Is there such a thing as Objective ethics? I was reading some of the threads on the "ethics of hacking" and "hackers' ethics", and I came to the conclusion: is there really such a thing as objective ethics?
Printable View
Is there such a thing as Objective ethics? I was reading some of the threads on the "ethics of hacking" and "hackers' ethics", and I came to the conclusion: is there really such a thing as objective ethics?
Hi Draxx,
By " objective " do you mean...
1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: as an objective critic?
or...
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: as an objective appraisal?
1a. No...but you can defer your emotions and personal prejudices to that which is based upon common sense...for instance: you may ethically disagree with animal testing for medical research...yet accept that without a plausable alternative it may be necessary for the common good.
2a. Yes...you can prove certain aspects of ethics and it's applications.
Eg
Ok, that's not a conclusion, that's a question.Quote:
Originally posted here by Draxx
...and I came to the conclusion: is there really such a thing as objective ethics?
Conclusion
- decision: a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration
first definition listed
Question
- a sentence of inquiry that asks for a reply
third definition listed
So really, you didn't come to a conclusion, you are asking for consideration of the point "is there such a thing as Objective Ethics".
-----
By the way, the answer is No.
Objective
- undistorted by emotion or personal bias
Third definition bullet
Ethics
- A system of moral principles, rules or standards that govern the conduct of members of a group. Ethical codes of conduct approach human behavior from a philosophical standpoint by stressing objectively defined, but essentially idealistic, standards (or laws) of right and wrong, good/evil, and virtue/vice such as those applicable to the practices of lawyers and doctors.
-----
Ethics are subjective to the environment, professional, community, or society to which they are referred.
To take a popular example from recent history, in some extreme militant religious faiths, suicide is considered acceptable and even appropriate, if it is done in a manner to kill multiple others of opposing faiths or 'enemies' of your community...suicide bombers. This is by no means considered ethical or acceptable in most modern societies. So whose ethics are "right" and whose are "wrong". It's subjective, not objective.
Hi zencoder,
The only thing I would argue about this is that right and wrong are not arguable; yes, they are subject to the revisions and interpretations of cultures, enviroments, personal opinions, etc...but in and of itself there can be no argument...unless you take the stand that ethics do not really exist apart from man's creation and interpretation of his creation...which would mean the only reason it would not be OK to kill someone is because they told me not to...and would have no more consequence than jaywalking if one could do it and excape the penalty imposed by man...as nature/god/add name here would then be amoral.Quote:
Ethics are subjective to the environment, professional, community, or society to which they are referred.
Eg ;)
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/k...V1&byte=220736Quote:
And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
About as objective as you can get.
:cool:
A conclusion can be a question, what I concluded incidentally was a question.Quote:
So really, you didn't come to a conclusion, you are asking for consideration of the point "is there such a thing as Objective Ethics".
Yet is killing just? And it says: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his man-slave or maid-slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." So slavery is ethical?Quote:
[The Ten Commandments] About as objective as you can get.
But wouldn't that justify murder?"Quote:
It's [morality is] subjective, not objective.
An "objective" system of ethics is a system where right and wrong are
not a matter of personal opinion. The determination of whether something
is ethical or not would be made by comparing the matter in question to some
known, published set of laws. Those laws are "objective" since they are not
a matter of opinion, but are "engraved in stone". They exist outside of my own
mind.
Something is subjective when it is internal to me, existing and deriving meaning
from me. Something is objective when it exists outside of me, and does not depend on
me.
If I have a set of ethical standards that are subjective, they are my own standards
derived from my own esthetic tastes. Perhaps killing is bad because it nauseates
me and the thought of it is disgusting. Perhaps killing is bad because I don't want
someone to kill me.
If I have an objective ethical standard, it is because, I have accepted a standard
that existed before I even came along. Killing, in this system, is bad because the
creator said so. Whether I agree or not, the law says so. If I want to kill, in
violation of that law, it is wrong.
:cool:
Hmmmmmmmmmm,
I do not believe that there are objective ethics in that ethics are group standards. In the case of an individual that is more morality. Both are subjective by their very nature.
I believe that you can have objective professional standards.
A rather crude example would be the expression "honour amongst thieves"?
:)
And I call...Quote:
Originally posted here by Egaladeist
...right and wrong are not arguable; yes, they are subject to the revisions and interpretations of cultures, enviroments, personal opinions, etc...but in and of itself there can be no argument...
BULLSHIT ;) (it's a reference to a card game...I'm not calling your statement bullshit...)
There absolutely can and is an argument. Any time two nations take up arms against each other there is an argument of 'right' and 'wrong'. Why else do nations make war? Because it's fun?!?
Right and Wrong are completely and totally Subjective, INTERNAL, as rcgreen succinctly put it (nice job, btw). Right and Wrong ARE ONLY balancable within ones own conscience. End of argument.
Now, how you allow the beliefs, mores, and laws of your or other societies impact your own internal belief system...that's another conversation. But for the sane mentally capable adult human, there can be NO external definition of Right and Wrong without an internal moral compass, pointed in whichever direction (s)he has grown to recognize. Just because someones 'moral compass' doesn't point to the same 'North' that yours does, they are not automatically "Wrong Per Se". And THAT is the point of my argument. There is no natural, cosmic, incalculable RIGHT and WRONG. They are states of accepted behavior based on the underlying genetic compulsion to preserve the species. How different clans have modeled and incorporated that compulsion into their rituals and viewpoint is vastly different, and the source of many arguments, wars, and disagreements in human history.
rcgreen again, nicely put...thanks for clarifying the internal/external point. It was in my thought process, but didn't come out properly (or at all.)
Draxx who would the murder be justified FOR? The killer? Perhaps. The victim? Almost certainly not. The society that observes the act, and takes judicial action? That depends... Justification is an extension of ethics and morales.
And I'll give you the point that a conclusion can be a question...but the way it was phrased, that didn't seem to be the intent.
Where the heck is CopyRight/MemorY? He's the resident cross-forum Ethical Philosopher...
I am glad that we have come to the conclusion that objective ethics are a myt
A new question: is it possible to argue an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system?
Hmmmmm. That'll take some thought.
Off the cuff I would say no, it's not possible, because there is no constant to compare it to.
It's the old joke of 'what color is the sky in YOUR reality?'
For additional input, go watch the scene in The Matrix where Mouse discusses the possibility that the machines digital representation of the flavor of Tasty Wheat could be incorrect.
If you're going to depend on MemorY for ethics... :s
Gah, it's not that difficult...
- To some, ethics (or rather: morals) are "written in stone": they have been written out previously, and those are the "laws" we follow.
- To some, ethics are "placed into us": we're not born with them, but if we kneel down enough and facing the right direction, they'll be placed into us.
- To some, ethics are programmed into us: we have to follow them. And those who don't are just retarded.
- To some, ethics are The Law: it says so in Article 4.71 of Law Book number 5766, and the people who wrote those laws were smart, so that's what we believe in.
I could write 7 thousand more of those variations, but in the end it all comes down to these three:
- God
- Yourself
- Others
Make your choice.
*Personal opinion* To some, ethics may be objective - that's retarded. There are so many fine lines... even (your) god would get confoozled.
I don't need anyone to tell me what is right or wrong (answer from the christians: "of course not! God planted that in your soul!") - I have my own definition of right and wrong, and I try to live by it. If I don't, I'll have to come clear with myself and my conscious.
In other words: it's just as objective or subjective as yourself. There's no right answer... there's no answer at all.
Possibly, hard to think of anything stunningly intellectual at this point, but I would have thought that environmental variables and chance could fall into that category?Quote:
A new question: is it possible to argue an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system?
Errrrrrrrrrrr, "p1$$ me off and I will nuke your a$$" comes to mind..............totally objective and undeniable :p :D
What's the matter with you?...Quote:
A new question: is it possible to argue an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system?
What if I tell you that in my world, 1 does not equal 1? Are we going to argue? If you would be in my world, you wouldn't. If you're not, you would. It's that hard... gah.
It's quite simple zencoder...if laws/ethics/morals/conscience thought do not exist outside of man...then if I kill you neither god/nature/or anything else will condemn me for that action if I simply avoid getting caught by man.
To even suppose that you are right is to negate the very concept of justice...as long as you can escape the laws of man...you can do anything you want without consequence. Go ahead....go into an alley and slice someone up tonight...it's Ok...you won't get caught...just pick the first person you see.
You could blow up a school of children, rape a thousand women, murder a million people...as long as you don't get caught...nature is amoral, justice does not exist, and death will absolve you!
I'm glad it's not that way...really...for both our sakes...yours and mine.
Eg ;)
EDIT: The planet, the universe, and everything in and of it are tools, which we use, modify, etc...for our benefit...we do the same with our conscience, our emotions, etc...we are by our nature users and manipulators...we modify our life, our comfort, our surroundings, and our morality to suit our purposes...this, however, does not mean what we change affects how things really are or that any of these changes/modifications mean anything substantial to the whole...they only affect us in the here and now.
Anyone who has read my posts knows my concept of god and justice are very different than the norm...to me justice/morality/etc...exists much like the principles of cause and effect ...if you do this then that is going to happen...and you cannot escape it any more than you can any natural law...there are natural consequences to our actions that are not dependant upon or subject to the laws of man.
If nature/god is amoral...and morality/ethics are nothing more than a construct of man...with no penalties occuring apart from man...that it all is subjective...then, it has no more value than I like peanut butter and you don't...it's a sham...why are we imposing our morals on other nations...why do we even care...their society let's them do this or that...let them...it's OK...we are products of our society's morals and so are they...if they want to kill their people...let them...that's what their morality is...they are doing nothing wrong...because the concept of what is wrong does not exist apart from the society that created it...our morality would not apply to them and their society.
Like I said...I'm glad it's not that way...really...for both our sakes...yours and mine.
There are natural consequences to our actions...that are not dependant upon man or his opinions...and it's really quite simple, but this is neither the time or the place to discuss, in detail, issues that would fall upon deaf ears.
I can't imagine how. This is why governments are finding it harder toQuote:
is it possible to argue an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system?
stay in power without resort to force. They want a "flexible" system of ethics
for their own policies(pragmatism), but insist that ordinary citizens must
respect the law as if it were sacred.
University professors want to teach that there is no real definition of right
and wrong, but would be indignant if one of those students put that
philosophy into practice and robbed the professor.
Exactly. And it just may be that one of those systems is metaphysically trueQuote:
in the end it all comes down to these three:
- God
- Yourself
- Others
Make your choice.
while the others are truly wrong and immoral. So long as there exists the
possibility of an objective system of ethics, there is always the possibility
that my actions may come under the scrutiny of someone more powerful than I am.
And if that person happens to own that system, then, in spite of all my
protests, I am SOL.
:cool:
Eg, I like your sentiment, but I think it is naive. Perhaps you've lead a sheltered life? I'm not trying to be condescending or rude, just honest.
There is nothing 'just' about a single mother (whose husband left because he was mentally unbalanced and abusive) contracting an incurable and debilitating disease, leaving the child in her teen years to care for her remaining parent as she herself should have been cared for.
There is nothing 'moral, just, or humane' about a massive tectonic shift causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, orphaning millions of spouses, children, and family members from their loved ones.
These are both occurences in nature. I could go on, but I won't. I'm sorry, but your perspective is naive and filtered through the beliefs that were instilled in you (through parents, society, your throwing off the beliefs of both the previous, or whatever). That's not a BAD thing...it's a true and human thing. The same goes for me, and everyone else. The difference is whether you can wrap your brain around the concept. It is not right for me to slice someone up in an alley, as you (hypothecitcally) suggest, because I think it is wrong, and so does most of society. For some people, the only thing making it not right is the fear of incarceration or capital punishment. Don't believe me? Spend a few years wearing a police uniform; your perspective will change.
But nature is not just. Justice is a human ideal, based upon intellectual and emotional thoughts, morals and values, which are all the long learned lessons of 'survival of the fittest' in it's many variations. There is no justice in a volcano wiping out an entire civilization, and there is no justice a nutcase drowning her own children, and I doubt ANYONE will agree with you.
If the big strong bully caveman kills the small, smarter, weaker caveman to take his food because big caveman is hungry and tired and can't kill his dinner, but small caveman is smart and builds a trap and catches dinner, is he unjust? In our society he is. In his, it's a matter of "them's the brakes".
I agree with Negative 100%^3
Yourself
God
Others
How you take those three sets of beliefs (internally believed or externally imposed) and live them is up to each individual.
Hi zencoder,
You can consider me naive if you will...you can even state that no one will agree with me and that is fine too...my purpose is not to convert the masses to my way of thinking...and I accepted a long time ago that most people simply don't care anyways.
Your disagreement is neither here nor there because no one can say with absolute certainty what anything is or is not...which is why Epictetus once said " It is impossible to get a person to understand that which he thinks he already knows, the first step to knowledge is, therefore, getting rid of thinking one knows what one does not. "
Here's an exercise for you on knowing...
There once was a man who held an apple in his hand and asked his pupil what it was...
the pupil said " It's an apple, Master. "
" Do you not know that a name is but a designation that we give objects for the purpose of communication and mutual consideration? Yes, we call this an apple...just as your mother called you Peter...but your mother could have called you John and you would be the same...neither Peter nor John...I ask you again, what is this object I hold in my hand? "
To make this rather long exercise short...we know how to use things, manipulate things, how they work, and to what we can apply them...but we really don't know what anything is...other than the false knowledge we retain from the designation of names. Just because you know that the object over there is called an apple and that you can eat it, and make a pie from it, doesn't mean you know anything substantial at all.
Eg ;)
Ahh, but I have a point, I am going to tie this in a little later.Quote:
What's the matter with you?...
What if I tell you that in my world, 1 does not equal 1? Are we going to argue? If you would be in my world, you wouldn't. If you're not, you would. It's that hard... gah.
Wouldn't that be: if ethics/etc. were outside of man, then there would be a force that would condemn me for killing? Whichever, why are laws included? Aren't laws merely an attempt to make ethics (which as we agreed are subjective) into an objective form?Quote:
It's quite simple zencoder...if laws/ethics/morals/conscience thought do not exist outside of man...then if I kill you neither god/nature/or anything else will condemn me for that action if I simply avoid getting caught by man.
So, it would not be possible to have an objective point in a non-objective reality. OK.Quote:
I can't imagine how. This is why governments are finding it harder to stay in power without resort to force. They want a "flexible" system of ethics for their own policies(pragmatism), but insist that ordinary citizens must respect the law as if it were sacred.
So, if it is not possible to hold an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system, and ethics/morals are a non-objective system, then how can we argue an undeniable moral point?
Draxx,
I think you misunderstood both zencoder's post and my reply.Quote:
Wouldn't that be: if ethics/etc. were outside of man, then there would be a force that would condemn me for killing? Whichever, why are laws included? Aren't laws merely an attempt to make ethics (which as we agreed are subjective) into an objective form?
But we haven't necessarily agreed that "ethics/morals are a non-objective system". I believe thatQuote:
So, if it is not possible to hold an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system, and ethics/morals are a non-objective system, then how can we argue an undeniable moral point?
it is a very objective system with dogmatic truths that cannot be overthrown, not by individuals,
nor by a majority, and not by the unanimous agreement of both. Since the almighty will have the last
laugh, he's the only one who can say what is really right or wrong. The rest of us
may have opinions, but our opinions could very well be in error.
:cool:
So regardless of our thoughts, God has the final word on ethics, eh. So how do we know what is ethical or not? Do we follow the Bible? Or is it inherent within us although it originated from Him? How do we know ethics?Quote:
But we haven't necessarily agreed that "ethics/morals are a non-objective system". I believe that it is a very objective system with dogmatic truths that cannot be overthrown, not by individuals, nor by a majority, and not by the unanimous agreement of both. Since the almighty will have the last laugh, he's the only one who can say what is really right or wrong. The rest of us
may have opinions, but our opinions could very well be in error.
So what is good?...since murder, rape, etc. is self-evidently wrong. Doesn't this mean war is wrong? Which raises the question if murder is wrong, and a murderer is about to be murdered, is it good?Quote:
You could blow up a school of children, rape a thousand women, murder a million people...as long as you don't get caught...nature is amoral, justice does not exist, and death will absolve you!
Ha! No, when I last posted I hadn't slept in a while, which probably explains why it appears as a series of assertions.Quote:
I think you misunderstood both zencoder's post and my reply.
Your looking for absolutes and it doesn't work that way...sometimes it's good to kill and sometimes it's wrong...if you read my other posts you would know where I stand on this.
To be slightly more specific...an action cannot be either moral nor immoral in and of itself...it is basically the difference between a selfless act and a self-serving act...if I kill you out of malice or greed that would be wrong...however if I kill you to save you from a more horrible fate ( everlasting ignorance, for example :D ) that would not be wrong.
But if something were independent of human perception, wouldn't that make it absolute by definition?Quote:
Your looking for absolutes and it doesn't work that way
So it is the intent rather than either the action or the outcome that determines the morality of a situation?Quote:
To be slightly more specific...an action cannot be either moral nor immoral in and of itself...it is basically the difference between a selfless act and a self-serving act
If I aim to shoot a child out of evil, yet instead a bank robber is running in the path of the bullet and I inadvertantly stop him, is that good or evil? If I try top run over a good man in my car, but an evil man tackles him and allows the good man to flee, resulting in me running over the evil man, is that good or evil?
How do you decide whether someone will face a more horrible fate? What is the criteria for this? Everlasting ignorance may be bad, but shirking from intellectual responsibility is no better.Quote:
if I kill you out of malice or greed that would be wrong...however if I kill you to save you from a more horrible fate ( everlasting ignorance, for example ) that would not be wrong.
Again, it's not the action...therefore, your " intent " would be the same...regardless of the outcome.Quote:
If I aim to shoot a child out of evil, yet instead a bank robber is running in the path of the bullet and I inadvertantly stop him, is that good or evil? If I try top run over a good man in my car, but an evil man tackles him and allows the good man to flee, resulting in me running over the evil man, is that good or evil?
Yes and no.Quote:
So it is the intent rather than either the action or the outcome that determines the morality of a situation?
My comment on ignorance should have been obvious as a joke...if you had read my other posts you would know that I've already made my point on this as much as I want to...that, it is again, intent ( persay ) ...if we are on a battlefield and you are seriously/critically wounded and moments before I witnessed our only medic go down and there is no way I personally could save you, and to prevent your continued suffering I were to kill you rather than leave you there to bleed out and to die alone...I would think that this would qualify.Quote:
How do you decide whether someone will face a more horrible fate? What is the criteria for this? Everlasting ignorance may be bad, but shirking from intellectual responsibility is no better.
Draxx, I have absolutely no desire to get too involved with my philosophical veiws...there is, obviously, alot I leave out and will never discuss in an open forum...suffice it to say that there is no way that you can understand what I believe or why I believe it based upon the little information I am willing to provide.
Philosophy/theology is like any course of study...the only difference is that with philosophy/theology most people assume they can simply form opinions without having to study...they form opinions that are generated by the influences around them...and not upon any actual knowledge...if you really want to form your opinions based upon a foundation of knowledge...I would suggest that you begin by studying the seven major religious texts, as well as the writings of their historians ( eg. Josephus )...then study the writings of the philosophers...then, when you're done that...study the related texts and historical documents of the period around the authors...and then you can focus on the histories of the religions and philosophies themselves ( eg. the Convention of Bishops in 300AD to form the present day bible )...and when you're done that, study other semi-related material to the periods previously studied ( eg. Caesars' own diaries )...then come back and ask your questions...and I will give you course number two.
Until you have established a working background of study...the best you can offer is an opinion based upon a foundation of ignorance , with no more validity than my advice/opinions on computer forensics, as an example.
Philosophy is much more than science and ethics...it is the study of human thought and behaviour...more particularly your own thought processes and behaviour and why...as the old axiom goes..." Know Thyself! "
All right, so the intent is what matters rather than the outcome of it. But that makes all of my examples with good outcomes be immoral, wouldn't it?
Yes, I know. I'm using it as an example, ironically enough.Quote:
My comment on ignorance should have been obvious as a joke
But morality is a lot like advice, you judge it based off of the outcome rather than its intent. For example, Don Quixote intended to slay giants, instead he tilted the windmills. The former would be noble, the latter is madness. So how should we look at DQ, as a saint or a screwball?Quote:
that, it [morality] is again [based on], intent ( persay )
Meh, I would have said the difference would be that everyone is simultaneously right and wrong, whereas other fields its "either/or".Quote:
Philosophy/theology is like any course of study...the only difference is that with philosophy/theology most people assume they can simply form opinions without having to study
But you are assuming that I haven't studied, which is a pretty big leap. I have studied a few philosophers myself, and find this suggestion mildly amusing (no offense).Quote:
the best you can offer is an opinion based upon a foundation of ignorance , with no more validity than my advice/opinions on computer forensics, as an example.
Draxx,
No leap at all...as I was making a general statement not directly to you.Quote:
But you are assuming that I haven't studied, which is a pretty big leap. I have studied a few philosophers myself, and find this suggestion mildly amusing (no offense).
The statement you are replying to was a comment that was made to reflect that in any other field of study we expect the person to be trained in that field...however, everyone fancies themselves an expert in philosophy simply through the act of living.Quote:
Meh, I would have said the difference would be that everyone is simultaneously right and wrong, whereas other fields its "either/or".
As for the rest...I've already stated that it would be a waste of time to fully explain what I am saying and why I believe it to be so...it is impossible for you to understand what I believe and why I believe it without looking at all of it in the context and manner it is intended. You cannot see the real relationship in the pieces if you cannot see it in the context of the whole.
And I have already answered your question, so there is no need to further deviate from the original post.