Three Approaches to Ethics...

[2ndRateMind]

So, off and on, I think about ethics.

I am not a philosopher. Just someone who likes to think about the meaning of life, occasionally, as the fit takes me.

But it seems that there are three main academic schools of thought, as regards ethics, which seems to me to be a philosophical topic pertinent to the meaning of life.

There is deontology: the idea that the basic, deciding element of ethics is the rule.
There is utilitarianism: the idea that the basic, deciding element of ethics is the outcome.
There is virtue ethics: the idea that the basic, deciding element of ethics is the character.

To illustrate:
Deontology might say that all that is ethical hangs off it's consistency with the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. A deontologist would probably hold the 10 commandments definitive, simply because God (allegedly) authored them, irrespective of any intrinsic merit they may or may not possess.

On the other hand, the classic formulation of Utilitarianism is to promote 'the greatest happiness (utility) of the greatest number'. Rules are moral, or immoral, according to whether they promote or prevent happiness or misery, and how much of each. Whether a suitable rule is present or absent, observed or ignored, a utilitarian would say that it is the total weight of resulting happiness that decides whether an action is moral.

Then again, Virtue Ethics is the idea that ethics promotes virtue, and virtue promotes ethics, in a kind of virtuous cycle of character development. The converse is also true; vice requires the unethical, and the unethical requires vice, in a vicious spiral of character erosion. For any human in particular, and humanity in general, to thrive and flourish, the virtue ethicist would argue that it is good character that is required, virtue in thought, word and deed.

Seems to me, it would be a good idea to combine these three schools of academic approach to ethics into a single, unified system. Then, we would have a way to decide what is, and is not, ethical, without having to say, well, on the one hand, X, and on the other hand, Y, but alternatively, Z.

I think humanity both deserves and needs a unified system of ethics. But if we are to have such a system, it seems to me, then it should not be a prescriptive system, telling people what they must do, but a descriptive system, advising on the state of the art of ethics as an academic enterprise. Whether people take notice, or not, as they choose, must remain one of our most precious freedoms.

Anyway, I think I have finally reconciled these schools of thought, in such a way as I find satisfying.

But before I expound, I'd like to know if you have any comments to make on this preamble.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

I'm interested in seeing how you think you have reconciled these schools of thought. I think virtue ethics is easily (and perhaps necessarily) supplemented by another view, but the difficulty seems to be reconciliation between a deontological approach and a teleological one like utilitarianism.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by The Tanager]

Ha! I only said it satisfied me, and specifically and immediately disclaim any idea that it might satisfy a proper philosopher! I'm going to let this thread run for a while, though, before I make a substantial post about this 'reconciliation'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

I see all of these approaches to be highly dependent upon personal subjective opinions. This isn't necessarily bad since all individuals can have their own personal sense of ethics. However if these "ethics" are going to be used to make laws I think they become highly problematic. I also don't believe that ethics or morality even needs to be considered when making laws. (I speak more to that after I address my thoughts on the three approaches to ethics you have listed)

Deontology might say that all that is ethical hangs off it's consistency with the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. And would probably hold the 10 commandments definitive, simply because God (allegedly) authored them, irrespective of any intrinsic merit they may or may not possess.

Right off the bat I don't see what the Golden Rule has to do with believing that any God supposedly authored any commandments. The Golden Rule does not come from Christianity or Jesus. The Golden Rule existed long before Jesus was ever born.

But now let me just comment on how the Golden Rule is highly subjective opinion. I'll use gender relationships as a prime example. Someone favors heterosexual relationships may frown on homosexual relationships. Therefore in the 'guise' of claiming to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" the heterosexual person could reprimand and shame a homosexual person for doing something they see as being unethical. They often even claim that if they were doing something equally unethical they would want someone to tell them to stop doing it to.

So the Golden Rule only works if everyone wants the same things.

Having said that, it "can" work depending on how it's employed. For example, if we don't want other people telling us how to live, then we won't tell them how to live. This would solve the problem I had just outlined above.

So the so-called "Golden Rule" is ill-defined and can be used in many different inconsistent ways. So it's an undependable indicator for any consistent or global ethics.

On the other hand, the classic formulation of Utilitarianism is to promote 'the greatest happiness (utility) of the greatest number'. Rules are moral, or immoral, according to whether they promote or prevent happiness or misery, and how much of each. Whether a suitable rule is present or absent, it is the total weight of resulting happiness that decides whether an action is moral.

Again, this is an ill-defined concept because it is extremely unclear what is meant by "The greatest happiness of the greatest number". This can easily lead to majority groups totally dictating how a minority groups must behave.

Is that truly 'ethical'? Many places feel that discrimination is unethical, but an ethics where the majority rules can easily become a highly discriminatory situation. The happiness of the few is basically being tossed out. And more importantly, what constitutes the few? In the case where 51% of the people want a certain ethics, and 49% would be unhappy with that should the 51% then win the battle of ethics?

So the idea that majority rules doesn't sound very ethical to me. But at the same time, I agree that this is often used as a standard. Whether it's right or wrong.

Then again, Virtue Ethics is the idea that ethics promotes virtue, and virtue promotes ethics, in a kind of virtuous cycle of character development. The converse is also true; vice requires the unethical, and the unethical requires vice, in a vicious spiral of character erosion. For any human in particular, and humanity in general, to thrive and flourish, the virtue ethicist would argue that it is good character that is required, virtue in thought, word and deed. .

As far as I can see this really isn't a different approach to ethics at all. The reason being that "virtue" is already defined as doing what's "Good". But in order to know what's good we must have first defined what we mean by "good". In other words, we would have already needed to have defined a system of ethics prior to even speaking of virtue.

So I don't see how virtue could be an approach to ethics when virtue itself is dependent upon what we mean by "ethical".

So I only see two approaches being offered here.

1. "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you"
(this assumes that everyone wants the same things for happiness)

2. Majority happiness Rules.
(this can easily lead to the oppression of minority groups)

So I have problems with both approaches to ethics (especially if they are going to be used by a society as a whole to make laws). Now if these ethics are only going to be used for personal opinions and personal behavior, then that's a totally different thing. people are free to have whatever ethical values they choose for themselves.

~~~~~~~

And now on the topic of making social laws:

I personally don't believe that there is any place for ethics in laws (expect possibly laws concerning capital commerce), but even then I'm not sure if ethics is really important. (I'll come back to this point momentarily)

To begin with we have many laws on the books that have absolutely nothing to do with ethics or morality. For example we are required by law to pay taxes, to buy car insurance, to not park at a parking meter without paying, etc.

There are many laws that have absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics. So clearly laws do not need to be based on morality or ethics.

I feel that the purpose of laws should be to protect the citizens of the state. In the case of taxes we could then argue that taxes are required if the citizens want to be protected because tax money enables infrastructure, fire protection, police protection, hospitals, etc. And even education is considered a form of protection because if people were permitted to remain ignorant it can be argued that there would be far more crime and violence.

So when making laws protection of the people should be the ultimate consideration, not what someone believes is ethical or moral.

We have laws against murder because allowing people to kill each other for no good reason would endanger the lives of many people. Therefore a law against murder makes sense in terms of protecting the people, no need to even consider whether or not it is moral or ethical.

So laws don't need to have anything at all to do with ethics or morality. All we need to consider when making laws is whether or not it protects the citizens of the land.

Now, getting back to capital commerce laws. At first glance these may seem like ethics laws, but as I have just pointed out above they don't need to be considered in terms of ethics. All that needs to be considered is the protection of the people (i.e. the consumers). In this way anything that could harm or take undue advantage of the citizen would be illegal activity. No moral or ethical judgement required at all. All that needs to be considered is whether someone is being harmed or unfairly disadvantaged.

So there's no need to even consider ethics or morality when making laws.

I just wanted to make that point in any discussion on ethics. Because many people think that laws should reflect morality or ethics, but that's actually a bad idea. Precisely because ethics can often be highly subjective, where the protection of the citizens if far more objective.

So laws created to protect the citizens can be far more objective, whereas laws created by moral or ethical opinions are far more subjective to the opinions of those who are making the laws.

So I say that we should get morality and ethics out of the legislative process entirely, and instead focus entirely on what serves the people the best in terms of protection and safety. Even then we're still going to end up with different subjective opinions on what constitutes protection and safety, but at least we would be addressing the right issues.

[Divine Insight]

Deleted double post

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Oh boy! There is a lot you have written we could discuss, but I'm going to take it little by little.

Right off the bat I don't see what the Golden Rule has to do with believing that any God supposedly authored any commandments. The Golden Rule does not come from Christianity or Jesus. The Golden Rule existed long before Jesus was ever born.

The two, the 'the Golden Rule' and the 10 commandments, were not meant by me to be thus associated, just separate examples of rules people live by, and I suspect often simply because they like rules to live by. They make people feel good about themselves, when observed, and existentially safe.

But as for Jesus, and according to my readings, He was the first to formulate the golden rule positively*.

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also unto them likewise.

There are many examples of the 'silver rule' prior to Him, including in Buddhism, but these are the negative formulation: 'Do not do to others as you would not have them do to you'. And so they are not the same thing. The silver rule allows passive indifference and neglect, the golden rule does not.

However, if you prefer a more secular deontological rule to grapple with, there is always Kant's categorical imperative: 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.'

Best wishes, 2RM.



*Luke 6:31 KJV

[Divine Insight]

But as for Jesus, and according to my readings, He was the first to formulate the golden rule positively*.

That's uniquely a Christian view created and supported by Christian theists in an effort to pretend that Jesus said something different when in fact it's not different at all. These philosophical ideals were in place long before Jesus was ever born. The claim that Jesus introduced this idea uniquely is nothing more than Christian propaganda.

[2ndRateMind]

But as for Jesus, and according to my readings, He was the first to formulate the golden rule positively*.

That's uniquely a Christian view created and supported by Christian theists in an effort to pretend that Jesus said something different when in fact it's not different at all. These philosophical ideals were in place long before Jesus was ever born. The claim that Jesus introduced this idea uniquely is nothing more than Christian propaganda.

It might help if you provided (academically sound) references if you are simply determined to contradict me on matters of fact. Otherwise, we are just engaged in an 'I say X, you say Y' disagreement without hope of any dispassionate resolution.

Meanwhile, here is my offering.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

But as for Jesus, and according to my readings, He was the first to formulate the golden rule positively*.

That's uniquely a Christian view created and supported by Christian theists in an effort to pretend that Jesus said something different when in fact it's not different at all. These philosophical ideals were in place long before Jesus was ever born. The claim that Jesus introduced this idea uniquely is nothing more than Christian propaganda.

It might help if you provided (academically sound) references if you are simply determined to contradict me. Otherwise, we are just engaged in an 'I say X, you say Y' disagreement without hope of any dispassionate resolution.

Meanwhile, here is my offering.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The Golden rule dates clear back to Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism and even Buddhism. In fact even the ancient Egyptians and Greeks recognizes this philosophical principle.

Also, is a fallacy to claim that stating it in the negative would have a different meaning. If you don't do to others what you do not want them to do to you then you'll have no choice but to do unto them as you would want that they should do unto you.

So the idea that by stating it as a negative gives it a different meaning is false.

If you don't want others to ignore you when you are in need then you had better not ignore them when they are in need.

So it doesn't really matter which way it's stated. The meaning is the same.

It's nothing more than Christian arrogance to refuse to recognize that this principle has been in play for many millennia prior to Christianity.

If you don't do unto others as you don't want them to do unto you, then you have no choice but to do unto them as you would have them do unto you.

There's no way to fulfill one of these principles without fulfilling the other.

Ignoring others does not satisfy the negative version unless you want them to ignore you.

And the same is true of the positive version. If you want people to ignore you then you can easily fulfill the positive version by simply ignoring everyone else.

So there's no difference.

[2ndRateMind]

Also, is a fallacy to claim that stating it in the negative would have a different meaning. If you don't do to others what you do not want them to do to you then you'll have no choice but to do unto them as you would want that they should do unto you.

So the idea that by stating it as a negative gives it a different meaning is false.

On the contrary. Suppose I don't like people to assault me. Then to fulfill the silver rule, all I need do is not assault others.

But to fulfill the golden rule I must go beyond that, and contribute to their wellbeing, just as I might hope they would contribute to mine, did I need their succour.

As I said before; the silver rule allows indifference and neglect. The golden rule does not.

Best wishes, 2RM.