Author Topic: What is ethics? (Read 3237 times)

yuneeq · « **on:** April 23, 2013, 08:44:48 PM »

This is the other thread we've always talked about. This is the place we will post in when we wanna go OT in the "Is it ethical" thread. This is the thread that will finally get CV to quiet down. Hopefully.

Achas Veachas · « **Reply #1 on:** April 23, 2013, 08:51:01 PM »

I guess I would have to be pretty naive to think that that would put the issue to rest but FWIW:

Quote

eth·ics
[eth-iks] Show IPA
plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Compare axiological ethics, deontological ethics.

Origin:
1400–50; late Middle English ethic + -s3 , modeled on Greek tà ēthiká, neuter plural

Synonyms
2. See moral.

jj1000 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 23, 2013, 09:02:10 PM »

I believe ethics is whatever makes you feel good.

yuneeq · « **Reply #3 on:** April 23, 2013, 09:21:15 PM »

Quote from: jj1000 on April 23, 2013, 09:02:10 PM

I believe ethics is whatever makes you feel good.

Like beer?

jj1000 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 23, 2013, 09:26:29 PM »

Quote from: yuneeq on April 23, 2013, 09:21:15 PM

Like beer?

Exactly like beer!

yuneeq · « **Reply #5 on:** April 23, 2013, 09:37:08 PM »

Quote from: jj1000 on April 23, 2013, 09:26:29 PM

Exactly like beer!

If that's the case, I'm about to get a lot more ethical in the next couple hours

Achas Veachas · « **Reply #6 on:** April 24, 2013, 09:32:28 PM »

Quote from: yuneeq on April 24, 2013, 08:29:37 PM

If it would be ok to act unethical, then the act wouldn't be unethical.

That's if you define ethical as "How a person should act"...

yuneeq · « **Reply #7 on:** April 24, 2013, 09:55:24 PM »

Quote from: Achas Veachas on April 24, 2013, 09:32:28 PM

That's if you define ethical as "How a person should act"...

I think that's exactly what ethics is. Though "how a person should act" still doesn't specify what would make something ethical. Lying in my book is neither inherently ethical or unethical, it would depend on the situation. What situation would make lying ethical or not, would be up to debate.

YankyDoodle · « **Reply #8 on:** April 24, 2013, 11:16:06 PM »

Quote from: yuneeq on April 24, 2013, 09:55:24 PM

I think that's exactly what ethics is. Though "how a person should act" still doesn't specify what would make something ethical. Lying in my book is neither inherently ethical or unethical, it would depend on the situation. What situation would make lying ethical or not, would be up to debate.

The ethics of lying would depend if you're a Kantian ethicist or a utilitarian.

yuneeq · « **Reply #9 on:** April 24, 2013, 11:22:22 PM »

Quote from: YankyDoodle on April 24, 2013, 11:16:06 PM

The ethics of lying would depend if you're a Kantian ethicist or a utilitarian.

Enlighten me.
All I know about Kant is that I think therefore I am

Achas Veachas · « **Reply #10 on:** April 24, 2013, 11:35:30 PM »

Quote from: yuneeq on April 24, 2013, 11:22:22 PM

Enlighten me.
All I know about Kant is that I think therefore I am

ummm that would be Descartes...

yuneeq · « **Reply #11 on:** April 24, 2013, 11:39:15 PM »

Quote from: Achas Veachas on April 24, 2013, 11:35:30 PM

ummm that would be Descartes...

I think it's Kant therefore it is

YankyDoodle · « **Reply #12 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:32:04 AM »

Quote from: yuneeq on April 24, 2013, 11:22:22 PM

Enlighten me.

Immanuel Kant believed that the world of ethics worked in unversal terms (Think black & white). Either something is always right or it is always wrong. Since lying at times is wrong, therefore it is always unethical.

The utilitarian approach argues that the ethical thing to do is the proposition that leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If lying to a company will cause no harm to the company but will benefit others, according to utilitarians this is the ethical course of action. A utilitarian would be a big fan of Jack Bauer (torturing one to save the lives of many).

yuneeq · « **Reply #13 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:43:56 AM »

I don't understand. According to Kant everything is either black or white. If so, how can you decide that lies are bad, if there are times that its good? Once you have scenarios that its good, that means all lies are good because you can not split one act into two categories. Either Kant is an idiot or I'm not understanding something.

YankyDoodle · « **Reply #14 on:** April 25, 2013, 01:13:42 AM »

Quote from: yuneeq on April 25, 2013, 12:43:56 AM

I don't understand. According to Kant everything is either black or white. If so, how can you decide that lies are bad, if there are times that its good? Once you have scenarios that its good, that means all lies are good because you can not split one act into two categories. Either Kant is an idiot or I'm not understanding something.

You're trying too hard dude. Lying is wrong at times therefore even though at times it seems like it might be a benefit, in Kant's opinion it is still wrong. There is no scenario where lying is obviously a good thing it is simply possible that it may have a positive outcome.

Chaikel · « **Reply #15 on:** April 25, 2013, 05:03:16 AM »

Quote from: YankyDoodle on April 25, 2013, 01:13:42 AM

You're trying too hard dude. Lying is wrong at times therefore even though at times it seems like it might be a benefit, in Kant's opinion it is still wrong. There is no scenario where lying is obviously a good thing it is simply possible that it may have a positive outcome.

-1
If someone if looking for someone to kill him and you about his whereabouts, is that not an obvious positive outcome?

If you steal a bomb from a terrorist, is that not an obvious positive outcome?

YankyDoodle · « **Reply #16 on:** April 25, 2013, 07:29:36 AM »

Quote from: Chaikel on April 25, 2013, 05:03:16 AM

-1
If someone if looking for someone to kill him and you about his whereabouts, is that not an obvious positive outcome?

If you steal a bomb from a terrorist, is that not an obvious positive outcome?

That's exactly my point. Reread my post: "There is no scenario where lying is obviously a good thing it is simply possible that it may have a positive outcome." It may have a positive outcome (such as in the cases that you brought up), but even though the lying in those cases has a positive outcome since lying is inherently unethical according to Kant it remains unethical in those cases as well. That does not mean lying cannot have a positive outcome, it simply means that it is unethical.

I think the difficulty here is that most people associate ethics with outcome. Good outcome = ethical. This is exactly true (for the most part) according to the utilitarian theory but is incorrect according to Kant.

yuneeq · « **Reply #17 on:** April 25, 2013, 07:38:12 AM »

Then I guess I'm a utilitarian.

Achas Veachas · « **Reply #18 on:** April 25, 2013, 08:09:15 AM »

Quote from: yuneeq on April 25, 2013, 07:38:12 AM

Then I guess I'm a utilitarian.

...and therefore you are

CountValentine · « **Reply #19 on:** April 25, 2013, 06:26:58 PM »

Quote from: YankyDoodle on April 25, 2013, 07:29:36 AM

I think the difficulty here is that most people associate ethics with outcome. Good outcome = ethical. This is exactly true (for the most part) according to the utilitarian theory but is incorrect according to Kant.

...and what would someone be called who falls in the middle?