Why have ethics?

[Original Poster]

When I made my thread about exterminating jews, I wasn't meaning that in a serious way nor in a way that intended hate. My only question is what purpose do values serve? Why do you, personally, have morals or principles? What do you hope to get out of them? Do you believe that it's important to have actual principles to back up your actions, or that as long as you intend to do good, it doesn't matter what your means are? Do you think it's important to be a good person, and if so what is a good person? How do you achieve a state of "good?"

[Oneironaut Zero]

When I made my thread about exterminating jews, I wasn't meaning that in a serious way nor in a way that intended hate. The old adage "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" springs to mind. Your question is very loaded, though, and no one perspective can ultimately be accredited as "right." But, to me, values are important because I believe that they are, fundamentally, essential to our survival as a species (among other reasons). If we were truly a species of "me me me!" creatures, the human race would likely be 1000x worse off than it is at this moment. Imagine if the majority of human families didn't give a shit about one another? Imagine if doctors, nurses and teachers didn't take their jobs to heart? If none of them actually cared about the patients and students they are helping. What if all children were raised by hoodlums, neo-nazis, pedophiles, rapists, serial killers? If you have children, and you are a person that doesn't treat others with mutual respect, do you want your children growing up in a world where everyone treats them the way you treat others? Would you really want to live in a savage land where no one valued anything, and everyone did (and destroyed) whatever they pleased? There are few conceptual glues that work to counter-act that kind of self-destructive society. Empathy and respect for others are not the least of them. I believe that nothing is cut and dry, though. Your means are still to be taken into consideration, even if your intention is purely to do "good." Everything should be weighed and looked at in context. (Do you do [this], because your intention is to do good, or is [that] the most responsible option, and why?) Everyone has their own ideas about what separates good from evil, but I think a good person is a person that probably wouldn't let their own desires negatively impact the lives of those around them. Many people just don't care about others, but (ironically?) are usually the most agitated or furious if someone else imposes their own will against that person. But I still think it is right for someone to take their own interests into consideration, of course. It doesn't have to be a "give all unto another" philosophy, to the letter. People are still individuals, and it's only in our nature to progress ourselves (whatever it is we perceive "progression" to be). But there is an equilibrium between being selfish and being completely altruistic that works pretty well, I think. The whole thing really has to do with the old "golden rule:" Treating others the way you want to be treated. Some might try to find a loophole in the logic by saying "Well what about masochists? They like to be hurt. Aren't they excused to hurt other people??1?!" No. Because masochists want to be hurt. If they hurt someone else, that person never asked for it.

[Bonsay]

Values serve evolution, progression of the society and eventually our species. I believe in my principles and normals. There is no plan and I don't expect to gain anything but content from them. It's not like I choose my principles. I'm not some deluded sheep-person who jumps from one trend to another to be cool or a part of something bigger then me. I am who I am. I thought everybody had their principles and if you don't follow them, then that's your problem. Braking them is only hurting yourself. Good is obviously totally subjective. And doesn't really mean anything if it doesn't mean something to you. What would Hitler get from a state of "good". It wasn't something he believed in. I believe in good and It would be productive for the world if the majority believed in good as well. It's only natural... who wants to feel pain? I mean pain itself is basically an elemental feeling that helps define our existence (to ourselves) and it represents something bad, what we don't want. Good is what we want... I don't mean that good means car, if you want a car, but something that attracts us and gives us pleasure. I don't know, it doesn't seem like an overly complicated concept at this stage.

[Original Poster]

The old adage "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" springs to mind. Your question is very loaded, though, and no one perspective can ultimately be accredited as "right." But, to me, values are important because I believe that they are, fundamentally, essential to our survival as a species (among other reasons). Why is the survival of our species important? If we were truly a species of "me me me!" creatures, the human race would likely be 1000x worse off than it is at this moment. Imagine if the majority of human families didn't give a shit about one another? Imagine if doctors, nurses and teachers didn't take their jobs to heart? If none of them actually cared about the patients and students they are helping. What if all children were raised by hoodlums, neo-nazis, pedophiles, rapists, serial killers? If you have children, and you are a person that doesn't treat others with mutual respect, do you want your children growing up in a world where everyone treats them the way you treat others? Would you really want to live in a savage land where no one valued anything, and everyone did (and destroyed) whatever they pleased? There are few conceptual glues that work to counter-act that kind of self-destructive society. Empathy and respect for others are not the least of them. So do you relate morality on a scale of working toward health of the society and staying in line with it as opposed to working toward yourself and being disruptive to society? I believe that nothing is cut and dry, though. Your means are still to be taken into consideration, even if your intention is purely to do "good." Everything should be weighed and looked at in context. (Do you do [this], because your intention is to do good, or is [that] the most responsible option, and why?) Everyone has their own ideas about what separates good from evil, but I think a good person is a person that probably wouldn't let their own desires negatively impact the lives of those around them. Many people just don't care about others, but (ironically?) are usually the most agitated or furious if someone else imposes their own will against that person. You can choose to be responsible because it's beneficial to maintain your network, habitat and reputation in working order. Being a member of society has benefits that being ostracized does not. The layers go deep, it's not just about getting medicare, it's about how people receive you and the way they treat you. All in all, taking care of yourself and being polite and responsible goes a long way in finding success. So if you desire success, if you desire to be a well received member of society, then you can consider other people and receive their consideration in return. But is that good or ethical? Are ethics just a social establishment, or do they go further? But I still think it is right for someone to take their own interests into consideration, of course. It doesn't have to be a "give all unto another" philosophy, to the letter. People are still individuals, and it's only in our nature to progress ourselves (whatever it is we perceive "progression" to be). But there is an equilibrium between being selfish and being completely altruistic that works pretty well, I think. The whole thing really has to do with the old "golden rule:" Treating others the way you want to be treated. Some might try to find a loophole in the logic by saying "Well what about masochists? They like to be hurt. Aren't they excused to hurt other people??1?!" No. Because masochists want to be hurt. If they hurt someone else, that person never asked for it. But the masochism question can't be answered specifically because it's about how other people's needs are different from your own and the things that make you happy don't necessarily make them happy. Society is essentially a bunch of people forming an institution together, or inheriting one. It's done to make life easier, because there's strength in numbers. Everyone contributes to the security of everybody else in some way or another. They create principles based on maintaining it, so that everyone can make adjustments according these principles in order to live together. While they help, not all problems can be solved by principles alone. Not only that, but people use principles to justify brutal means to accomplish their goals. Is being a good person the same thing as staying in line with society? Most people seem to think it's enough that they're good a person, so it's not so important if they help an injured man on the street or not. Most people also seem to think that men in lab coats are good people, and we can just do whatever they say. When most people have to choose between being lying about something or being ostracized, they choose lying. When most people have to choose between torturing someone and saying no to an authority figure, they choose to torture someone. So if morality is just a social construct, then what is "bad" about exterminating jews? If morality transcends society, then where does it come from, and what is it about? What is the greater good? What constitutes 500 lives being more important than one person? ------------------------ Bonsay: What is painful about not believing in good? Do you define good as lack of pain?

[Bonsay]

I guess good is a fulfillment of desire rather than lack of pain. Or maybe I didn't think through what I typed. It's hard for me to form an opinion without clearing out what "believing in good" encompases and all that. As I said... Bad can be viewed as pain, something we don't want, good as something we want. It's all natural, we don't want to die or feel any kind of pain since we have these fundamental survival instincts. We are social beings, we have evolved (to a point) and it's obviously better for our race if we stick together (essentially). I guess we could talk about a global survival instinct, if this was a common occurence (I don't really know how many people around the world want peace for everyone else). With these come morals and with this come principles. I don't know, I'm just typing this as it goes. Any inaccuracies or comments and I'll try to answer the way I see it.

[Neruo]

Ethics and a natural tendency towards them are extremely useful for group survival. 'Ethics genes' fare well in human evolution. You probably aren't a sociopathic psychopath, so you can neither drop all your ethics or could be so un-conformist that you would anger all your friends by going against (their) ethics. Why have ethics? Because baby seals make me cry. Well, actually not, but the holocaust might.

[Original Poster]

Are you saying outside of survival, ethics serve no purpose? Even in martyrdom someone is just promoting the survival of the community. Even dissent is just a means to check those in power so they can't become vulnerable to corruption. Are all acts of "good" just done with the health of the community in mind? If one has no ethics, does that mean they have to be a sociopath? Is it "bad" to have no ethics?

[Neruo]

Are you saying outside of survival, ethics serve no purpose? I was mostly saying that we have ethics because of evolution. (surviving goes well with that.) Also, 'purpose' is most often a word as value-ridden as 'good', 'awesome' or 'superior' and words like that. Even in martyrdom someone is just promoting the survival of the community. Even dissent is just a means to check those in power so they can't become vulnerable to corruption. A lot of genes and thus behavior we have make a lot of sense in terms of group survival. Are all acts of "good" just done with the health of the community in mind? If one has no ethics, does that mean they have to be a sociopath? If we talk about ethics in the say we normally see it. Then yes, a person that doesn't subscribe to ethics like "don't shoot a man for no reason". Of course, the man may have as strong feelings about the 'goodness' of greeting lampposts as we have strong feelings about helping a friend that tripped. Would that be ethics? No reason why there would be a real, neurological or whatever, difference. So a sociopath-by-our-definition could have 'ethics'. Just not ours, probably. It's all semantics. Ethics is what we say it is. Good is what we say it is. Is it "bad" to have no ethics? Isn't that the most circular question you ever asked? Also it isn't really strange that someone that doesn't share a certain idea about ethics is seen as bad by people that do. Someone who believes abortion is perfectly fine is bad, if you subscribe to some random-Christian belief in the magical essence-channeling power of conception. The question you asked is as silly as asking "is not accepting Freudian psycho-analysis a symptom of fear of the phallus caused by a incompatible father-figure?" Or whatever it is that Freudians believe. The question at hand isn't what a theory says, but whether is is true / based on something. Anyhow, I would personally tell a person that steals from his grandmother an asshole. I might call him 'unethical', but I do not pretend like there is any claim on some 'higher order' in that opinion. (I would say that a society in which people don't steal would be a more awesome one, but again, bla). - Oh, let me sum it up: If you believe in higher moral standards, you need a supernatural worldview with a conscious deity (god or nature or whatever). If you don't believe in the higher value of human moral judgment you are probably a physicalist, but probably don't live like a children-raping nazi as some people believe.

[mini0991]

The purpose values serve is, for me, similar to civil law. That is, to respect the rights of others not to be troubled. Then again, my morality comes from rather secular sources, so I'm not suprised it goes hand-in-hand with law.

[Belisarius]

I'd come up with some ethical theory to justify my behavior, but the fact of the matter is that no one ever came up with a theory and then used it to determine what was good and bad. People are motivated to do good because they want to have a positive self-image and a large part of that arises out of comparison with other people. People will try to avoid having qualities and behaviors that they find distasteful in others. Furthermore, if they can emulate good qualities and behaviors of others, or committ acts that are socially considered good, it makes them feel that they themselves are good. It is all very integral to our existence as social creatures. This of course has arisen because of various evolutionary influences. Genes drive evolution, and so the good of the individual carrier is sometimes sacrificed to allow the genes in the larger population to be passed on in greater numbers. A good example of this might be ant colonies, in which the vast majority of individuals are incapable of passing on their genes, but instead work their entire lives to ensure that the genes of the community are passed on. We aren't ants, but we aren't completely independent creatures either. Cultural evolution also works on the community level, so we are shaped by the need for cooperation and harmony in society both biologically and culturally. Any culture that didn't provide standards of behavior that fascilitated cooperation and harmony would quickly vanish or be forced to change. Any population of organisms, like humans, that is interdependent and yet did not develop biological tendencies that fascilitate cooperation would quickly vanish. So you can say we have a natural morality, but I don't think this really constitutes a proper ethical theory and I'm not sure that such a theory would really be feasible. Our morality and the conditions that necessitate it are merely the result of chance, and the idea that we should base our behavior on what is evolutionarily advantageous has no more claim to truth than any other normative statement. Given the vast diversity of human circumstances and motivations, I don't think it is possible to come up with an ethical theory that will satisfy everyone.

[Original Poster]

I like to think that there is a higher good, maybe not an ultimate good but at least higher than mere social stature and conformity. In 90% of situations, ethics is based off society alone. One may act repulsed when I say "why not exterminate the jews?" but that's just social conditioning you've obtained to fit in. If that social conditioning didn't exist, then the reactions would be different. You might feel like a good person for telling a bigot off or helping an old lady or whatever, but this feeling is again, just conditioned into our psyche and our DNA by society. But then there's those rare moments when people face being outcasts by everyone in order to do the right thing. There are those rare people that actually wouldn't torture someone if an authority figure told them to, that stick to what they believe in even when it goes against everything sane or socially acceptable. Is this just a computer malfunction?

[Soldier]

i thought about something similiar to this, about morals and ethics. how did morals come to be in the first place? im content with that we made them and that would mean the only thing holding to back from killing or raping are morals that arent even there. to have no conscious would to not be governed by your own laws.

[Bonsay]

I like to think that there is a higher good, maybe not an ultimate good but at least higher than mere social stature and conformity. In 90% of situations, ethics is based off society alone. One may act repulsed when I say "why not exterminate the jews?" but that's just social conditioning you've obtained to fit in. If that social conditioning didn't exist, then the reactions would be different. You might feel like a good person for telling a bigot off or helping an old lady or whatever, but this feeling is again, just conditioned into our psyche and our DNA by society. You talk as if there was some original perfect human standing in the background. I mean, if there was no social conditioning people would be all screwed up. As I said, society is what makes us tick. If I took away the workers, doctors... you'd see a difference. We can devolve in a certain non-biological way very quickly. And the same goes if we take away socialization from a child. It's obvious that with a "blank" child you can make anything, from a suicide bomber to a Buddhist monk. Lots of different moral views. I don't know, but I haven't seen some perfect, model human being, who you can ask "Is exterminating Jews bad?" to see the total ethic response. But you did say that you believe that an ultimate good exists, so that's something similar. If a higher good doesn't exist, then ethics are a product of society. Also, I don't agree that morals can be engraved into our DNA. The only way I see we could test this is to raise somebody without teaching him good or bad and then ask the Jew question. But then there's those rare moments when people face being outcasts by everyone in order to do the right thing. There are those rare people that actually wouldn't torture someone if an authority figure told them to, that stick to what they believe in even when it goes against everything sane or socially acceptable. Is this just a computer malfunction? In the end, such humans might have been socialized in such a way to indirectly result in such behavior. It's relative. I wouldn't inflict pain on anyone and I doubt any other moral person would. But certain people would do it gladly. There are many more factors to research here, then just generally looking at society. If you ask around, most would say that torturing somebody was socially unacceptable even if an authority figure told them to do it. To label such a human as malfunctioning you'd again need a perfect functioning human. Because we don't have that we can only have relative views. Does not doing certain things mean your anti-social, then maybe you are malfunctioning. Does doing what you feel like doing mean you're malfunctioning? Well no, you're doing it for a reason, there is nothing wrong. If we look at murderers, there is nothing wrong with them objectively. It's just that according to my morals and my society it's wrong. And besides, people don't view each other as machines. If they did, then it would be wrong to be angry at the murderer, after all he'd just be malfunctioning.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Finally able to respond: Why is the survival of our species important? Objectively speaking, it's not. Subjectively speaking, it's because I'm a human, and so is everyone I care about. Makes it pretty important to me. So do you relate morality on a scale of working toward health of the society and staying in line with it as opposed to working toward yourself and being disruptive to society? I'm not sure I understand the question. How moral something is, for me, usually hinges on it's impact to other people, or whether it premotes wrong-doing to other people. You can choose to be responsible because it's beneficial to maintain your network, habitat and reputation in working order. Being a member of society has benefits that being ostracized does not. The layers go deep, it's not just about getting medicare, it's about how people receive you and the way they treat you. All in all, taking care of yourself and being polite and responsible goes a long way in finding success. So if you desire success, if you desire to be a well received member of society, then you can consider other people and receive their consideration in return. But is that good or ethical? Are ethics just a social establishment, or do they go further? That has much less to do with morality than it does a strive for success/reputation. The methods may be the same, but the motivation is different. What brings it into the realm of morality is "exactly what is this person willing to do to be received as a respected member of society?" If the means to which he achieves this end are centered around respect to and consideration of others, then yes. I would say it is an ethical way of acheiving that status. But the masochism question can't be answered specifically because it's about how other people's needs are different from your own and the things that make you happy don't necessarily make them happy. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, if it's any different from what I'd said. Society is essentially a bunch of people forming an institution together, or inheriting one. It's done to make life easier, because there's strength in numbers. Everyone contributes to the security of everybody else in some way or another. They create principles based on maintaining it, so that everyone can make adjustments according these principles in order to live together. While they help, not all problems can be solved by principles alone. Not only that, but people use principles to justify brutal means to accomplish their goals. Very true. In my opinion, the ends don't always justify the means. For example: There was an episode of Smallville that came on the other night, where this guy was going around kidnapping engaged couples. He would hook them up to electric chairs run through a polygraph machine. His whole M.O. was that he's sick of people disgracing the sanctity of marriage and keeping secrets from each other. So, to be the sort of "hand of fate" that helps decide if people should be together, he plays a game where he asks questions to each man and woman. If they tell a lie, their partner gets electrocuted. In such a case: the motive is just, the method is not (IMHO of course). Is being a good person the same thing as staying in line with society? Most people seem to think it's enough that they're good a person, so it's not so important if they help an injured man on the street or not. Most people also seem to think that men in lab coats are good people, and we can just do whatever they say. You seem to be looking for objective answers to questions that just don't have them. In the end, it all depends on your own philosophy. I don't believe that being a good person is the same thing as staying in line with society. I also don't believe that everyone who strays away from societal norms is a bad person, even when breaking many laws. I also don't believe that men in lab coats are inherently good people. I believe that, in life, everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. There are people who are enrolled in the same activities, but with very different motives and ethics. When most people have to choose between being lying about something or being ostracized, they choose lying. When most people have to choose between torturing someone and saying no to an authority figure, they choose to torture someone. Lying is often easier than dealing with ostracism (word?). It takes a certain kind of fortitude to deal with feeling outcast, so, naturally, many people just choose to lie to try to circumvent it. As far as saying no to an authority, I don't know many people who would choose to torture someone over saying no to an authority figure (given that's the only reason they are doing it, and it's not just embedded into their psyche as something that's "just"). Depending on the situation, though, it's hard to say what I would or wouldn't do. The word "torture" encompasses a lot. If an authority tells me that I either have to put out a lit cigarette on someone's arm every hour for a whole day, or I will be hung from a tree, that person is going home with an arm full of cigarette holes. So if morality is just a social construct, then what is "bad" about exterminating jews? If morality transcends society, then where does it come from, and what is it about? What is the greater good? What constitutes 500 lives being more important than one person? If morality is just a social construct, what is "bad" about some dirty old man sneaking into your house at night, raping and butchering your 10 year old daughter? When looking at questions like this, it is important to realize that all is relative and, even if you don't think there is anything wrong with something like that happening to your daughter, the majority of parents would. Taking this into consideration and not putting someone through that heartache (not to mention the victim) would be an act of morality. It doesn't really "come from" anywhere, except as a cognizance of your fellow man and his/her most probably values, and a desire not to infringe upon them. Exterminating anyone who hasn't wronged someone else would be the opposite of this. Even if exterminating the Jews would save the rest of the world, one would have to face a moral problem that no one can actually offer an objective answer to. The "Greater Good" depends on the situation and your interests. Anyone who says they are doing something for "The Greater Good," is basing that label off of their own interests. True, they may be speaking for many, but not everyone. That last question is the hardest to answer. What is at stake if 1 person dies? What is at stake if those 500 die? Do you have the right to kill 500 people, even if it means saving 1,000? I don't even like to answer hypothetical questions like my last one. I reserve opinion for things of that nature until I'm actually in the situation. Out of context, I would say it's not right, but if I was in such a dire situation to where I felt it must be done...I don't know. I could probably do it, but I would hate myself for it.

[Original Poster]

Bonsay I didn't say I believed in a higher good, just that I would like to. I made this topic because of my heavy doubts in a higher good. As I was answering your post, I answered my own question. I do believe higher good exists, but I'll get to that in a second. I would guess probably 99% of people would say it's wrong to inflict torture on somebody, at least without a really good reason. The problem is, studies show 80-90% of the population would, if an authority figure told them to. They would follow directions to the dot until their victim was either dead or unconscious. Studies show someone who belonged to some sort of good samaritan group is no more likely to help out a person in need then someone who isn't. I guess my point is, we're all total social hypocrites. It doesn't matter what principles we hold, in the moment we can all be weak, selfish and insecure, and violate so called "principles." I'd further state that a lot of the times we rationalize our actions to ourselves so they can agree with our moral standards and we continue to think of ourselves as "good people." And that's why I think it's important to make a distinction between what is "right" and what is a "moral standard." Objectively, nothing is right, it's based on the standards we set. Therefore, our principles today are typically based on who can argue it best. In Germany, WW2, the population was convinced the Jews needed to get out or die. Who here has been with a group of kids, and one of them starts making fun of somebody? What do you do? It may feel wrong, but it's so much easier to just walk the norm of society. And that is the norm of society, kids make fun of each other. That's our level as it stands. So what is higher good? Evolution is in our hands now, not the mutagens. I'd say higher good is when we examine the reality of the situation, and realize how it could be better in some way. Faster, stronger, more efficient. That voice inside you tells you how the situation can be improved, or developed. It's hard to call this idealism, because idealism often implies deluding oneself from reality and thinking the principles you made up are just going to make everything okay. I think this is often just a voice that tells you things can be better than they currently are, not that things have to be a certain way. And honestly, I don't think anyone can get out of a lifetime without accumulating some guilt and regret. The feeling from comitting a mistake can be so great it takes years to forgive yourself. I would say moral standards based on society are all about shame, but guilt is between you and the mistake. If I had to pick between 500 people and 1 person, either way I would feel absolutely terrible about it. And in the end I could rationalize that it was what I had to do the whole time but it wouldn't take back what happened. The choice was mine, I made it, somone/s died, the end.