Why do humans need ethics, anyway?

[2ndRateMind]

So, it's a deep question.

It's prompted by my continuing quest to unite the three or four philosophical approaches to ethics, they being rule, character, outcome and (possibly) situation.

I'd be interested in all your takes on this. On the face of it, each individual would be better off without any ethics at all, since they could then pursue their interests and ambitions without any let or hindrance from what they ought to do. On the other hand, if we were all that selfish, society might suffer.

Is ethics then, nothing more than the righteous balance of interests between the individual and society? And if it is, then who gets to decide what is righteous, and on what reasoning do they justify that decision?

Cheers, 2RM.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Ethics, the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule, provides the key for God's grace and entry to Heaven, state of mind or "another universe in a multiverse".

The seriousness of getting to Heaven can't be understated, I think, by representing a steady, moral mind that is also God's Temple without falling to the Cardinal Sins and the chains of Hell and the Devil / Mammon. In other words, keeping up the practice of morals by the ethics above is ensuring your sanity.

Your actions are not due to "the direction of the winds", but rather reliable, steady moral actions that are trustworthy by God and family members / other people alike.

Good?

[2ndRateMind]

So, it's a deep question.

It's not really deep at all.

Thank you, DI, for your insights. I have read your post in it's entirity, and appreciate the attitudes you have expressed. So, if I respond just to this extract, it is not that I am ignoring the rest of what you say, only that this needs clarification.

So, it's my contention that ethics, and the justification for ethics, really is a deep question. Many people would argue that ethics goes to the very root of what it means to be human, in that animals do not have ethics, and humans do.

So, we can take differing attitudes to the phenomena:

1) Deontology: ethics are the rules God has given us to live by, as far as we can ascertain them. Ethics are important to humans, because God will judge us according to them, according to how far we have obeyed, and disobeyed, His rules.

2) Utilitarianism: ethics are valid insofar as, and insofar as they do not, contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

3) Virtue Ethics: ethics are important in that they contribute to the development of the character of the individual, and that for an individual to properly flourish, (s)he must be ethical.

4) Situation ethics: ethics are grounded in the love of the individual for others, and though the ethical calculus varies from individual to individual, and situation to situation, love is in itself is never wrong.

Given these varied approaches to ethics, all of which touch on the human condition, and all of which imply different approaches to the meaning of 'life, the universe, and everything'.

[2ndRateMind]

So, it's a deep question.

It's not really deep at all.

Thank you, DI, for your insights. I have read your post in it's entirity, and appreciate the attitudes you have expressed. So, if I respond just to this extract, it is not that I am ignoring the rest of what you say, only that this needs clarification on my part.

So, it's my contention that ethics, and the justification for ethics, really is a deep question. Many people would argue that ethics goes to the very root of what it means to be human, in that animals do not have ethics, and humans do.

So, we can take differing attitudes to the phenomenon:

1) Deontology: ethics are the rules God has given us to live by, as far as we can ascertain them. Ethics are important to humans, because God will judge us according to them, according to how far we have obeyed, and disobeyed, His rules.

2) Utilitarianism: ethics are valid insofar as, and invalid insofar as they do not, contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

3) Virtue Ethics: ethics are important in that they contribute to the development of the character of the individual, and that for an individual to properly flourish, (s)he must be ethical.

4) Situation Ethics: ethics are grounded in the love of the individual for others, but depend in specific instances on the exact situation. But though the ethical calculus may vary from individual to individual, and situation to situation, love is in itself is never wrong.

Given these varied approaches to ethics, all of which touch on the human condition, and all of which imply different approaches to the meaning of 'life, the universe, and everything', and not inconsiderable consequence for society as to which program prevails, I hope you would agree with me that meta-ethics is indeed a deep issue, and that to approach it superficially inevitably renders shallow sentiments.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Hard times in 2018 might not be a thing in a western country.

I wont butt heads on this one - the truth as mentioned is too individually painful. Im not here to expose people. Much.

[William]

So, it's a deep question.

It's prompted by my continuing quest to unite the three or four philosophical approaches to ethics, they being rule, character, outcome and (possibly) situation.

I'd be interested in all your takes on this. On the face of it, each individual would be better off without any ethics at all, since they could then pursue their interests and ambitions without any let or hindrance from what they ought to do. On the other hand, if we were all that selfish, society might suffer.

Is ethics then, nothing more than the righteous balance of interests between the individual and society? And if it is, then who gets to decide what is righteous, and on what reasoning do they justify that decision?

Cheers, 2RM.

Humans are like herd animals in general. What amounts to ethics relates to what is good for the herd rather than the individual, and in that some ethics are questionable and in that are potentially able to be tweaked accordingly.

We have ethics to do with materialism but these are proving to leave out important things like conservation and sustainability. Without tweaking these, eventually the herd will likely perish.

Also - for example - ethics are conditional to how societies choose to function. If a society had no values regarding ownership and functioned upon principles which regarded sharing all things equally for the good of everyone, stealing would be an unknown concept and would not be unethical for that. Stealing (as a concept) is therefore a product of a particular manner in which a society fixated on ideas of ownership have helped to create and in that, it is considered by such a society to being unethical.