Ethics: what's the point?

[2ndRateMind]

So, what is the point of ethics? Why shouldn't we all live greedy, selfish lives and let the devil take the hindmost?

I would argue that there are three main reasons to be ethical:

• 1) An ethical society is a better society to live in.
• 2) An ethical person is a happier, more fulfilled person.
• 3) An ethical person is 'saved', in the religious sense of salvation.

It does strike me though, that we need to sort out amongst ourselves the point of being ethical, even before we attempt to discuss what ethical behaviour might be. Though each informs the other, I think one needs to start out with a transparent agenda.

Comments, welcome

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited April 14, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

1.  Yeah, but that’s why I want *other people* to be ethical; it doesn’t necessarily apply to myself.   

2.  I’m not sure we can say this is wont to be true from a secular/psychological standpoint.  

3.  Absolutely, yes.  But, I think being spiritually “saved” has temporal ramifications.  Christian ethics are one way God saves us in the here-and-now from the anarchy of social Darwinism.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[pwrfrk]

2RM, what do you consider to me ethical?  Are you sure it's ethical and not moral?  Are you capable of telling the difference?  Which do you wish to dispose of?  One or the other or both?

[Traveler]

In the entire history of mankind - the problem has never been ethics.  The problem has always been who's ethics should remain when there is dispute. 

I have come to believe that the best ethics are vague and not so specific.  Thus allowing humans (which we all are) an excuse to forgive. 

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, what is the point of ethics? Why shouldn't we all live greedy, selfish lives and let the devil take the hindmost?

Same question:  What's the point of being Christian?

Same answer:  The Light of Christ has shown that Christian Living - whether you are Christian or not - leads to JOY and prosperity.

[unixknight]

22 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, what is the point of ethics? Why shouldn't we all live greedy, selfish lives and let the devil take the hindmost?

For an individual, the only objective, non-spiritual answer is:  For any individual, to do otherwise would create social difficulties that would result in a net loss.  

22 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I would argue that there are three main reasons to be ethical:

• 1) An ethical society is a better society to live in.
• 2) An ethical person is a happier, more fulfilled person.
• 3) An ethical person is 'saved', in the religious sense of salvation.

I agree with the sentiments here, but  it's important to keep in mind that these are subjective reasons.

1) is subjective.  Ethics imposes its own rules that some find to be a burden.

2) is also subjective on its face.

3) is only relevant to the religious, in which case it answers the question on its own.

22 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

It does strike me though, that we need to sort out amongst ourselves the point of being ethical, even before we attempt to discuss what ethical behaviour might be. Though each informs the other, I think one needs to start out with a transparent agenda.

I think this question is readily answerable from a religious standpoint, and utterly unanswerable from a secular standpoint.  The best one can do from a secular perspective is to talk about a vague notion about the benefit to humanity as a whole of having a system of ethics, but it says nothing at all about the individual.

 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

In the entire history of mankind - the problem has never been ethics.  The problem has always been who's ethics should remain when there is dispute. 

I have come to believe that the best ethics are vague and not so specific.  Thus allowing humans (which we all are) an excuse to forgive. 

 

The Traveler

This is very true.  Recent example of the presented conflict:  Julian Assange.

[2ndRateMind]

On 4/14/2019 at 6:46 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Yeah, but that’s why I want *other people* to be ethical; it doesn’t necessarily apply to myself.   

Indeed so. There will always be free-loaders. Nevertheless, if one accepts propositions 2 and 3, then the free-loader is cheating themselves, as well as everyone else.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited April 17, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

On 4/15/2019 at 6:42 AM, pwrfrk said:

2RM, ... do you consider to me ethical? 

I'm not at all sure I know you well enough to judge. But the principle of charity bids me to presume the best of you, until proven differently.

Quote

Are you sure it's ethical and not moral?  Are you capable of telling the difference?  Which do you wish to dispose of?  One or the other or both?

For the purposes of clarity, I regard the ethical and the moral to be somewhat along the lines of synonyms. Though, as far as common usage goes, I would accept that ethics has more of an academic tint, and morality more of a sexual connotation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited April 17, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

On 4/15/2019 at 3:26 PM, Traveler said:

In the entire history of mankind - the problem has never been ethics.  The problem has always been who's ethics should remain when there is dispute. 

I have come to believe that the best ethics are vague and not so specific.  Thus allowing humans (which we all are) an excuse to forgive. 

 

The Traveler

Interesting. If ethics are a route to salvation, as I suggest in proposition  3 of the OP, do you think God would have deliberately left them vague and unspecific? Or do you think people might want them left vague and unspecific, simply because of some personal (say, financial) reason why they should have no need to comply?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited April 17, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

On 4/15/2019 at 3:31 PM, anatess2 said:

Same question:  What's the point of being Christian?

Same answer:  The Light of Christ has shown that Christian Living - whether you are Christian or not - leads to JOY and prosperity.

I agree that Christianity is about joy. Furthermore, as you pointed out in another thread, that it is about love. And, in my experience, love is about unimaginable joy, but also unimaginable pain. The net result of the mix is complete ecstasy, and that is where we find God, filled with the joy and pain and ecstasy that is total love. As for prosperity, well, that's nice, if it happens. But that is not what Christianity is about. Or, so I submit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Interesting. If ethics are a route to salvation, as I suggest in proposition  3 of the OP, do you think God would have deliberately left them vague and unspecific? Or do you think people might want them left vague and unspecific, simply because of some personal (say, financial) reason why they should have no need to comply?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I believe they are vague so we mortals can always have room and incentive to improve or excuse not to and that is in part what we call agency.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Interestingly enough, a defense lawyer yesterday acknowledged that what I was doing in a case was completely ethical, but still maintained that I would not make it to heaven on judgment day if I didn’t dismiss the case outright.

Ah, Utah County . . .

[2ndRateMind]

On 4/17/2019 at 5:48 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Interestingly enough, a defense lawyer yesterday acknowledged that what I was doing in a case was completely ethical, but still maintained that I would not make it to heaven on judgment day if I didn’t dismiss the case outright.

Ah, Utah County . . .

That's really sad. And has much to do with my suspicion of organised religion, that it has been, and is being, and forever can be, used to browbeat and intimidate perfectly decent people into a state of unethical submission. Quite how you can divorce ethical behaviour from just deserts defeats me, except in the case of sacrifice, where some moral agent voluntarily foregos justice for the sake of the good of others. But nevertheless, I think God will look kindly on such moral agents, they simply following the example of Christ. Fortunately, however, defense lawyers don't get to decide on who gets to go to heaven, and who doesn't. According to scripture, it is St Peter who holds those keys*, and I am sure they are safe in his hands, as Jesus entrusted them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Matthew 16:19 KJV

Edited April 19, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe they are vague so we mortals can always have room and incentive to improve or excuse not to and that is in part what we call agency.

That's a good thought. Hold on to that. So, does the fact that humanity does not know the absolutely ethical (though some pretend to), necessarily mean that the ethical is vague, unspecific and imprecise?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited April 18, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[Traveler]

19 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

That's a good thought. Hold on to that. So, does the fact that humanity does not know the absolutely ethical (though some pretend to), necessarily mean that the ethical is vague, unspecific and imprecise?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think you may be looking at this backwards and upside down.  The real reason for vagueness is so we can apply the specifics to ourselves (where we know all the parameters) and can come to exact conclusions.  But realize that we do not nor can we ever know all the parameters in others behavior.  The first great point of ethics is to govern one's own behavior.   The second great point is to teach others by example.  It is not ethical to expect other to not follow your example.

What is absolute about ethics is that there are precise well defined rules - if you as an individual , ever make an exception for yourself - for whatever reason - that becomes the new more precise absolute rule that defines your ethics - or absence of ethics in your behavior. 

 

The Traveler

[2ndRateMind]

Yes. I think that is so. There is a defined ethical response to every possible given human situation. The thing that I am disposed to deny, however, is that every or any particular human knows all these defined responses. I think it to be our task to work out for ourselves what those responses might and should be. And that such an exercise, if we take it seriously, is good for our spiritual stature, upon which depends our prospects of immediate content and afterlife bliss.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited April 20, 2019 by 2ndRateMind