Ethics is a Science (domain of knowledge)

[coberst]

Ethics is a Science (domain of knowledge)

 

When we think of ethics as a science (domain of knowledge) we can concentrate on learning the principles of ethics just as we would any other science. To be skilled in any science we must comprehend the fundamental principles of that science and we must learn how to utilize those principles in an objective manner.

 

Although ethics can be studied as a science it must also be studied as a matter of judgments made by humans under great sociocentric forces. Ethical principles must be applied in very complex situations in which we have only partial comprehension and are forced to make quick judgments.

 

What strategic elements can we rely on to help us in our effort to become sophisticated ethical agents? I think there are three such elements necessary for consideration when difficult ethical questions must be considered.

• Mastering ethical concepts and principles

• Distinguishing the science of ethics from other sciences or thinking

• Mastering the self when great ego, economic, and socio centric forces are in play

 

I think that at least some ethical principles are universal and to look for those principles I turn for guidance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

 

Here are a few principles laid out in the 30 articles of the declaration:

 

* All humans are equal in dignity and rights.

* All humans have the rights of life, liberty, and security.

* No human shall be enslaved.

* No human shall be tortured.

* All humans have a right to an adequate standard of living.

* All humans have a right to education.

* All humans have a right to peacefully assemble.

* All humans are equal under the law.

 

Many of these ideas come from “Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life” by Paul and Elder.

 

I think that we should study ethics both as a science and as a judgment made by humans under very difficult situations. What do you think about this matter?

[Phileas Fogg]

Ethics is a Science (domain of knowledge)

---

I think that we should study ethics both as a science and as a judgment made by humans under very difficult situations. What do you think about this matter?

Yes, I agree on this. And I think many scientists have written about this subject. Personally, I think it's the most interesting point of view.

 

I got interested in ethics few years ago... I was often in old books shops in center of Helsinki, and got a habit of collecting "christian classics". There were some Finnish theologians who had been writing nice books about ethics, back in 1930´s and so. I tried to collect them all...

 

In the evenings I read this strange area... and learned that here, before ethics was called something like - a doctrine about chastity. I thought this was funny. Well, it's a large area to study....

 

Russian physicist Vitaly L. Ginzburg writes nicely:

 

"It seems to me that working in science, in physics - at any rate, in a position of at least some authority - is absolutely impossible without having a stand on important issues of our existence and thinking about philosophical questions. Unfortunately, I have not had the chance to really acquaint myself with the philosophy and methodology of science. To a certain extent it can be explained by the fact that I have always worked at concrete tasks and not at, for instance, problems of interpretation of quantum mechanics and so on."

 

- Nobelprize.org, Vitaly L. Ginzburg – Autobiography:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2003/ginzburg-autobio.html

[Turtle]

I think that we should study ethics both as a science and as a judgment made by humans under very difficult situations. What do you think about this matter?

Stanley Milgram did such a study & wrote the results in the book Obedience to Authority.

The short & the long of it is that even the most "ethical" people will do the most horrendous things to other people in response to nothing more than a perceived authority.

While Milgram does not expand on all the various elements perceived as authority, it is this perception that I think requires development. The perceived authority of a book, a link, economic status, degrees received in college, etc., carry far more influence than they may in fact deserve. Anyway, teach ethics all you want, but when push comes to shove it is by and large going down the crapper.:lol:

[coberst]

We all have strong irrational forces pulling us in all directions. These ego and socio centric forces need to be comprehended so that we can learn how to defeat them when they pull us in irrational directions.

[Kriminal99]

I think ethics can be generalized in the following manner.

 

Foundation

 

People can recognize something (call it a source of power) that is capable of stopping them from reaching their goals and cannot (as far as they can tell) be overcome.

 

When people accept such sources of power they look for ways to work around it, and defend such sources of power from other people trying to overcome it (since they do not want other people to defeat what they could not)

 

Ideas not entities hold the power

 

When dealing with intelligent beings especially, these sources of power can be seen to be ideas and not physical entities. Even among animals where one might refer to something such as an "alpha male" the source of power could really be said to be "might makes right" as is shown when an aging alpha male is replaced by a younger one.

 

The golden rule is the big bad wolf

 

The major source of power related to ethics is the golden rule. If you do something to benefit yourself at the expense of someone else, then they will try to stop you. And unlike animals intelligent beings all potentially have the same ability to do so due to ingenuity.

 

Sympathy

 

One way people who accept the golden rule work around it to accomplish their goals is to sympathize with others. A witness of a selfish act also recognizes that when a selfish person randomly chooses a victim to benefit at the expense of, the victim could have just as easily been anyone including the person witnessing. Both of these will cause a potentially infinite number of people to side with the victim. On the other hand selfish acts do not invoke sympathy and therefore assistance from anyone. Therefore people who commit selfish acts will always eventually succumb to the greater power from greater numbers from those who they victimize and those who sympathize with their victims.

 

By this model, an unethical act is anything which benefits one's self at the expense of others to the extent that those others will stop you. A moral person is someone that believes that any time you act at the expense of others those others will stop you even if not right away.

 

Of course figuring out when an act hurts others more than it hurts you not to do it can sometimes be difficult.

 

Interpersonal relation / Law

 

Your dog pooped on my yard

 

Any influence exerted by a person on the world around them affects the world in which everyone else lives. Sometimes when one exerts influence to benefit one's self they negatively effect someone else. Sometimes this is "obvious" and sometimes it is not.

 

The above section deals with situations when it is "obvious" to involved parties that an action a person takes negatively affects others more than it would negatively effect the person taking the action were he to refrain.

 

Sorry officer I didn't know

 

This section will deal with the more frequent complex situation where it is not "obvious" that a person's action is not the source of a negative effect on others, or where it is not "obvious" that not taking the action would harm more people than taking it. And the first step is to determine the nature of "obviousness".

 

What makes something obviously unethical is not the simplicity of the model which determines that it is, but rather the consistency and speed with which it produces people unhappy with you who attempt to stop you. This follows from the assertion that our morality is derived from the knowledge that selfish acts will cause people to stop you. And the production of unhappy people is determined by the consistency with which an act detrimentally effects others and how quickly and recognizably it does so.

 

All models which determine how quickly and how consistently people will become unhappy with you for taking an action are in fact very complicated. You can say stealing is obviously wrong, but what if the object you steal is still where you took it from and usable by previous owners in addition to being in your possesion? (pirated intellectual property) You can say that it is obviously selfish to want all members of the opposite sex to give you affection, but what if you were capable of returning affection to all members of the opposite sex simultaneously? (rock stars) These results all depend on the physical nature of the world we live in which is in fact very complicated.

 

Now hold on a minute, lets talk about this

 

Any debate regarding a disagreement should be considered to be taking place in lieu of attempts to force each other to respect their viewpoint. Since morality is determined by which behavior gives people more power in the form of people sympathizing with that viewpoint, ending a debate and trying to force acceptance of your viewpoint is like trying to determine who is actually right by letting the situation play out. (even though it could take forever and many people could be harmed or die) To participate in debate is to recognize that you do not actually have to do this to determine which side would win because more people would sympathize with that viewpoint. (which in turn means more people would benefit from that viewpoint)

 

Anyone who ends such a debate and continues to act in a manner which affects people according to a belief they do not agree with is opening themselves up to any retaliation which might be succesful in preventing themselves from having to live according to your beliefs. Therefore all parties should honestly work towards coming to an agreement.

 

Thus the true source of conflict is revealed. It is not selfishness, but rather CONFUSION. For anyone who realizes that an act will create a more powerful force which will stop them will refrain from that act. It is instead the lack of ability to determine when that is or is not the case that is the source of conflict. And therefore in order to combat conflict and bring peace to the world, we must learn to combat confusion.

 

We may not be able to easily determine when acts are ethical or not, but for this very reason we can define all acts which cause confusion to be unethical. And this gives us a great place to start to adjust our behavior.

 

Straw man epidemic

 

All people have similar faculties of reason. If you have a disagreement with someone, it is most likely because at least one of you has a model of the other person's argument that is different from the one that person has of their own argument. That person is the most authoritative source on their own model, therefore disagreements should be dealt with by exchanging information with that person.

 

Trying to get other people to take your side or respect you and not respect your opponent by telling them your understanding of your opponent's argument (which obviously is flawed since you disagree with that person) is an attempt to force acceptance of your viewpoint. It is also an attempt to decieve others into believing that your model of your opponent's viewpoint is actually your opponent's viewpoint. This increases confusion.

 

Debate fouls

 

Many tactics used in debate are also designed to force people to accept your arguments for reasons other than how correct it is. For example, rasing your voice in an attempt to appear authoritative. Using unconnected metaphors (which can be used to support an argument as well as another mutually exclusive to it simultaneously) is another example. (Da glove don't fit, so you must aquit) These types of tactics can be considered "debate fouls" which lower the integrity of the debate and increase the likelihood that the debate is replaced with a struggle of force.

 

But your honour, he ruined my life

 

Legal systems should also make an honest effort to recognize uses of force that are not physical in nature. For example, a person could spread nasty rumours about you and greatly reduce your ability to accomplish your goals. But if you were then to act physically against that person, the law would punish you. But using our model, the person who is truly responsible is the other person.

 

Who really causes terrorism?

 

If you cause someone to starve to death, or taken away everything they ever knew or loved, you have killed them just the same as if you shot them or blew them up. Often times people use a type of force to overcome reason and get what they want, but expect their victim to restrain any attempts to fight back to the same type of force. Usually the agressor in this case knows he is more likely to win if the power struggle is limited to the type of force the aggressor used to begin with.

 

For example a self styled intellectual might yell over someone and use sarcastic language and unconnected metaphors to make someone look stupid and appear authoritative. If you were to then hit this person, he might then be surprised at your use of physical force. But in truth he is the one that initiated the use of force. Similarly a country that enforces stifling policies on foriegn people's might expect those peoples to fight back using whatever means they can. If they do not have the resources to participate in a war, then terrorism might be the only way they can fight back against their aggressors.

 

Government

 

The problem with Utilitarianism is that people are often not competent judges of what makes themselves happy, but they are certainly better judges than anyone else. The most efficient allocation of limited resources towards the goal of making the most people the most happy in the world is to divide resources as equally as possible, and then let the most competent judge (each person for themself) make decisions about how to use those resources to make themselves happy.

 

The most effective way to do this is through a democratic government with a free market economy. This way both the power to govern and physical resources are divided as equally as possible among the people who can use these to make themselves happy. If a person believes that they know better than others what is best, let them use their knowledge to convince others rather than using force to subjugate.

 

Communism does not work because such a government can not sustain itself. If everyone is given the same amount of physical resources regardless of what they do, noone will do necessary but difficult tasks.

 

Socialism is the (perhaps unattainable) goal of any free market economy. To work towards this goal a government would facilitate the reduction of difficulty of any task such that any person would just as soon do that task as any other. This way supply and demand in the labor market would make sure that every task had as many people doing it as necessary, and physical resources would be divided more evenly among people who performed different tasks.

 

A related argument:

 

History has shown that jobs which involve threat of personal injury or death, difficult physical labor, demeaning or unpleasant working conditions etc are all quickly filled when money is to be made from them. To all of these, those jobs which pay the most and involve nothing more than intellectual development pale in comparison in terms of quality of life.

 

Meaning if people believed they had a choice between studying alot and facing death, wallowing in garbage and filth, or perhaps even just extreme physical labour, it seems they would choose to study. The obvious explanation is that these people believe they do not have a choice.

 

By this reasoning, development of the learning/teaching process is something that is highly desirable. Public administration of education is therefore something that can be considered to be GROSSLY UNETHICAL because it removes any economic incentives (competition) to advance our ability to teach and learn.

[Tarantism]

is it fair to call ethics a science when it is difficult to generalize some moral and ethical code? i suppose that a religious sociopath biblethumper would say that it is ETHICAL to force ones opinions on another, actually so would the bulk of society......thats kinda scary.......besides, ethics doesnt deal with fact but rather opinion...i suppose it could be considered a social science...anthropology?

 

rationality is relative.

[ughaibu]

What do you mean by "rationality is relative"?

[Tarantism]

What do you mean by "rationality is relative"?

rationality is determined by the disposition and perception of said human. you cannot assume that what you percieve as rational will be seen as rational by another person.

[ughaibu]

Your definition strikes me as odd, as far as I'm aware rationality is distinguished by consistent, connected, non-contradictory thought, as such it transcends opinion and can persuade.