|
FreeUrThoughts
Mindful Mantis
Registered: 03/14/07
Posts: 32
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Of Ethics
#6729803 - 03/30/07 10:07 PM (17 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Please bare with me. I really just wanted to post something and this is the first to come to mind.
I took an ethics class at one point in my life, and while I didn't fully agree nor accept the concepts presented in the classroom they did reshape my view and understanding of why we as humans do what we do, and why we are unable to understand one-another on the most basic levels.
Utilitarianism (I know, big word, I'm sorry ) is about finding a compromise the brings the greatest happiness for all. Not just humans, much less a specific interest group, but to all, including nature. This falls short when confronted with a situation where the greatest happiness would only be brought about with deception and lies. If one mans conviction, even when he is rightfully guilty, would cost the lives of innocents in ensuing riots, utilitarianism would suggest that the most ethical decision would be to not convict a guilty felon.
To counter-act this flaw there is another theory of ethics brought about by a man named Clark. The Clark theory is a pair of ideas: Duty and the Golden Rule. When it is your duty to uphold the law, the only thing that would be ethical would be to uphold the law. As with the golden rule, the best example I was given was in an argument against pornography: The girl in the film happens to be someones daughter... what if it was your daughter? Would you really want your daughter in a porno?
The flaw here is that (excuse me for using these words) this theory takes away the concept of autonomy. What if it was your daughter? Well, it's not. If I had a daughter, yes I would be quite taken-aback by the idea of her in a porno. However, if I had a daughter, I will also recognize that she is an individual being with a right to make her own decisions with or without my consent. By taking control of her life I am taking away her right to make autonomous decisions. If I were to have a daughter, I would not BE my daughter.
In conclusion, my own theory on the subject would be this: What can be decided as unethical or ethical is based upon whether or not a body is committing a malicious and/or devious act. Any malicious and/or devious act is unethical, the most malicious and/or devious act would be to unjustifiably restrict or take away someones right to an autonomous life.
I would like to see others ideas on ethics or, better yet, debate my own theory.
BB, Free Ur Thoughts
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
|
Well, the problem I see is how you define "malicious" and "devious". Different people define them differently.
An ultra-conservative Bible thumper who thinks abortion is the murder of a baby doesn't think that shooting an abortion doctor is malicious or devious. I think it is.
And you're back to square one: there is no absolute right and wrong. There is only absolute right and wrong FOR ME. Your mileage may vary.
Nice first post. Welcome to the Shroomery!
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
FreeUrThoughts
Mindful Mantis
Registered: 03/14/07
Posts: 32
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Of Ethics [Re: Diploid]
#6729869 - 03/30/07 10:28 PM (17 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: Well, the problem I see is how you define "malicious" and "devious". Different people define them differently.
Ahh, that is a good point. Thank you.
Quote:
Diploid said:An ultra-conservative Bible thumper who thinks abortion is the murder of a baby doesn't think that shooting an abortion doctor is malicious or devious. I think it is.
What is malicious? What is devious? I chose those words specifically because these words do have very clear and concise definitions. Despite this, they are open-ended enough to allow for many variations on what is or isn't considered malicious or devious, and this is necessary, because as you said...
Quote:
Diploid said:And you're back to square one: there is no absolute right and wrong. There is only absolute right and wrong FOR ME. Your mileage may vary.
If the world were truly black and white, then there would be no choice and hence a lack or restriction of autonomy. Which does beg the question: Is the search for the understanding of ethics truly the search for finding absolution?
Quote:
Diploid said:Nice first post. Welcome to the Shroomery!
Thank you very much
BB Free Ur Thoughts
Edited by FreeUrThoughts (03/30/07 10:29 PM)
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
|
"The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one." Bentham and Mill, look out!
Compassion-based morality and ethics appeals to my higher nature over utilitarian doctrines, alas, morality is just not gonna become codified ethics of a society or a body politic. It will have to remain the possession of the few individuals who are given the capacity to embody Compassion to the extent that it governs the natural appetites. Not only do I agree with the common-sense of Ken Kesey when he observed that 'there are always more dumb people in a given situation than smart ones,' but I agree with all traditions that harken back to the age of Plato and Siddhartha, that there are relatively few Enlightened beings walking around at any one time, and none of those philosophers are found in positions of world leadership (which is all about power, not Light, and power always corrupts).
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
|