Please define "Ethical" 3

[GreenTeeth]

Not being funny or anything, just thought it might make an interresting thread.

And while yoou're at it, could you compare it to "Moral"

Regards

Rob

 

[CajunCenturion]

Ethics is derived from the Greek word "ethos" which means 'character'. Etymologically, it usually refers to an individual's characters.

Morals comes from Latin (moralis) which means 'custom', and again from an etymological perspective, usually refers to a social custom, thus it's determined by the society, or by the group.

In practice, it's a very fine line and for many, I wouldn't be surprised if they draw any distinction between the two, but I take the position that morals are the principles and standards of behavior as established by the society, and ethics are the rules by which we as individuals, but those principles and standards into practice.

So to judge a behavior as being ethical would mean that the individual behavior is consistent with the standards established by the society.

Now to define society in this context gets very interesting because societies exist on many levels. The society may be just the immediate family, or the neighborhood, or a religious community, a professional organization, a nationality and so forth. And although our own ethics may not change, the standards by which our behavior is judged is dependant on which society making the judgment. That means that the same act can be considered ethical on one level, and at the same time be unethical on another level.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[BakeMan]

I agree with CajunCenturion,

Morals and Ethics are based on those in the society that are judging those who are practicing their own morals and ethics. As an example, the ethics of slavery in the US. Not to open up a can of worms on this topic as to wether it was moral/ethical or not, just to use as an example. The majority of the souther society in the US found this practice to be both moral and ethical. They saw no reason to end the practice because there was (in their opinion) nothing wrong with what was happening. The majority of the norther society of the US however saw this from a different perspective, and found that the practice was most unethical and immoral. After long debates and even more deaths the issue was finally fought out and the US society as a whole now sees the matter the same. My point is to show by example how two societies, even within the same country can see an issue from two very different perspectives on morality. I think that the only way to properly define ethics and morals for the IT community (society) is to define a set of rules to "live" by (or maybe "code" by). I don't think I'm qualified to come up with these rules but I'd love to here some of your opinions.

BAKEMAN

 

[GreenTeeth]

nice answer both of you, I never knew that cajun, about one being greek and one stemming from latin, interesting.

bakemans point is exactly what I was after too, in that surely morals and ethics, are just a point of view. Having said that, someone once said to me that reality is a majority verdict, now although I do not agree with this as such, would you say that morals and ethics are a majority verdict?

 

[skiflyer]

Realize the point of view argument is only one argument. Agree with it or don't as you will, but realize others will use it differently.

The more intelligent arguments which don't follow the majority verdict don't go 100% the other way... rather they say something like...

there are certain universal ethical norms which are not relative, from there the complete set of ethics can be derived.

Then depending on who's talking, they'll either say the complete set is relative, or that with formal logical proofs, the complete set, if proven only with universal norms, is not relative. However, once the proof takes on any assumptions or any culturally biased information etc, it becomes relative.

-Rob

 

[CajunCenturion]

GreenTeeth --> would you say that morals and ethics are a majority verdict?

By definition, the answer to that question has to be NO because ethics is personal code, and therefore cannot be a majority verdict.

Are morals a majority verdict? Within one society, if certainly could be. If a society is based on pure democracy, or majority rule, then you'd expect any moral code at that societal level to be essentially a majority verdict.

skiflyer brings up, at least to me, a far more interesting question, with respect to the existance of absolute and relative morality, and whether any abosolute moral leads to an individual absolute ethic.

Although I'm afraid they would be off topic (at least with respect to IT), it would be interesting to discuss some ideas of what might be an absolute moral.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GreenTeeth]

Yes, Skiflyer does have a good arguement there.

Absolute morals - I think you just have to look to all the religions of the world most of them have it written down somewhere. As for how they are translated by the ministers of the religion is where it falls down.

Now if you look at the Taoists, they only really have one moral and everything follows from it:

"Not to interfere with anyone else's energy unless asked"

My own code of morals comes from my objective view of a situation. But sometimes it is hard to stand aside to get that. Wouldn't it be great if we were all perfect.

 

[sleipnir214]

I think that if there are any absolute morals out there, they are few and far between.

Take the killing of another human being. Some cultures hold that killing of another human being, even in defense of your own life, is immoral. Other cultures hold that killing another human being, if that other human being is actively threatening your own life, is a morally defensible act.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[skiflyer]

If absolute morals exist, a culture can violate them.

The idea which makes that valid would be one in which we are all part of humanity, which is the "top" culture.

To stick with your example, which is always a sticky one in these conversations... you have pulled out the one case where someone kills in self defense, and stated that two cultures can label it as moral or immoral. What about the other case? Where one kills without the ability to claim self-defense? Or perhaps to clarify, where one kills randomly, with no reason beyond "I wanted to"... is there a culture I'm unaware of which would call this morally acceptable? If this exists, aren't we as part of humanity allowed to say this is unacceptable?

I need to do alot more reading on the topic myself, but the term worth researching here is cosmopolitianism.

-Rob

 

[CajunCenturion]

The very fact that there can be discussion about the morality of killing another human being indicates to me that it is not an example of an Absolute Moral.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[skiflyer]

Sure if you simplify like that leaving all sorts of possible extenuating circumstances...

1) It is wrong to kill someone.

Is not an absolute moral.

2) It is wrong to kill someone for no reason other than personal desire.

May be a candidate for an absolute moral... I'm not formally trained, nor thinking clearly enough at this moment to say it is... just saying it may be a candidate.

-Rob

 

[sleipnir214]

skiflyer
An interesting thought...I hadn't been thinking that way.

If all the acts that are prohibited by a moral code are a set, I'm just not sure that the intersection of two such sets is itself a moral.

For example, a Mennonite (a group that I think believe that taking a life to save your own is immoral) might not agree with your thinking -- he might say, "Yes, that action is also prohibited by our moral code. But that is not the extent of our moral code."

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[skiflyer]

Certainlly you'd be defining a necessary set of morals, not a sufficient set. (at best!)

-Rob

 

[vaoldschl]

There is nothing either good or bad,
But thinking makes it so.
--Hamlet, II:2

 

[sleipnir214]

skiflyer:
I don't know that you'd be defining a moral code. You might be only delineating a set of universally-accepted moral acts.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[GreenTeeth]

skiflyer,

with no reason beyond "I wanted to"... is there a culture I'm unaware of which would call this morally acceptable?

I think you would be hard pushed to find more than a few individuals within any one group that would think this way. Saying that, i think a culture would be hard pressed to exist with that philosophy going on, they would wipe themselves out.

I don't beleive anyone would kill without reason albeit their own twisted reason. so in some respects i think that you could call that an absolute moral. Self defence is an extremely valid reason for killing. If it comes down to him or me, I would rather see the new day in.

Thankfully the human being has evolved other tools to avoid this i.e reason. Unfortunately not everyone uses it, and it tends to get clouded behing high moral standing, ego and frankly being to scared to admit you have made a mistake. That's a pop at the old politions there.

 

[CajunCenturion]

GreenTeeth - I couldn't help but chuckle at the phrase "so in some respects i think that you could call that an absolute moral". Perhaps we have a different understanding of absolute, but wouldn't an absolute have to be so in all respects all the time?

I too agree that self-defence is a valid reason for killing, but not everyone feels that way. True pacifists will not kill even under these circumstances. The morality of self-defence is then not absolute.

I think a very operative phrase from GreenTeeth is "albeit their own twisted reason". If we accept the notion that morality is defined by the customs of the society, then any society could over time, establish a custom to rationalize their own twisted reason. Which brings us back to the point that skiflyer made "If absolute morals exist, a culture can violate them." - Therefore, absolute morals cannot exist, because morality is not imposed on a society, but rather emminates from the society.

What I am thus positing, is that absolute morality can only be discussed within the environment of a specific society. That means that "absoluteness" is a relative property - relative to a given society.

Hence the chuckle, "so in some respects i think that you could call that an absolute moral".

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[vaoldschl]

An interesting thought to pull out of this thread is that the discussion of killing only revolves around human life. Plenty of people kill living things just because they want to. If that doesn't highlight the relativity of morality I don't know what does.

 

[KornGeek]

If you take the candidate absolute moral "It is wrong to kill another human being needlessly", it is easy to find a culture that doesn't hold this moral. Charles Manson and his followers have no moral issues with taking human life. They as a culture allow it, we as a society lock them up for it.

I don't think there is such a thing as absolute morality. There are just way too many different ways of thinking.

 

[greyted]

KornGeek,

I don't think there is such a thing as absolute morality. There are just way too many different ways of thinking.

Absolutely, I concur.

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.htm

http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-intro+toc.htm

Ted

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
(William James)