Another post by the BMW-guy got me thinking, how would we recognise the perfect ethical model?
That is to say, say a theory such as utilitarianism (which can be taken ad absurdium to its death) is put in front of you, what are the criteria we use to actually kill it off and how do we know they are right? What are we looking for in the perfect ethical system?
the perfect ethical model?
that model that has everyone act only in such ways that benefit “me”…
that is what everyone wants in the end… some are simply less honest about it…
-Imp
What are we looking for? The maximisation of happiness…
responses are a bit question begging.
the perfect ethical model would agree with our intuitions about ethics, thats why i consider it more fruitful to consider the reasons for having an ethical model rather than trying formulate one. Ie. read nietzsche not mill.
I agree, you’re more along the right track in what I had in mind when asking.
If it’s jsut based on our intuition, doesn’t that degrade the status of Ethics down from a proper philosophical persuit to something less. Isn’t most of philosophy observable, testable, while Ethics and then hence Law, become something less, something far more arbitary?
I love ethics, because they are clearly invented by people and represent the struggle to have some kind of order. There’s even video games ethics, for those that play online. All of it speaks to human desire and inner nature.
Epictetus is one of my favorite philosophers and I have enjoyed his ethhical approach to life. Check him out.
Here’s a poor link.
I’ll give you that ethics seems to be very-deeply tied with what gives us the most happiness possible out of any situation.
But, by that argument, is this analogy valid:
OR
Which situation is more ethical? While this may seem obvious, think about it…
I intentionally swerve to avoid running over the j-walker not because I’m personally concerned for his well-being, but rather because I do not want to pay the penelty of going to prision for murder. Right?
So, in a sense, I’m not really being ethical for any other purpose than to bring myself the best possible outcome from the situation.
Is this how you view ethics, Impenitent?
bear with me guys, this stuff is deep for me… 
If we look at ethics as a means to achieve happiness and have social unity, then it is best to not hit the J-walker. It’s more trouble than it’s worth and the J-walker is not doing enough harm to deserve that kind of treatment.
However, if you blew your horn and cursed at him that might serve you through a release of tension and warn the guy about his behavior.
Another thing that I love about ethics is that they can be debated and so they are dynamic. Meanwhile “morals” are a fiction that can’t be debated so they become old after awhile. We see this in religious debate all of the time.
You don’t have to be Jewish to enjoy The Jewish Ethicist!
I see you seem to take a more utilitarian approach to ethics, TheAlderian. So which is it: the best possible outcome for everyone, or for oneself? Just curious…
Is achieving good for the overal social community worth it if it profits me nothing personally? Can any ethical action really be altruistic? 
Generally, I view what is best for me to be best for society. The problem with some people is that they “shit in their own nest” while looking out for themselves. That makes for a bad society and bad cities to live in.
Real self-interest would make you want to live with other people that are happy and feeling good in a nice attractive city. That way you can have fun there and no one will be jealous of you and want to kill or ruin you.
you aren’t being “ethical” unless your actions are in accord with your system of ethics… regardless of the system… is murder ethical? yes, in some ethical systems it is… so to say this is ethical has exactly as much value in my mind as any other opinion of the value of the action…
-Imp
Imp,
Aren’t you talking above ethics though?
I am speaking categorically I suppose…
if the question is about my personal ethics, I say do that with which one can get away…
-Imp
See, now you’re keepin’ it real.
I think that the complexity of moral theory today is simply a matter of a more advanced vocabulary. And I don’t think it is literally possible to state an objective truth about morality in the realm of semantics and logic. Part of the greater complexity of the ethical field, that yields these problems which are discussed in philosophy, is a contingency that is most recent and certainly not the absolute model of morality. What can only be done is an examination of lasting moral effects and behaviors that have manifest in all generations to date, however these cannot be propositions by any means- that would make them refutable.
For this, one must subtract language entirely and go back to the days when emotions were automatic- when a non-language based experience triggered a social action or reaction within a civilized context.
I believe that the natural state of the human being was one of harmony and cooperation- human beings were never directly opposed as would be a violent species with agressive tendencies toward itself. Humans have always been too intelligent to need to sacrifice safety and public standing by initiating violence or hostility to attain an end. There wasn’t anything needed that couldn’t be negotiated, back in the days, and the field was less complex and problematic.
But violence couldn’t have ever been instinctual for the human being who relied on the groups existence. The intellect gives the capacity to recognize the hierarchy of the natural species social form, so that ranks are occupied and there is no sense of repression of exploitation. Ideally in such a setting there wouldn’t be any necessary reason to initiate violence to achieve something…it would happen naturally if it was a benefit to the group.
So, are you saying that ethics are an attempt to get back to the state of nature?
That would hash out the semantic complexities. “Nature” is ambiguous. Hell, we’d spend the day arguing over what that term meant, and wouldn’t even begin examining the idea of moral value and those mysterious concepts of “good” and “bad.”
Destruction and violence is natural. But I don’t think those are good morals. I think they are language based metaphors which are used to describe behaviors. “Killing” being “bad” for “X” reasons, but it certainly isn’t unnatural.
It is simply unecessary, that is all. The moralist is one who doesn’t make a moral judgement based upon conclusions he draws from biased interpretations, or “human, all too” interpretations of behavior and the will. This is primarily why I admire Nietzsche and Spinoza, whom both take an indifferent approach to ethical truths, unfounded in “theological” metaphysics, as would be Kant (agnostic in Kant’s case), Berkeley, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. The two understand morality as being judgemental based entirely on efficiency within the rationality of ethics. Never is an act “good” or “bad” based on some transcendent value system, but on the degree to which it accomodates the acting individual.
My addition to this formula is that the intellect will, almost with default precision, attempt to avoid a conflict by using language, specifically, and a means of negotiation of material goods. Which, of course, is all it ever amounts to anyway- he wants something that guy has…now “how to get it” is the nut-shell of the entire ordeal.
Inevitably this is a sign of aeseticism and pacifism, which some view as nihilistic. I disagree. In fact, if I were to lead by example half of you would lose most of your lives possessions and contracts and obligations, in following. My morality is unheard of in most circles- what I call morally good would devastate you. You’d consider it too radical and argue your way out of it.
Nonetheless, as Kant put it, my resolve is clear and nothing can prevent me from its course.
In thirteen years I shall be seated below a fig tree indefinitely. Meanwhile I will solve philosophy where Wittgenstein failed.
Yeah right. Who am I kidding.
Detrop
Detrop, Anthropological evidence points to the fact that since AMHS developed they’ve had language based communication. A time when “non-language” experience occured doesn’t exist, unless ofcourse we’re talking about our ancestors and not us.
I’m unsure of if there is evidence supporting or denying this. But there is evidence of Neadertals being violent, so I don’t see it as a stretch to say that early homo sapiens sapiens were also violent. We’re violent now, our ancestors are violent, both old and new, i doubt there just happened to be a “violence” gap right after we developed into AMHS.
Of course. Even without a missing link the best and easiest assumption is that man evolved from an ape like animal that at some point or another existed in a social setting without having language- except for very primitve syllable expressions, clicks, grunts, ect., in the accompanyment of a behavioral gesture.
This means that morality was happening, and it also means that the objective proponents for any moral system, at whatever level of evolution and material industrial context, were more or less the same because the physiology of the species was very similiar to that of the human species now. A “moral” human being is a body of cells which operates by metabolism and interaction with the environment. Neither the environment nor the human physiology has changed so drastically that its fundamental biological morality is no longer active and manifested in human behavior.
The same parameters for earthly existence are now as they ever were, and the slight differences do not distort the species in such a way as to redefine morality.
Call this position what you like, I’m sure sure what it might be. However to my mind it is not an explanation of what morality is, but rather of what morality is not. How, and from what angle, can the issue of human behavior be completely understood. For this there must be trimming of all the recent evolutions of technology and language- they are the contingent complexties. Producing what Sartre called practicio-inert, inevitable moral quandries that evolve in certain political frameworks. I might say that half the problems that occur today in morality, for the human species, are happening because of a terrible change in population and ideology. Both the material circumstances and the psychological circumstances generate contingent conflicts that aren’t necessary.
Still its too late. Invest in Taco-Bell stocks while you can because Black and Decker is going to buy them out. So long, number four combo with Pepsi.
I’m willing to accept that someone might be able to redeem philosophy from Wittgenstein but I’m waiting to see a decent attempt. Believe me, I’d love for it to be you, second only to it being me…