOU can decide when YOU can lie, why can't others decide when they want to lie?

Who said they couldn't?

See? Ethics isn't nearly so simple as you seem to think. And judging from the number of respondents, I'm left to think that no one really can explain ethics in any real way.

Never said it was simple. But I hope this post has gone some way to help you understand. Wikipedia has an excellent article on it, as well.

I think in terms of ethics, making the worldview black and white is what it's all about. the more muddled it is, the less ethical anything/anyone becomes. And once again, if you can muddy the waters of ethics and call it acceptable, why can't others do the same?

Again, who says they can't? What you do need to understand, however, is that if I hold a certain set of ethics, and someone does something to wrong me, it's within my right to say they acted unethically...because according to me, they did. You can't expect everyone to say "Well, he or she did that because that's within the limits of what they would consider ethical."

 

[Baron Max]

Baron! Where ya been!

I was banned for seven days for something that I said in a "private message" to one of the moderators. I wonder if that's ethical ....my statement OR the banning?

What you do need to understand, however, is that if I hold a certain set of ethics, and someone does something to wrong me, it's within my right to say they acted unethically...because according to me, they did. ...

So "ethics" is whatever anyone wants it to be? ...at any time? ...and it can change at the drop of a hat?

If so, why does anyone ever talk about anything being "ethical"?

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

So "ethics" is whatever anyone wants it to be? ...at any time? ...and it can change at the drop of a hat?

If so, why does anyone ever talk about anything being "ethical"?

Baron Max

It's not that it changes, per se, but it's flexible. Provisional may be a better word. I really think you're missing the gist of it. As opposed to saying lying is always wrong, it might say lying is only right when it doesn't hurt anyone. That sort of thing, you know? That's not change...that's more of the same.

Sorry...Obama fever.

 

[Baron Max]

.... I really think you're missing the gist of it. As opposed to saying lying is always wrong, it might say lying is only right when it doesn't hurt anyone. That sort of thing, you know?

Interesting, but that brings up the question of how can one know the future? How can one know that his lie won't hurt someone else? ...that sorta' think, you know?

See what I mean? If "ethics" can be tossed about with such reckless abandon, then why even have such a word? And worse, why do "we" talk about such a flexible, meaningless word?

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

Interesting, but that brings up the question of how can one know the future? How can one know that his lie won't hurt someone else? ...that sorta' think, you know?

See what I mean? If "ethics" can be tossed about with such reckless abandon, then why even have such a word? And worse, why do "we" talk about such a flexible, meaningless word?

Baron Max

First, you can't see into the future. You just have to reason it out, see what is the most likely scenario.

Second, just being flexible does not mean it's meaningless. Like I said, which you can't seem to grasp, it isn't meaningless because it is a philosophy that you hold. And there are certain things within society that we all see as one way, such as malpractice, which is considered unethical. It's hardly meaningless. It's about as meaningful as anything else.

 

[Baron Max]

Second, just being flexible does not mean it's meaningless. Like I said, which you can't seem to grasp, it isn't meaningless because it is a philosophy that you hold.

That "I" hold? I don't hold to any ethics because I don't know what the fuck they are .....and no one seems to want to explain it to me!

And there are certain things within society that we all see as one way, such as malpractice, which is considered unethical. It's hardly meaningless. It's about as meaningful as anything else.

Ahh, perhaps now we're getting somewhere! So "ethics" is a set of rules that one's own "society" forces you to conform to? And they force those standards on us with the threat of penalty?

Now I get it; "Ethics" is something that society forces upon its members with the power of the gun!

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

That "I" hold? I don't hold to any ethics because I don't know what the fuck they are .....and no one seems to want to explain it to me!



Ahh, perhaps now we're getting somewhere! So "ethics" is a set of rules that one's own "society" forces you to conform to? And they force those standards on us with the threat of penalty?

Now I get it; "Ethics" is something that society forces upon its members with the power of the gun!

Baron Max

Wow. Just...wow. :bugeye: How you get from what I wrote, to what you wrote...I just have no idea. It must take effort to be that thick.

 

[Baron Max]

Wow. Just...wow. :bugeye: How you get from what I wrote, to what you wrote...I just have no idea. It must take effort to be that thick.

So once again, you'd rather spend time and effort to belittle me than to explain it? Or is it because you can't explain ethics? Me thinks so.

And, no, I probably won't respond to you again. You're obviously not taking this seriously in any way.

Baron Max

 

[Pandaemoni]

Now I get it; "Ethics" is something that society forces upon its members with the power of the gun!

Baron Max

No, not exactly. Ethics is the study or philsophy regarding systems of beliefs about how one should act in relation to the world. One's own personal system of belief can be referred to as one's own "ethics" used in the same or a similar meaning to "morality." As social animals we tend to be strongly inclined towards adopting personal ethical/moral systems that mirror those we see around us growing up.

Individuals (not necessarily "society") may decide to pinish a person whose behavior does conform to what that person deems to be "proper." That punishment may be enshrined in the law (and may, ultimately be backed up by the threat of force), but it is not always. Usually ethical systems through shaming and ostracizing punishments. Again, being social animals, we are prone to responding to threats of a loss of social contact or status, so these work. They can also be enforced economically, but refusing to do business with an offending person.

So, some ethical deviations are punished vertically, though statutory or common law (either criminally or as torts). Others are punished horizonally, like international law or the way feudal law was enforced, by withdrawing from association with a person and encourageing others to disrespect him.

 

[Baron Max]

... As social animals we tend to be strongly inclined towards adopting personal ethical/moral systems that mirror those we see around us growing up.

Okay, I see that, I understand that. And it's also very easy to say.

But, ...what about those people on the other side of the country or the world? What if they don't agree with our system of ethics? Is it majority rule? Is it somehow forcing others to conform even tho' they don't believe in our system? Beat 'em with sticks until they surrender?

One that's being discussed on another forum right here on sciforums is that of Indonesians taking 11-12 year old girls as wives. We, in the west, don't agree that system of ethics. So what do we do then?

If the Indonesians have a different system than ours, and it's agreed to by their society, how can it be wrong? And if it isn't wrong, then how can ours be right?

So, some ethical deviations are punished vertically, though statutory or common law (either criminally or as torts). Others are punished horizonally, like international law or the way feudal law was enforced, by withdrawing from association with a person and encourageing others to disrespect him.

So we just punish people who don't conform to our way of thinking, is that it? Why doesn't that sound right or good? Or should I say ...why doesn't that sound ethical?

See? The thing that gets me about ethics is that it's used in such worldwide conversations, like on national tv news programs, etc., as if it's a universal ideal. And I just can't and don't buy that. "We" can't keep trying to force others to conform to our way of thinking or we're going to have nothing but problems in the world ...more than we already have.

For all the talk about "love everyone", I'm beginning to see that our world is more divided now on issues than ever before in history. And what makes it worse, is that distance is no longer a natural isolator. Conflict is now not just small communities or cities or states, it's now spread all over the globe!

Baron Max