Ethics and Morality, Huh?

[Pandaemoni]

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?

It depends on your system. A particular system may (but need not) make you militant about others who have not adopted or do not obey it. Many people are very much taken aback and judgmental about those on the other side of the world (or across time) who disagree with them. Imagine that King Solomon appeared in the modern day U.S.A...along with his seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. I think he'd find we looked askance at polygamy and considered the concubines adultery, in a way that the ancient Jews did not.

Other systems tolerate differences more readily, but all (I suspect) have their limits. I'd be cool letting Solomon keep his wives and concubines myself, but if he started killing Palestinians so Israel could have that land back, I'd want him locked up. Polygamy's not my thing, but I can accept it in other systems. Murder is not my thing and I cannot abide it in other systems.

Similarly, *all* systems need some degree of tolerance, or else your society will not function. No two people have precisely the same rules for proper conduct, and you cannot have people marching off to war because one likes Gossip Girl and another thinks that show is impermissible smut.

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?

For me, that falls into my gray zone. I'd think the best solution is to voice why that makes me uncomfortable and then, if they disagree, as they probably will, shut up about it until I have some more concrete reason to object than "a funny feeling."

Others may well see this as the exploitation of children and want us to ostracize Indonesia until the practice stops. IMO, that's extreme because 11-12 years old has long been the world standard for when women marry. Mary, mother of Jesus, was likely not far off that age when God impregnated her, because that was normal marrying age at the time. Despite a long history of marriages to child brides (usually to adult males, though, of course, the marriages would not be consummated until after menstruation).

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?

In my opinion, that is akin to saying "In Rome the speed limit is only 25 kph, but in London it's 45 kph...if Rome's isn't wrong, how can London's be right?" or "In 1800, the most popular flavor of ice cream in the U.S. was 'oyster' and now it's 'chocolate,' why were the people in 1800 so wrong?" There is no "right" and "wrong" save to the extent it promotes or detracts from stability. If you go 45 kph in Rome where everyone else is doing 25, and you will be the one who's wrong. What leads to stability is what best fits the local system, and if the majority of the locals believe in something that influences the best fit in that area. An ocean away, where different things are believed, differed rules are needed.

In an objective sense, there is no right and wrong at all. There is, however, a set of a large number of ethical systems that can promote stability and many of them are so different from one another and two societies adopting different standards could not long live side by side. The key to forming a society is that most people in the society hold standards that are not mutually incompatible with others maintained in their immediate area. Luckily, humans are natural mimics, and so local populations tend to have relatively closely related ethical systems in any given time period.

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.

It's not universal, I agree. It's more like temperature. That it is 55º in Manhattan does not mean it's 55º at the same time in Newark. It may be 52º, or 60º. If you went from Newark to Bridgeater NJ, you'd expect Bridgewater's temperature to be close to Newark's. Then you go to Princeton, then Philadelphia, then Gettysburg, then Harrisburg, and so on. On each individual step of a few miles, you don't see very much temperature variation. By the time you make it a few thousand miles though, the difference between the the new location and the temperature in New York night be substantial.

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!

I agree with that too, though the realization of the difference has been around for a while. The birth of the "white man's burden" and the travels of missionaries around the globe was the realization that so many non-whites had differing notions about how to live their lives. Unfortunately there is at present just enough separation for "intolerant" ethical regimes to take root in a population and not enough to make it uneconomical for those holding such positions to lash out at others, thousands of miles away. It is still mostly uneconomical though. No al Qaeda strike is ever going to fundamentally change the ethical positions of people in the U.S., so any cost they incur to reach the goal of mankind us change our ways is money wasted in that regard. Unfortunately, they do believe that such activities earn them rewards in heaven, which is an irrefutable belief, and seems to make such things more sensible (if you agree with them).

To a materialist society like ours, spending resources on intangible benefits is not something likely to last long. It's hard to say whether the fire will burn out for them though. (That said, statistically speaking, I am more likely to be killed by lightning than by terrorists, so how much time should I devote to worrying about them?)

 

[Baron Max]

.........

Many thanks to you, sir. You've given me a lot to think about on the coming cold winter months in comforts of my cave!

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

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?

There are two questions here. The first is whether there is one single system of ethics which is the "correct" or "best" one. The view that there is such a system is sometimes called "absolutism", while the view that there is not is often called "moral relativism".

The second question is whether it is morally permissible to impose your ethics on somebody else, by force if necessary. That is a very complex question and I don't think it can be answered in a general way. You'd need to be specific about the particular circumstances and the particular ethical issue you have in mind.

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?

I'd suggest we have an open discussion about this issue with the Indonesians. The first step is to find out why they believe this is appropriate, and why we believe it is not (if that's what we believe). Perhaps a consensus position can then be reached. Or, we may agree to differ. Or, the issue may be so important that unilateral action needs to be taken.

If the Indonesians have a different system than ours, and it's agreed to by their society, how can it be wrong?

Perhaps agreement by a single society, on its own, is not enough to make something right.

And if it isn't wrong, then how can ours be right?

Perhaps there can be middle ground, so that something that is not wrong is not automatically right.

So we just punish people who don't conform to our way of thinking, is that it?

I would suggest this only as a last resort, when all other avenues have failed. And only, of course, if our way of thinking can be shown to be right.

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.

It is a universal ideal.

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.

I doubt that. People always think their own era is exceptional, but it rarely is.

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!

I'd say there's less conflict now in the world than there has ever been at any other time in history.

 

[James R]

Just to add to the above, it is perhaps useful to point out that some moral philosophers try to avoid moral prescriptivism - that is, saying "You must do X to be a good person. Doing X is obligatory, or else you're an evil sinner." In this sense, secular philosophy can be different from old-time religion.

It seems to me much more common in philosophical circles to ask not "Is it right/obligatory to do X?" but rather "Is it morally permissible to do X?"

In other words, we err on the side of allowing everything that is not morally prohibited.

 

[swarm]

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?

Well if we consider the revolutionary war, war of 1812, Texas revolution, civil war and indian wars, I would say that Americans fight tooth and nail for their homeland and fight dirty to boot. In particular the US (or US faction in Texas) should have by all standards lost the war of 1812, the Texas revolution and the south should have surrendured shortly after Gettysburg.

 

[swarm]

Here you go Baron

Ethics

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"
===
With much, much more at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm
And its not wiki for all you wikiphobes.

 

[Baron Max]

The second question is whether it is morally permissible to impose your ethics on somebody else, by force if necessary. That is a very complex question and I don't think it can be answered in a general way. You'd need to be specific about the particular circumstances and the particular ethical issue you have in mind.

And thus you leave the same way open to all others who feel that their way is the right way. And you also leave open the very real possibility of continued social conflict and, ultimately, war.

I'd say there's less conflict now in the world than there has ever been at any other time in history.

Well, you'd be wrong. You're wrong if for no other reason than there are many more people on Earth now. More people, more conflict.

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

And thus you leave the same way open to all others who feel that their way is the right way. And you also leave open the very real possibility of continued social conflict and, ultimately, war.

Yes.

In extreme circumstances, sometimes even war is morally justifiable.

I'd say there's less conflict now in the world than there has ever been at any other time in history.

Well, you'd be wrong. You're wrong if for no other reason than there are many more people on Earth now. More people, more conflict.

That doesn't really follow, because large groups of people may not be involved in conflict at any given time.

By "conflict" I was thinking "war", by the way, in case there's some confusion. Perhaps you're thinking more of interpersonal conflict, in which case I agree with you.

 

[Baron Max]

In extreme circumstances, sometimes even war is morally justifiable.

Sure. But see, James, when you allow YOURSELF the leeway in determinng ethics and morality, then you've also opened the door for others to do the same thing. So, ...if nation X decides that it's "morally justified" to go to war with nation Y, then you shouldn't complain about it.

They've taken your ideals (that it's okay to modify ethics and morals) and made a determination ....you might not agree with, but if you can modify YOUR ideals to suit YOUR needs, how can you hold them to a different standard than your own?

So, James, it seems that you're saying something like: "I can modify morals and ethics, but you can't!" or "If you don't agree with my morals and ethics, then you're wrong!" That's not a very tolerant attitude, is it, James?

By "conflict" I was thinking "war", by the way, in case there's some confusion. Perhaps you're thinking more of interpersonal conflict, in which case I agree with you.

Small conflicts lead to large conflict which lead to war. Any conflict, however small, can and often does lead to war.

Baron Max

 

[James R]

But see, James, when you allow YOURSELF the leeway in determinng ethics and morality, then you've also opened the door for others to do the same thing.

Sure, provided they can give valid and supportable moral arguments for doing that.

 

[Baron Max]

Sure, provided they can give valid and supportable moral arguments for doing that.

Arguments that YOU deem "valid and supportable", or that THEY deem "valid and supportable"? There is a difference, ya' know!

And, see, that's the problem with having convertible ethics and morals ...basically anyone can deem anything ethical and moral for themselves --- just as you and others seem to want to do.

YOU use the "gray area" for YOUR ethics, why can't others do the same? And you should be as tolerant of the ethics of others as you've been so tolerant of your own.

"I want to go kill Joe because he pissed me off. I think it's the ethical thing to do. Therefore, it IS the ethical thing to do." See? I'm using similar "gray areas" to define my ethics as you do your own ethics.

Baron Max

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Wait-Whatever happened to "Might makes right"? Other countries should conform to US standards because, quite simply, we can make them cease to exist. I know, it's Ethics and Morality based on what the biggest Dog says it is, but it's functional, at least.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Wait-Whatever happened to "Might makes right"? Other countries should conform to US standards because, quite simply, we can make them cease to exist. I know, it's Ethics and Morality based on what the biggest Dog says it is, but it's functional, at least.

Exactly, might does make right.

 

[Baron Max]

I know, it's Ethics and Morality based on what the biggest Dog says it is, but it's functional, at least.

Well, in one sense, that's exactly the way James and some others are viewing ethics and morals ....except they seem to see not as physical power, but as a consensus of mamby-pamby liberals. They figure that if they get enough liberal-thinking doo-gooders behind them, they can change the concepts of ethics and morals all over the world.

What they don't seem to realize is that they, too, are using power in an attempt to force their own opinions onto others.

Baron Max

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Ah, perhaps they aren't familiar with the proper application of explosives to a group of liberals, causing the liberals to become a fine mist. I'm in favor of such things, completely.

 

[James R]

Arguments that YOU deem "valid and supportable", or that THEY deem "valid and supportable"? There is a difference, ya' know!

No. There isn't. Logically supportable and consistent with general ethical principles agreed to by all. I'm not an ethical relativist. I do not believe that ethics are arbitrary.

YOU use the "gray area" for YOUR ethics, why can't others do the same?

Not sure what particular example you're thinking of here.

"I want to go kill Joe because he pissed me off. I think it's the ethical thing to do. Therefore, it IS the ethical thing to do." See?

Thinking something is ethical is not good enough. You need to be able to support your stance with reference to generally accepted ethical principles. The view of one person does not make an ethical theory.

 

[TW Scott]

Ah, the lovely false dilemma.

I happen to be very like the A group, peaceful, educated, liberal. But there is an exception. Part of my education is in military and martial matters. I'm not defenseless and I'm happy to help my other A's in this sort of thing when there is need.

It this liberal value called being well rounded.

You missed the point Group A had COMPLETELY given up violence in all it's forms. There would be no military at all. the thought would be anathema t them. Picture the society in Demolition Man they were so non violent that the this quote actually fit "We the Police, we're not equipped to deal with this kind of violence." when ONE man was ripping through them like a scythe through wheat.

 

[TW Scott]

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.

Germans and Japanese really had no convcept of the American mindset. Actuallonly thye british, Canadians and Australlians have any understanding of how Americans think. They knew eventually we would step into WWII, we were already dipping our toes in by sending pilots to RAF, weapons to Russia (for free), and helping China as much as we could. However Hitler and theJapanese gerneals thoughts we would just sit back and grow fat from war proftis. The Japanese saw the light and launched what they thought was a crippling blow, one that would take us decades to recover from. The problem is that American's have a universal reaction to being bushwacked. We open a keg of whoop-ass.

Hell it was best said by Churchill when he was drinking champagne after he heard of Pearl Harbor. "Gentleman, we have just won the war."


but this is becuase America has a rather interesting set of ethics, ones that has evolved a little, but basically translates to "Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, cross me and I'll erase your entire family."

 

[swarm]

No. There isn't. Logically supportable and consistent with general ethical principles agreed to by all. I'm not an ethical relativist. I do not believe that ethics are arbitrary.

Nobody agrees about what is "logically supportable and consistent with general ethical principles."

You need to be able to support your stance with reference to generally accepted ethical principles.

Nice theory, but it doesn't seem to be the case. You being a perfect case in point.

 

[James R]

Nobody agrees about what is "logically supportable and consistent with general ethical principles."

That's just wrong.

Millions of people in fact agree on many ethical principles.