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.

[2ndRateMind]

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)

I think, since JS Mill's 'On Liberty' there has been a growing consensus around when it is appropriate for the state to legislate around our behaviour, and when we should be left to go to Hell as we please.

The distinction is his 'harm principle'. He proposes that we should be free to do whatever we want, provided we harm no one else. Only when we do cause harm should the state step in to control us. And I think, as a rough approximation, that is a good enough rule of thumb.

Of course, there may remain considerable disagreement as to what consitutes harm, and how to define it, and what degrees and types of harm warrant the state to intervene. But I think in most instances, people would agree that it is unethical to cause harm, and that the state has a role to play by intervening to prevent and/or deter it.

Beyond that, the ethics become positive; a matter of what one should, or ought to do, rather than a matter of what one shouldn't or oughtn't, to do. And I have the feeling that there are very many people confused by a prevailing climate of moral relativism that says 'anything goes' when deep inside themselves they know perfectly well that it doesn't.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

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.

Fallacy on your part.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If you don't want to be assaulted then don't assault others.
(notice here that we necessarily need to state this as a negative anyway)

Now consider the following:

'Do not do to others as you would not have them do to you'

If you don't want others to ignore your well-being then you better not ignore their well-being.

So your example is incorrect. Not wanting to be assaulted has nothing at all to do with requiring that you contribute to the well-being of others, even by the Golden Rule.

So there's really no difference.

In fact, notice that the negative version of the Golden Rule is a double negative. And a double negative is the same as a positive. So they are precisely the same idea expressed in different language.

You cannot fulfill one without simultaneously fulfilling the other. They are the very same principle stated in two different ways. One uses a double positive which does not reduce to a negative. The other uses as double negative which does reduce to a positive. So they are both saying the same thing.

[Divine Insight]

Beyond that, the ethics become positive; a matter of what one should, or ought to do, rather than a matter of what one shouldn't or oughtn't, to do. And I have the feeling that there are very many people confused by a prevailing climate of moral relativism that says 'anything goes' when deep inside themselves they know perfectly well that it doesn't.

I totally agree with this. And I also hold that laws should be concerned with what we are not to do, rather than demanding what we must do. Of course, laws like taxes certainly do tell us what we must do.

However, where many people make a huge mistake is when they think that just because something isn't illegal that makes it "moral or ethical". That's actually a terrible view. That view actually sees the law as the rules of morality.

Actually there are many things you can legally do that many people would consider to be immoral. So the laws really don't have anything at all to do with ethics or morality. Yet so many people seem to think that they either do, or should.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Maybe you can't see the point I am making, or maybe you just won't. Either way, further discussion on this sub-topic is futile.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Also, is a fallacy to claim that stating it in the negative would have a different meaning....

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.

Fallacy on your part...

In fact, notice that the negative version of the Golden Rule is a double negative. And a double negative is the same as a positive. So they are precisely the same idea expressed in different language.

OK, I'm going to have one last try at explaining why I think the golden rule different from the silver rule.

The example I'm going to cite arose today, while I was in the pub, enjoying my warm English ale, and considering quite innocently how best to become a millionaire.

The people at the next table left halfway through my deliberations.

And, after a little time, I noticed that one of them had left her handbag behind, slung over the back of her chair.

So, I had three options:

Option 1) Steal the bag, in the hope it contained money and valuables.
Option 2) Do nothing, given that I do not carry a handbag, and whatever happens to handbags is a matter of complete indifference to me.
Option 3) Hand the bag into the staff, so they could return it to the forgetful lady concerned as and when she realised where she had left it.

The silver rule prevents me from option 1), but not option 2). I would not like my property stolen, if I forgot it (Do not do unto others what you do not like done unto yourself). But it has nothing to say about option 2), which is just not to do anything, remain passive, and not get involved.

The golden rule prevents me from option 1) and option 2). In insisting that I do unto others as I wish done to myself, and given that I (or anyone else) would prefer their mislaid stuff kept safe for when they reclaim it, it prescribes that I should take a positively good ethical action, rather than a neutral or bad ethical action.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

So, I have three options:

Option 1) Steal the bag, in the hope it contained money and valuables.
Option 2) Do nothing, given that I do not carry a handbag, and whatever happens to handbags is a matter of indifference to me.
Option 3) Hand the bag into the staff, so they could return it if the forgetful lady concerned when she realised where she had left it.

The silver rule prevents me from option 1), but not option 2). I would not like my property stolen, if I forgot it (Do not do unto others what you do not like done unto yourself). But it has nothing to say about option 2), which is just not to do anything, remain passive, and not get involved.

Apparently this is where we disagree. If you are going to follow what you are calling the silver rule, then you have no choice but to choose option 3. Assuming of course that you would would want someone to turn your forgotten belongings into the proper authorities so that they can be returned to you.

In other words, "Do not do unto others what you do not like done unto yourself".

Would you like for others to ignore the fact that they have recognized that you have left your property behind and do nothing about it? If not, then you should not do unto others what you do not like done unto yourself.

So if you think the "silver rule" says that you don't need to return the purse to its rightful owner, then you are simply wrong.

You apparently aren't understanding the double-negative nature of the silver rule, which is actually no different at all from the golden rule. Therefore the silver rule is the golden rule. You just aren't recognizing it as such.

[2ndRateMind]

But now let me just comment on how the Golden Rule is highly subjective opinion. ...
So the Golden Rule only works if everyone wants the same things.

Moving on, anyway.

So, I'll agree with this, somewhat. Where I disagree is that some human needs are basic and common. Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Physiological and safety needs seem quite objective; we all need uncontaminated food, clean water, fresh air, and so on, simply by virtue of our biology. Precisely how we fulfill our needs for social belonging, esteem, self-actualisation and self-transcendence are more dependent on the individual.

But it seems to me quite in order for a heterosexual individual to recognise that loving someone of the same sex (to use your example) is quite as essential to homosexuals as loving someone of a different sex is to the heterosexual, 'north-paw' majority of the population. The difference is not in the need to love, just in the different ways different people express that need. Your example of an intolerant, reprimanding, shaming heterosexual doesn't seem to have cottoned on to that.

The Golden Rule works perfectly well if we recognise different people fulfill the same needs in different ways, and that the important consideration is the satisfaction of those needs, not the way they are satisfied.

Best wishes, 2RM.