The Purpose of Ethics

[Prince_James]

Three questions:

1. Ought a system of ethic's primary objective be the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of displeasure, or ought other ends be admitted and allowed to perhaps even supercede pleasure/pain?

2. If both is impossible, ought one be considered superior to the other, that is, ought we maximize pleasure or minimize pain first, or can reduction or increasing both simulteneously to maximize or minimize one be construed as proper?

3. Are all instances of increasing pleasure moral? All instances of decreasing suffering good? Or are their times when decreasing pleasure is moral and increasing suffering is good?

Discuss.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Three questions:

1. Ought a system of ethic's primary objective be the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of displeasure, or ought other ends be admitted and allowed to perhaps even supercede pleasure/pain?

2. If both is impossible, ought one be considered superior to the other, that is, ought we maximize pleasure or minimize pain first, or can reduction or increasing both simulteneously to maximize or minimize one be construed as proper?

3. Are all instances of increasing pleasure moral? All instances of decreasing suffering good? Or are their times when decreasing pleasure is moral and increasing suffering is good?

Discuss.

I wouldn't think ethics or morals had much to do with pleasure increase at all? Rather it removes it, ie it is more moral to be monogamous but maybe more pleasureable to sleep around. It may be ethical to not kill your neighbour for being noisy, but certainly more satisfying to do so.

I think morals and ethics stop our pleasure seeking ways getting out of control and being harmful to others and society rather than supporting them.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0401.htm

meanwhile an interesting link

 

[S.A.M.]

Why would one use pleasure as a yardstick for ethical decisions?

 

[Prince_James]

TheoryOfRelativity and samcdkey:

I actually posed this owing to the demi-hedonism/egoism which seems to be the foundation for many of the moral theories postulated by the non-religious here on Sciforums. Few speak about duty, honour, categorical imperatives, natural law, et cetera, et cetera, and thus my questioning was to spark debate on the feasibility of pleasure/pain as a foundation for a moral system. I myself am skeptical of whether pleasure/pain ought to be the basis for any such things.

 

[Oniw17]

Three questions:

1. Ought a system of ethic's primary objective be the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of displeasure, or ought other ends be admitted and allowed to perhaps even supercede pleasure/pain?

The only basis that I can think of for morality would be nature.

2. If both is impossible, ought one be considered superior to the other, that is, ought we maximize pleasure or minimize pain first, or can reduction or increasing both simulteneously to maximize or minimize one be construed as proper?

We should base ethics on what's best for the survival and evolution of the species.

3. Are all instances of increasing pleasure moral? All instances of decreasing suffering good? Or are their times when decreasing pleasure is moral and increasing suffering is good?

It depends, if pain and suffering are better for the survivalof the species, then yes. There are many instances when increasing pleasure is not moral. When it becomes selfish or materialistic, in my opinion, it is not moral. Unless of course it has to do with food.

 

[Pete]

Why would one use pleasure as a yardstick for ethical decisions?

Not personal pleasure... but it seems reasonable to base moral decisions on maximising all future pleasure and minimising all future displeasure.

1. Ought a system of ethic's primary objective be the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of displeasure, or ought other ends be admitted and allowed to perhaps even supercede pleasure/pain?

I don't know that it ought to be that way or not. I'm not sure how one goes about comparing the desirability of different ethical codes... surely the standards that you use to evaulate them must themselves be part of some ethical code?

2. If both is impossible, ought one be considered superior to the other, that is, ought we maximize pleasure or minimize pain first, or can reduction or increasing both simulteneously to maximize or minimize one be construed as proper?

Again with the ought , but I'll give my own opinion.
It's not simple. Even if we could reliably quantify the pleasure and displeasure that individual people will experience as the result of our decisions, the rules aren't straightforward.

Some decisions are simple.
For example, I think that most would expect a moral person to accept a small displeasure in order for another person to gain large pleasure.
Likewise, most would expect a moral person to forego a small pleasure in order for another person to avoid a large displeasure.

But as the amount of pleasure and displeasure increases, things become trickier.
It also becomes trickier when adding up the individual pleasures or displeasure of groups of people.

For example, is it reasonable to expect one person to accept extreme displeasure (say prolonged torture and death) in order for an extremely large number of people to each gain a small pleasure, or avoid a small displeasure?

3. Are all instances of increasing pleasure moral? All instances of decreasing suffering good? Or are their times when decreasing pleasure is moral and increasing suffering is good?

Things get murky in extreme cases.
If an individual has very high pleasure, I'd question the value of increasing their pleasure regardless of the state of their displeasure. However, it could be argued that pleasure has a maximum value that can't be reached or exceeded, and that further pleasure inducing stimuli don't increase real pleasure at all.

I see I've used the term "real pleasure"... that opens another can of worms. What is "pleasure", anyway?

Few speak about duty, honour, categorical imperatives, natural law, et cetera, et cetera

What's a categorical imperative?
For the others, I'm not sure that they have intrinsic value, or if they're a means to an end?
For example, what is the purpose of duty, if not to increase the wellbeing (pleasure) of those who are affected by your actions?

 

[Prince_James]

Oniw17:

Why ought the "survival and evolution of the species" be our primary ethical concern?

Pete:

"I don't know that it ought to be that way or not. I'm not sure how one goes about comparing the desirability of different ethical codes... surely the standards that you use to evaulate them must themselves be part of some ethical code?"

You raise a good point to be discussed:

When evaluating moral theories, what principle ought to hold sway and is most philosophic to use?

At the very least, the theory must be reasonable, that is, coherent and well thought out, barring glaring contradictions, and at least being capable of being followed.

"Again with the ought , but I'll give my own opinion.
It's not simple. Even if we could reliably quantify the pleasure and displeasure that individual people will experience as the result of our decisions, the rules aren't straightforward."

Is it not reasonable to expect certain conclusions based on insight into the situation? Even if flawed?

"Some decisions are simple.
For example, I think that most would expect a moral person to accept a small displeasure in order for another person to gain large pleasure.
Likewise, most would expect a moral person to forego a small pleasure in order for another person to avoid a large displeasure.

But as the amount of pleasure and displeasure increases, things become trickier.
It also becomes trickier when adding up the individual pleasures or displeasure of groups of people.

For example, is it reasonable to expect one person to accept extreme displeasure (say prolonged torture and death) in order for an extremely large number of people to each gain a small pleasure, or avoid a small displeasure? "

Precisely the type of problems I wish to discuss. I'll let a few other people field this question as part of the discussion before offering my points.

"Things get murky in extreme cases.
If an individual has very high pleasure, I'd question the value of increasing their pleasure regardless of the state of their displeasure. However, it could be argued that pleasure has a maximum value that can't be reached or exceeded, and that further pleasure inducing stimuli don't increase real pleasure at all.

I see I've used the term "real pleasure"... that opens another can of worms. What is "pleasure", anyway?"

All great quesitons.

"What's a categorical imperative?
For the others, I'm not sure that they have intrinsic value, or if they're a means to an end?
For example, what is the purpose of duty, if not to increase the wellbeing (pleasure) of those who are affected by your actions? "

The categorical imperative is a trinity of moral mandates proposed by Kant for a foundation of morality. The demands of the categorical imperative is as followed:

1. Never act in a way other than which could be willed to be a universal law.

2. Never treat another person as a means, but only as an end.

3. Always act as a legislating member of a kingdom of ends (that is, a universal law must be applicable to everyone in theory).

But yes, a good question in regards to other foundations of morality. Do they all not have a purpose in seeking a better end for oneself and/or others?

 

[Oniw17]

Oniw17:

Why ought the "survival and evolution of the species" be our primary ethical concern?

What other logical method is there to evaluate ethics. Since survival and reproduction are already imprinted in our brains, it wouldn't be hard for us to follow a system based on these things.

 

[Prince_James]

Oniw17:

"What other logical method is there to evaluate ethics. Since survival and reproduction are already imprinted in our brains, it wouldn't be hard for us to follow a system based on these things."

Survival and reproduction do not extend to some biological imperative for us to support the abstract notion of "survival of the species", only a personal desire for extended life (which can be overcome and is often overcome) and a lust for sex. Neither seem to be able to make a good system of ethics that handles practically any matter of worth.

 

[Oniw17]

Survival and reproduction do not extend to some biological imperative for us to support the abstract notion of "survival of the species", only a personal desire for extended life (which can be overcome and is often overcome) and a lust for sex. Neither seem to be able to make a good system of ethics that handles practically any matter of worth.

...

 

[Oniw17]

What I mean is...it's like I'm discovering that God doesn't exist all over again.

 

[Prince_James]

I don't grasp why?

 

[Tiassa]

Ethics are relative, and owe their allegiance to the system that contains them. For instance, human ethics tend in some form toward the perpetuation of the species, while business ethics are designed to protect and preserve business entities. The minimization of displeasure is important inasmuch as it deals with reality in some rational sense. True, very few people actually like their jobs, and even fewer are paid what they're truly worth, but I wholly admit that if everybody was as reactionarily averse to the labor-market environment as I am, the species would still be exerting itself running away from hungry animals.

To the other, with prostitution itself illegal in the most part of our culture, I fail to see why telemarketing is legal. Strange ethical priorities as I see them. Then again, with prostitution illegal, I also wonder why marriage is such a big deal. It's only in the last fifteen or so years, as women's libbers have "wrecked society" and homosexuals become "threats to national security" that marriage has seen its purpose more refined. Nonetheless, it's still undignified, belittling to both parties, and yet somehow ethically and morally an aspiration of so many people.

So it would seem right now that there is no proper purpose of ethics as defined by "the people". The abstract, of course, is a much longer, more complex, and exceedingly boring exploration. Maybe I'll give it a whirl when I have the time.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Three questions:

1. Ought a system of ethic's primary objective be the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of displeasure, or ought other ends be admitted and allowed to perhaps even supercede pleasure/pain?

2. If both is impossible, ought one be considered superior to the other, that is, ought we maximize pleasure or minimize pain first, or can reduction or increasing both simulteneously to maximize or minimize one be construed as proper?

3. Are all instances of increasing pleasure moral? All instances of decreasing suffering good? Or are their times when decreasing pleasure is moral and increasing suffering is good?

Discuss.

Two words that will aid this debate:

utilitarianism and censequentialism

meanwhile do we not favour virtue ethics over these two as a whole?

"In philosophy, the phrase virtue ethics refers to ethical systems that focus primarily on proper social institutions and the development of individual character. The origins of this theory date at least back to Plato and especially to Aristotle in his landmark work "Nicomachean Ethics". The key component of this ethical theory is the development of moral character over time through right habits, and the term originates from the Greek word arete meaning 'excellence' or 'virtue'. Thus, one of the aims of virtue ethics is to offer an account of the sort of characteristics a virtuous person has. The ultimate aim of virtue ethics is eudaimonia, roughly meaning 'flourishing' or 'success'. According to virtue ethicists this is the end to which all humans ought to aspire - to lead a good, happy and fulfilling life. In contrast to deontological or teleological theories which focus respectively on duties or actions, the crux of virtue ethics is in the heart or character of the person."


As a society dependant upon each other for survival we have always (regardless of time frame) had to consider the greater population before selfish interests which may mean allowing yourself to suffer in order that more people can prosper and flourish and enjoy good health. An adult may deprive themselves of food so that the children can eat what remains of the food supply. Woman may have cooked their men a hearty meal before they went on a hunt and deprive themselves if food scarce, as the man needs it more. And the ultimate result of a successful hunt will benefit all.

However as individuals, we tend to be pleasure seeking and thus we satisfy the above society needs and our selfish need for pleasure by deriving pleasure from acts of selflessness. We enjoy being good and the reward that 'thanks' provides. 'Satisfaction'.

will elaborate later.

 

[Propinquity]

ToR, do you always simply site other sources, and the Wikipedia as your own thoughts? (And giving credit to the contributor is also important, and you may want to edit in some credits to your blatant plagiarism)

I notice a pattern of just looking stuff up and posting it instead of actually thinking about the issue in depth.

It would help people respect you if you began to think for yourself instead of just quoting others. Part of getting involved in discussions about Philosophy actually call for using some philosophical and logic thought processes.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

ToR, do you always simply site other sources, and the Wikipedia as your own thoughts? (And giving credit to the contributor is also important, and you may want to edit in some credits to your blatant plagiarism)

I notice a pattern of just looking stuff up and posting it instead of actually thinking about the issue in depth.

It would help people respect you if you began to think for yourself instead of just quoting others. Part of getting involved in discussions about Philosophy actually call for using some philosophical and logic thought processes.

Your entire post is full of shite.

I blatantly site my own thoughts (hence huge disagreement with much of what I say) and back them up where they exist with sources, I wish others would do the same.

I provide links where relevant and if not when using source material I ALWAYS use quotation marks (as the post above has, those here longer than you know this is how I quote) and generally state in words 'from web', thus indicating a quote, so NO, there is not a single example of plagiarism.

This has no quotation marks as it is entirely my own

As a society dependant upon each other for survival we have always (regardless of time frame) had to consider the greater population before selfish interests which may mean allowing yourself to suffer in order that more people can prosper and flourish and enjoy good health. An adult may deprive themselves of food so that the children can eat what remains of the food supply. Woman may have cooked their men a hearty meal before they went on a hunt and deprive themselves if food scarce, as the man needs it more. And the ultimate result of a successful hunt will benefit all.

However as individuals, we tend to be pleasure seeking and thus we satisfy the above society needs and our selfish need for pleasure by deriving pleasure from acts of selflessness. We enjoy being good and the reward that 'thanks' provides. 'Satisfaction'.

people will respect you more, if you examine the text more closely before leaping in and accusing soemone of plagiarism, not an insult to be taken lightly.

 

[Prince_James]

Theoryofrelativity:

I eagerly await the continuation of your vein of thought in regards to virtue ethics and its link to existence and development within a society.

perplexity:

"What other ends?

If you know of a better end, why be a so much of a mean bitch about it?

Propose."

I was merely asking a question, that is all.

"For the sake of clarity I am rather inclined for instance to think in terms of problems and solutions, the tendency to increase or to decrease the problematic stress being somewhat easier to assess than ordinary pleasure or pain."

So then a decrease of stress is considered ideal? There is no positive benefit in the system, only a lack of negative affects?

"The subsidiary consideration would then be whether or not the problem has an immediate practical purpose. "

So you base moral decisions on practicality?

"In most ordinary circumstances pleasure is very much a matter of taste and not therefore to be accounted for anyway. On occassion it is a horribly thankless but tedious task to try to work out what would or would not please. "

What about if one generalizes? Instead of saying "going to the opera" or "seeing the boxing match", one simply says "engage in a pleasant spectating experience" to account for the varieties of taste?

Tiassa:

"So it would seem right now that there is no proper purpose of ethics as defined by "the people". The abstract, of course, is a much longer, more complex, and exceedingly boring exploration. Maybe I'll give it a whirl when I have the time. "

So owing to the fact that there is a controversy, you are not willing to present a viewpoint on what the purpose of ethics might be?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Hi James, a slight bit more to add

When you first spoke of ethics and morals in this thread, as you know I missed the point and responded that they are rather set up to deny pleasure.

However my thoughts have evolved into this:

Ethics are indeed concerned with pleasure but not with regards to ensuring pleasure for 'self' but rather in 'protecting the pleasure ' of others.

So in the example of adultery, it being morally unacceptable, is thus denying pleasure to the one considering the adultery in order to protect the pleasure of the one who would be adversely affected or 'ones' taking children into account.

I further considered this:

If we all stopped considering our own pleasure and protection of, and concerned ourselves instead solely with the protection of the pleasure of others, we would ALL benefit and feel this pleasure.

IF we all ascribed to the principle that is:

Imagine, I consider your pleasure above mine; you consider my pleasure above yours. We not only reap the rewards of the pleasure as 'given' and 'protected' but also the innate pleasure derived from bringing others pleasure.

As a species we do feel pleasure when we are responsible (for the ones we care about) happiness. There must be a survival reason for this trait being part of our make up. The survival reason being as seen in my previous post, self sacrifice is sometimes essential to ensure in long term self-preservation and that of the tribe. Self-sacrifice is only possible because we feel compelled to be so and derive some pleasure and satisfaction from the act.

Thus protection of pleasure of others is innate and thus could be seen as an innate ‘ethic’. Now ethics are not generally regarded as innate. Perhaps this is an example of where they indeed could be.

We create ethics to protect those things, which we are compelled to protect

Ethics are thus mans created 'manifestation' of our already existing innate goals and intentions.

 

[Satyr]

The level of self-gratifying naiveté on this forum is astounding.

Imagine ethics being the pursuit of the “other's pleasure”.
Imagine that.
Imagine being blind to your own motives. Does not this characterize the majority of mankind?
It reminds me of this claim that a woman dressing provocatively “..isn’t asking for anything.”
Well then, why does she dress so? Is she not sending out signals about what she wants?
Is she innocent in relation to her own actions?
We can say that she is ignorant but innocent?
Imagine never seeing your own interests in your own actions and believing they are of a higher moral caliber.
Isn’t this called righteousness?
Isn’t this naiveté and ignorance the reason why those pretending the highest morality are always the ones perpetrating the greatest crimes against humanity?
Can one even fathom the amount of instances one acts selfishly under the pretension that he’s doing it for the “other’s good”?


It takes special kind of stupidity to fall into this, self-assuring, trap.

“I’m not beating you because I like it, I’m doing it for your own good.”
“I’m not taking away your rights and snooping on your personal lives because I gain from it but I’m doing it for your security.”
“I’m not threatening you with eternal damnation or making you suffer for my own gratification and empowerment, but for your salvation.”

It’s the usual call of the charlatan talking down to morons.


For me the error occurs when there is an absence of definitions and the mind uses terms it has no precise understanding of or definition for.

I’ve said this before so here I go again:

Life is a manifestation of a universal instability.
Things happen because there is a lack. Universal flux is this lack manifest.
We can refer to it using multiple human words such as: instability, imperfection, imbalance, evil, chaos, entropy, chance, change etc. etc.

As a product of universal flux (lack), life is also characterized by lack.
It needs constantly.
Life is a self-contained unity of animated matter in constant Need (active).
It comes to be as a more sophisticated and efficient method of seeking stability, rather than blind matter relying on chance.
Knowledge is such an attempt by the conscious mind to minimize chance and become more efficient in the expenditure of energies towards self-fulfillment.

This need is interpreted by the conscious mind, if and when it becomes present in a living organism, as suffering.
Suffering is consciousness interpreting, sensing, feeling, universal flux.
In a sense it is the sensation of an absence of self, as it mirrors the environment that produced it.

Suffering is constant and unceasing, as the flux is or change is or time is or space is.
An organism is never without need. It is Need manifest.
It breathes constantly, it absorbs nutrients stored in its digestive system constantly, it maintains and heals and defends itself constantly.
It is in perpetual action (need).

Pleasure, therefore, is a double negative concept.
It is the momentary distraction from need or the momentary alleviation of one need before a new one absorbs the mind’s attentions.
It is the negation of a negative. This is felt, by the mind, as pleasure or a release from Need (life) - ecstasy.

The need placated never goes away it simply diminishes in intensity and slips under consciousness’ awareness.
So, pleasure is the momentary distraction away from living (suffering), in essence or it is a temporary respite from one need before the mind become preoccupied with another.
No man is ever fulfilled completely.
He only momentarily fills himself partially or distracts himself, inebriates himself, away from his emptiness.

Ethics, therefore, are the set of rules which force a present suffering or effort so as to ensure a long-term or longer lasting return of respite from suffering.
It is an individual investment in the community, if you will.

Every human action is selfish.
Every one.
To be self is to seek self and therefore to be selfish.
To be self-less is to lack self to lose self to seek an escape from self.
The closest thing to a selfless act is suicide, although even here some satisfaction and psychological reward is derived, beforehand, from the act and its imagined consequences.
For example, suicide could be an act of revenge against someone that has wronged you.

The misinterpretation and error occurs between the notions of direct selfish acts and indirect selfish acts, which the naïve and helplessly romantic or female, like to refer to as selfless because it SATISFIES some psychological NEED they have for the selflessness of the other in relation to them.

One always gains or attempts to gain from his/her every action.
When I give, for instance, I receive an immediate emotional return or I try to ensure a future taking.

When a person is moral or is said to have done the “right” thing it means that he adhered to some communal rule which is meant to ensure the interests of all as dependant on the whole.
It is, in fact, a kind of unwritten contract, although it can be written on tablets as 10 commandments, between all the members of a group.
The cost of admission within any club is self or individuality.
The individual gives up a piece of his immediate self-interests or identity sp as to be accepted within the group which will provide future gratification for his self-interests and an identity.
The communal creature is characterized by his dependence on the others for his self-worth and sense of self. Without them he is nothing.

The individual disciplines himself to the group rules because he feels vulnerable and isolated outside the group or he has grown dependant on them for his survival.
He does not do so for them he does it for himself.
He adheres to the rules so as to remain acceptable to them and to satisfy their demands on him.

When moral law is ingrained within the psyche the presence of the other is not even required to ensure discipline to ehtical systems - this is called domestication and is a result of training (education). The mind feels obligated to “do the right thing” even when it isn’t watched.
It feels guilty if it does not, as the silent, implied judgment of the whole if they ever found out.
In Christianity morality is never secret. God is everywhere present and He sees and hears and so nobody can fool Him.

In truth the mind feels that it might be found out or that its breech of contract will be discovered resulting in ostracizing and dire repercussions.
This fear is felt as shame, as one part of the conscious mind admonishes the other for taking the risk, in place of the external other which forces the shame and guilt upon the mind.

Feeling shame can be derived from then other chastising you for not living up to your obligations in relation to him or to the community or it can be derived from the self chastising it’s self for the same reasons.

Questions…children?