At any given moment within a given culture there are some aspects of behaviour which are considered ethical and some which aren't.
My puzzle is this. Looking back, do we regard previous cultures, when they acted differently to what we see as acceptable behaviour, as wrong? Are acceptable ethics specific to a particular time or are there any aspects of behaviour which are inevitably essential for a culture to be considered ethical?
What distinguishes those essential aspects, how do we recognize them? How can we be certain that they're fixed for all time? Or is every attempt at defining an enthical culture going to be transient, with future cultures refusing to recognize our values as acceptable?
Ethics across time, take 2
Ethics across time, take 2
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time, take 2
Where did take 1 go??? :-3
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
Ethics across time, take 2
CARLA;1079842 wrote: Where did take 1 go??? :-3
Off topic into a discussion of the evils of slavery, crime and the death penalty. I thought I'd have a second shot at ethics, whether permanently fixed or transient and how to evaluate or compare.
Off topic into a discussion of the evils of slavery, crime and the death penalty. I thought I'd have a second shot at ethics, whether permanently fixed or transient and how to evaluate or compare.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time, take 2
I actually did make some comments in the first thread which, in my opinion, were on subject (as these aren't). But pretty much like everything I say in FG, they were invisible. Of course, this in itself isn't important. Why does one post in FG anyway? In serious threads Why do you post Spot? To educate others? To confuse others? To rip wings off a few insects and watch them run in circles? I think for me, sometimes it's just because something boils up in me and I have to say it for my own sense of ethics in this time, if you like. Seeing some of the god-awful views expressed in FG and walking by, confers some kind of complicity. I try not to visit such threads, but they beckon - like a car accident. Maybe it's just because I like the sound of my own typing. When talking to oneself one knows one has at least a listener of like mind. :sneaky:
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Ethics across time, take 2
AussiePam;1079855 wrote: I actually did make some comments in the first thread which, in my opinion, were on subject (as these aren't). But pretty much like everything I say in FG, they were invisible. Of course, this in itself isn't important. Why does one post in FG anyway? In serious threads Why do you post Spot? To educate others? To confuse others? To rip wings off a few insects and watch them run in circles? I think for me, sometimes it's just because something boils up in me and I have to say it for my own integrity, if you like. Seeing some of the god-awful views expressed in FG and walking by, confers some kind of complicity. I try not to visit such threads, but they beckon - like a car accident. Maybe it's just because I like the sound of my own typing. When talking to oneself one knows one has at least a listener of like mind. :sneaky:
Hmmm. I know there's someone here - just can't see them. How perplexing.
:sneaky:
:wah:
Hmmm. I know there's someone here - just can't see them. How perplexing.
:sneaky:
:wah:
Ethics across time, take 2
What is integrity? What is ethics? What is conscience, if it exists? Are right and wrong absolute or relative? And if so, why? What is the meaning of meaning? Discuss.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Ethics across time, take 2
AussiePam;1079875 wrote: What is integrity? What is ethics? What is conscience, if it exists? Are right and wrong absolute or relative? And if so, why? What is the meaning of meaning? Discuss.
There it is again. Definitely saw a flicker this time.
:sneaky:
There it is again. Definitely saw a flicker this time.
:sneaky:
Ethics across time, take 2
I'm fine with being invisible, Open Mind. It's a reminder why, normally, I stay upbeat and flip and don't go near threads purporting to be "serious". On that note - I shall take my views on ethics-across-time with me to my sister's Christmas barbie where very possibly, after a few glasses of champers, we will refaire le monde. Bonne journée!
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Ethics across time, take 2
AussiePam;1079889 wrote: I'm fine with being invisible, Open Mind. It's a reminder why, normally, I stay upbeat and flip and don't go near threads purporting to be "serious". On that note - I shall take my views on ethics-across-time with me to my sister's Christmas barbie where very possibly, after a few glasses of champers, we will refaire le monde. Bonne journée!
You're a good sport, Pam. Have a sup for me and enjoy fixing the world's ails.
You're a good sport, Pam. Have a sup for me and enjoy fixing the world's ails.
Ethics across time, take 2
AussiePam;1079855 wrote: I actually did make some comments in the first thread which, in my opinion, were on subject (as these aren't). But pretty much like everything I say in FG, they were invisible. Of course, this in itself isn't important. Why does one post in FG anyway? In serious threads Why do you post Spot? To educate others? To confuse others? To rip wings off a few insects and watch them run in circles? I think for me, sometimes it's just because something boils up in me and I have to say it for my own sense of ethics in this time, if you like. Seeing some of the god-awful views expressed in FG and walking by, confers some kind of complicity. I try not to visit such threads, but they beckon - like a car accident. Maybe it's just because I like the sound of my own typing. When talking to oneself one knows one has at least a listener of like mind. :sneaky:
I tend to think of right and wrong and conscience as elements of personal morality. What a culture regards as acceptable or antisocial are distinct. Jimbo's got a good example in the treatment of animals. There's no obvious answer in right or wrong or moral terms where, say, the line on experimentation on animals gets drawn. Does society allow a million chimps to be killed a year to advance fundamental research? A million rats? A million worms? A million fruitflies? They're ethics, they're not conscience or right or wrong.
I post to learn, Pam. I always have. I've learned more here than in lots of other environments, it's been an education.
I tend to think of right and wrong and conscience as elements of personal morality. What a culture regards as acceptable or antisocial are distinct. Jimbo's got a good example in the treatment of animals. There's no obvious answer in right or wrong or moral terms where, say, the line on experimentation on animals gets drawn. Does society allow a million chimps to be killed a year to advance fundamental research? A million rats? A million worms? A million fruitflies? They're ethics, they're not conscience or right or wrong.
I post to learn, Pam. I always have. I've learned more here than in lots of other environments, it's been an education.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time, take 2
spot;1079905 wrote: I tend to think of right and wrong and conscience as elements of personal morality. What a culture regards as acceptable or antisocial are distinct. Jimbo's got a good example in the treatment of animals. There's no obvious answer in right or wrong or moral terms where, say, the line on experimentation on animals gets drawn. Does society allow a million chimps to be killed a year to advance fundamental research? A million rats? A million worms? A million fruitflies? They're ethics, they're not conscience or right or wrong.
I post to learn, Pam. I always have. I've learned more here than in lots of other environments, it's been an education.
You speak of society (does society allow...? etc) as if it has a separate existence from the people who in fact comprise it. If right and wrong and conscience are elements of personal morality (whatever that is) - society should reflect some accepted compromise of this collective personal morality. And you would even have to limit this to the collective personal morality of those in the society with the power to legislate, persuade, enforce the views born of their personal morality or lack of it. Which brings me back to my comments in the original thread.
"In other words, is right and wrong absolute, or relative?
And what do we mean by right and wrong anyway? Right and wrong as decided by whom? By human interpretation of the Divine Will, if we admit such exists? By the philosophical discourses of humans who enjoy this kind of rhetoric? By the inner feelings / conscience / whatever of some people who believe they have one as opposed to being conditioned to do good stuff for approval/ woofly nice feelings / being loved etc etc??
In my opinion, people seem to do what they can for their own benefit, at any time... within the parameters of what they can get away with. Social laws are compromises made to make it possible for a bunch of humans like this (like us) to live in a community. We give up a few of our natural instincts for exploiting/murdering/raping/robbing each other in order that we in turn won't be exploited/murdered/raped/robbed.
Maybe some people are born kinder than others. I know some people I consider 'good', but just looking at our world... there are an awful lot who are frighteningly awful."
I post to learn, Pam. I always have. I've learned more here than in lots of other environments, it's been an education.
You speak of society (does society allow...? etc) as if it has a separate existence from the people who in fact comprise it. If right and wrong and conscience are elements of personal morality (whatever that is) - society should reflect some accepted compromise of this collective personal morality. And you would even have to limit this to the collective personal morality of those in the society with the power to legislate, persuade, enforce the views born of their personal morality or lack of it. Which brings me back to my comments in the original thread.
"In other words, is right and wrong absolute, or relative?
And what do we mean by right and wrong anyway? Right and wrong as decided by whom? By human interpretation of the Divine Will, if we admit such exists? By the philosophical discourses of humans who enjoy this kind of rhetoric? By the inner feelings / conscience / whatever of some people who believe they have one as opposed to being conditioned to do good stuff for approval/ woofly nice feelings / being loved etc etc??
In my opinion, people seem to do what they can for their own benefit, at any time... within the parameters of what they can get away with. Social laws are compromises made to make it possible for a bunch of humans like this (like us) to live in a community. We give up a few of our natural instincts for exploiting/murdering/raping/robbing each other in order that we in turn won't be exploited/murdered/raped/robbed.
Maybe some people are born kinder than others. I know some people I consider 'good', but just looking at our world... there are an awful lot who are frighteningly awful."
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Ethics across time, take 2
It's none the less a collective frame of mind however it's formed, and it's independent of law though it obviously overlaps. It may well be established by people of influence, as you suggest. It exists, it changes over time.
Is there a way of comparing two ethical frameworks and deciding which is better than the other? Is there an absolute principle which can distinguish better ethics from worse ethics? In the first try at this there were people saying slavery was invariably unethical, for example. On what basis can anyone make that statement?
Is there a way of comparing two ethical frameworks and deciding which is better than the other? Is there an absolute principle which can distinguish better ethics from worse ethics? In the first try at this there were people saying slavery was invariably unethical, for example. On what basis can anyone make that statement?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Ethics across time, take 2
spot;1079944 wrote:
Is there a way of comparing two ethical frameworks and deciding which is better than the other? Is there an absolute principle which can distinguish better ethics from worse ethics?
You can compare two ethical frameworks in different ways. You can examine the historical aspect of them, compare and contrast. You really cannot decide which one is better than the other, because then you would be allowing your own framework of ethics to interfere.
Is there a way of comparing two ethical frameworks and deciding which is better than the other? Is there an absolute principle which can distinguish better ethics from worse ethics?
You can compare two ethical frameworks in different ways. You can examine the historical aspect of them, compare and contrast. You really cannot decide which one is better than the other, because then you would be allowing your own framework of ethics to interfere.
Ethics across time, take 2
chonsigirl;1080013 wrote: You can compare two ethical frameworks in different ways. You can examine the historical aspect of them, compare and contrast. You really cannot decide which one is better than the other, because then you would be allowing your own framework of ethics to interfere.
So you feel there's no way of judging any ethical system? It just exists?
So you feel there's no way of judging any ethical system? It just exists?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Ethics across time, take 2
I think it would be very difficult to judge another ethical system. You must have a preconception of what you are judging, and where did that come from? Is it from the same system, one that is distanced in time, or completely different?
Each group whether consciously or not, has some form of ethics/norms/values within it. Would someone from outside this group be able to render an unbiased assessment of its values? It is difficult to do, social scientists do research and write on these things, but it is hard to render a pure statement of fact after this-for example, they might study a certain practice among a group, study the facts, artifacts, primary sources for individual views, then draw a conclusion. The conclusion should not state whether the practice was right or wrong-just what it meant to the original group or what occured.
Each group whether consciously or not, has some form of ethics/norms/values within it. Would someone from outside this group be able to render an unbiased assessment of its values? It is difficult to do, social scientists do research and write on these things, but it is hard to render a pure statement of fact after this-for example, they might study a certain practice among a group, study the facts, artifacts, primary sources for individual views, then draw a conclusion. The conclusion should not state whether the practice was right or wrong-just what it meant to the original group or what occured.
Ethics across time, take 2
spot;1079944 wrote: It's none the less a collective frame of mind however it's formed, and it's independent of law though it obviously overlaps. It may well be established by people of influence, as you suggest. It exists, it changes over time.
Is there a way of comparing two ethical frameworks and deciding which is better than the other? Is there an absolute principle which can distinguish better ethics from worse ethics? In the first try at this there were people saying slavery was invariably unethical, for example. On what basis can anyone make that statement?
I keep coming back to my original problem.
If God exists as a Perfect=All Good God, then there is a benchmark for humans, even if our perception and enlightenment is through the old glass very darkly.
I have a problem with this.
I have an even bigger problem without it. Does Good exist? I think it does. And it's problematic. But I don't know why it exists. And I wonder why exactly it is that I think it does still exist.
So I really am not sure myself why it is bad for one human being to own another. Mistreating a fellow creature doesn't seem very nice, but not everyone was mistreated. Some of us own dogs. Mistreating them isn't nice either, but owning them is kind of neutral, at the moment. I don't like the fact my sisters are still owned by the males in a lot of countries. But when I did judge recently, the response was this was an internal cultural thing.. and might evolve when that society was ready. I find this unsatisfying, as I'm sure a lot of the women in question also do.
But maybe what I like and don't isn't important anyway.
I am thinking what you said too, Chonsi.. and will carry all of this with me to the barbecue.. which I still haven't go to. :-6
Is there a way of comparing two ethical frameworks and deciding which is better than the other? Is there an absolute principle which can distinguish better ethics from worse ethics? In the first try at this there were people saying slavery was invariably unethical, for example. On what basis can anyone make that statement?
I keep coming back to my original problem.
If God exists as a Perfect=All Good God, then there is a benchmark for humans, even if our perception and enlightenment is through the old glass very darkly.
I have a problem with this.
I have an even bigger problem without it. Does Good exist? I think it does. And it's problematic. But I don't know why it exists. And I wonder why exactly it is that I think it does still exist.
So I really am not sure myself why it is bad for one human being to own another. Mistreating a fellow creature doesn't seem very nice, but not everyone was mistreated. Some of us own dogs. Mistreating them isn't nice either, but owning them is kind of neutral, at the moment. I don't like the fact my sisters are still owned by the males in a lot of countries. But when I did judge recently, the response was this was an internal cultural thing.. and might evolve when that society was ready. I find this unsatisfying, as I'm sure a lot of the women in question also do.
But maybe what I like and don't isn't important anyway.
I am thinking what you said too, Chonsi.. and will carry all of this with me to the barbecue.. which I still haven't go to. :-6
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Ethics across time, take 2
fuzzy butt;1080032 wrote: where's number one ethical thread I hope you didn't delete it. I needed that thread!!!!!!!! Plus I put a post in it which I feel society wise did answer your question. God I sure hope you didn't delete it.
Athics of a culture is based on fear, and protection of the whole, personal moral ethics is based on experience, natural law of thought and self governance
Of course I didn't, it's at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/philo ... -time.html still.
The ethics of a culture needn't be associated with "protection of the whole", why would we have animal protection laws if that were the case? Why did we ban bear-baiting or male-hen-fighting or setting dogs on rats in betting contests other than out of altruistic ethical considerations? Where does fear figure in those choices?
Athics of a culture is based on fear, and protection of the whole, personal moral ethics is based on experience, natural law of thought and self governance
Of course I didn't, it's at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/philo ... -time.html still.
The ethics of a culture needn't be associated with "protection of the whole", why would we have animal protection laws if that were the case? Why did we ban bear-baiting or male-hen-fighting or setting dogs on rats in betting contests other than out of altruistic ethical considerations? Where does fear figure in those choices?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time, take 2
AussiePam;1080094 wrote: I keep coming back to my original problem.
If God exists as a Perfect=All Good God, then there is a benchmark for humans, even if our perception and enlightenment is through the old glass very darkly.
I have a problem with this.
I have an even bigger problem without it. Does Good exist? I think it does. And it's problematic. But I don't know why it exists. And I wonder why exactly it is that I think it does still exist.
So I really am not sure myself why it is bad for one human being to own another. Mistreating a fellow creature doesn't seem very nice, but not everyone was mistreated. Some of us own dogs. Mistreating them isn't nice either, but owning them is kind of neutral, at the moment. I don't like the fact my sisters are still owned by the males in a lot of countries. But when I did judge recently, the response was this was an internal cultural thing.. and might evolve when that society was ready. I find this unsatisfying, as I'm sure a lot of the women in question also do.
But maybe what I like and don't isn't important anyway.
I am thinking what you said too, Chonsi.. and will carry all of this with me to the barbecue.. which I still haven't go to. :-6
God and good are dictionary words. One person's divinity is another person's devil and neither are real. What we do is interpret our experiences and if we're in a culture which uses the word God then that's part of our experience. Millions of fundamentalist Christians are totally convinced that this God they worship has promised them that most of humanity will suffer agony for all eternity and they actually see that invention as both real and good. They can only possibly be deluded, no reality is as twisted as that. So yes, I agree with you, what's good and what's God is a matter of interpretation, there are no rules.
There can be ethical systems but they're constructed and evolved, not carved in stone by the most powerful tribal devil available or part of the nature of reality.
If God exists as a Perfect=All Good God, then there is a benchmark for humans, even if our perception and enlightenment is through the old glass very darkly.
I have a problem with this.
I have an even bigger problem without it. Does Good exist? I think it does. And it's problematic. But I don't know why it exists. And I wonder why exactly it is that I think it does still exist.
So I really am not sure myself why it is bad for one human being to own another. Mistreating a fellow creature doesn't seem very nice, but not everyone was mistreated. Some of us own dogs. Mistreating them isn't nice either, but owning them is kind of neutral, at the moment. I don't like the fact my sisters are still owned by the males in a lot of countries. But when I did judge recently, the response was this was an internal cultural thing.. and might evolve when that society was ready. I find this unsatisfying, as I'm sure a lot of the women in question also do.
But maybe what I like and don't isn't important anyway.
I am thinking what you said too, Chonsi.. and will carry all of this with me to the barbecue.. which I still haven't go to. :-6
God and good are dictionary words. One person's divinity is another person's devil and neither are real. What we do is interpret our experiences and if we're in a culture which uses the word God then that's part of our experience. Millions of fundamentalist Christians are totally convinced that this God they worship has promised them that most of humanity will suffer agony for all eternity and they actually see that invention as both real and good. They can only possibly be deluded, no reality is as twisted as that. So yes, I agree with you, what's good and what's God is a matter of interpretation, there are no rules.
There can be ethical systems but they're constructed and evolved, not carved in stone by the most powerful tribal devil available or part of the nature of reality.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time, take 2
fuzzy butt;1080113 wrote: ahhh fear of being likeminded to a society we condemn. If we look down on a society other than our own we have to pick and choose what we hold up morally our distaste. That's why we protect animals to show ourselves above those we think are below us ...........we call it civilised , moral and ethical when in reality it comes down to elitism .............just my opinion.
How can a culture be elitist?
I can develop an internally consistent set of ethics and defend the values it expresses. I can look at sets of ethics which have been lived by others and criticize or applaud different aspects of them. I can certainly look at other cultures, living and dead, and consider them better than my own. That's not elitist.
How can a culture be elitist?
I can develop an internally consistent set of ethics and defend the values it expresses. I can look at sets of ethics which have been lived by others and criticize or applaud different aspects of them. I can certainly look at other cultures, living and dead, and consider them better than my own. That's not elitist.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time, take 2
chonsigirl;1080027 wrote: I think it would be very difficult to judge another ethical system. You must have a preconception of what you are judging, and where did that come from? Is it from the same system, one that is distanced in time, or completely different?I can know another ethical system completely, I need no preconceptions or guesses. I can criticize it from various angles, none of them necessarily based on how my own culture acts.
Each group whether consciously or not, has some form of ethics/norms/values within it. Would someone from outside this group be able to render an unbiased assessment of its values? It is difficult to do, social scientists do research and write on these things, but it is hard to render a pure statement of fact after this-for example, they might study a certain practice among a group, study the facts, artifacts, primary sources for individual views, then draw a conclusion. The conclusion should not state whether the practice was right or wrong-just what it meant to the original group or what occured.
Then why do we so often criticize other cultures while excusing our own? We have no basis for claiming ours is higher on a scale of good. We both know we can name some cultures which approved acts we consider dreadful. What we have is a different mind-set, a different understanding of how things work. Mayans thought the continued existence of the universe depended on their feeding it with sacrifices, it was good to practice sacrifice. It was noble and costly and necessary. Once you stop doing it and the universe continues to exist you rather lose your respect for the ethics of the situation but until you know how things work you're stuck with a lot of hearts to cut out every morning, it's a chore but someone's got to do it.
Each group whether consciously or not, has some form of ethics/norms/values within it. Would someone from outside this group be able to render an unbiased assessment of its values? It is difficult to do, social scientists do research and write on these things, but it is hard to render a pure statement of fact after this-for example, they might study a certain practice among a group, study the facts, artifacts, primary sources for individual views, then draw a conclusion. The conclusion should not state whether the practice was right or wrong-just what it meant to the original group or what occured.
Then why do we so often criticize other cultures while excusing our own? We have no basis for claiming ours is higher on a scale of good. We both know we can name some cultures which approved acts we consider dreadful. What we have is a different mind-set, a different understanding of how things work. Mayans thought the continued existence of the universe depended on their feeding it with sacrifices, it was good to practice sacrifice. It was noble and costly and necessary. Once you stop doing it and the universe continues to exist you rather lose your respect for the ethics of the situation but until you know how things work you're stuck with a lot of hearts to cut out every morning, it's a chore but someone's got to do it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Ethics across time, take 2
To know another culture's ethics is one thing, to criticize it is another. I would presume that you cannot know another culture's ethics totally unless immersed in it, and still you probably would not know it totally unless a person of that culture. But you can make an educated guess, as we all do. I would gather that is my position, when writing on Native Americans. I may study them, talk to them, gather all the information I can. But The People themselves know the ethics of their own culture better. That is probably why I write history, and not ethical articles. I do not make judgmental thesis statements based on an ethical issue.
Mayan culture is your example-we can only reconstruct their system of religious beliefs and why they sacrificed other people to the gods they believed in. To criticize and belittle or nullify their belief system because a person perceives another system is "better" is another matter. That should not be done, even if within our own concepts we do not believe in it, or understand it.
but until you know how things work
How will you know this, spot? It changes within each culture and generation, modified by new thoughts. And will it ever work?
*please excuse spelling mistakes I did not catch today*
Mayan culture is your example-we can only reconstruct their system of religious beliefs and why they sacrificed other people to the gods they believed in. To criticize and belittle or nullify their belief system because a person perceives another system is "better" is another matter. That should not be done, even if within our own concepts we do not believe in it, or understand it.
but until you know how things work
How will you know this, spot? It changes within each culture and generation, modified by new thoughts. And will it ever work?
*please excuse spelling mistakes I did not catch today*
Ethics across time, take 2
What I know, chonsi, is that the universe doesn't come to an end if people stop sacrificing on a regular basis. I know it because it's part of my experience. The Mayans only believed it to be true, they had no knowledge through experience.
I've been careful to distinguish ethical behaviour, actions, from theory or mindset because the actions are evidential and the thinking can only be surmised if you're talking about real ethics as practised by a culture. The last people on earth to accurately describe a group's ethics is the group itself, it will lie both consciously and unconsciously to show itself in the best light. Just assessing a culture by its actions is quite enough to attempt.
I've been careful to distinguish ethical behaviour, actions, from theory or mindset because the actions are evidential and the thinking can only be surmised if you're talking about real ethics as practised by a culture. The last people on earth to accurately describe a group's ethics is the group itself, it will lie both consciously and unconsciously to show itself in the best light. Just assessing a culture by its actions is quite enough to attempt.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time, take 2
You can only ever discuss the 'correctness or incorrectness' of any ethical stance or choice if you are also prepared to posit the existance of an objective universal morality.
There are two ways for people to come to an agreement about the moral correctness of an action:
The first is that they both believe in a similar objective and universal moral code, and gauge a given ethical situation by the degree to which they agree that the situation applies to the pre-existing and objective moral code. This is what happens when a religion takes a stance on an ethical issue. They've looked at what they treat as the objective morality (Say, the Word of God) and then see the degree to which the action in question matches that code of ethics. The degree to which it does, is the degree that the action is good.
The second is that they can both express their personal and subjective moral code in such a way that they can build either a synthesis of belief both can accept, or one convinces the other of the correctness of their code. At that point, you proceed as above, and guage the rightness of an action by the degree to which it matches the code.
The latter of those is the one that happens the most often, and is the one that requires the least burden of proof to advocate for.
If you're going to discard the first method entirely, by claiming that morals and ethics are purely subjective, with no basis at all in any objective fact the whole discussion becomes pretty moot very quickly.
If all ethics are subjective, then for a given person/nation/whatever X, an action Y is either good or bad to the degree by which it matches the subjective code of X. If we think murder is wrong, we will view a place that says murder is okay as being bad or wrong. Misguided if we're feeling generous. But our stance is no more correct or incorrect, nor will we ever be able to prove that, than any other stance.
The closest we can come is in examples like the Mayans you used above. They believed that human sacrifice was right and good because if you didn't appease the Gods, they would destory you. We can potentially (But not even conclusively) call that a -wrong- belief, on the grounds that we no longer sacrifice people and the world has not ended.
But then, we have absolutely no way to prove that there aren't cults or sects somewhere in the world still carrying out those sacrifices and appeasing those Gods, and I'm not sure you could ever prove otherwise.
How can a culture be elitist?
I can develop an internally consistent set of ethics and defend the values it expresses. I can look at sets of ethics which have been lived by others and criticize or applaud different aspects of them. I can certainly look at other cultures, living and dead, and consider them better than my own. That's not elitist.
-YOU- can do that, which means that -you- are not culturally elitist. That does not in any way, shape or form prove that a culture cannot be elitist. Many cultures have been. Forced conversion of religious, cultural and political mores to match those of an invading or conquoring nation; the denigration, execution, or enslavement of other peoples based on concepts like racial purity, eugenics, all of those are hallmarks of an elitist culture. A culture that accepts only it's own tenets as correct, and all others as being shadows of truth at best, and outright barbarism at worst.
Given the process I described above: "If all ethics are subjective, then for a given person/nation/whatever X, an action Y is either good or bad to the degree by which it matches the subjective code of X. " Cultural elitism is founded entirely in the belief that ahead of time, X cannot possibly be incorrect. And there are MANY people who feel that way.
There are two ways for people to come to an agreement about the moral correctness of an action:
The first is that they both believe in a similar objective and universal moral code, and gauge a given ethical situation by the degree to which they agree that the situation applies to the pre-existing and objective moral code. This is what happens when a religion takes a stance on an ethical issue. They've looked at what they treat as the objective morality (Say, the Word of God) and then see the degree to which the action in question matches that code of ethics. The degree to which it does, is the degree that the action is good.
The second is that they can both express their personal and subjective moral code in such a way that they can build either a synthesis of belief both can accept, or one convinces the other of the correctness of their code. At that point, you proceed as above, and guage the rightness of an action by the degree to which it matches the code.
The latter of those is the one that happens the most often, and is the one that requires the least burden of proof to advocate for.
If you're going to discard the first method entirely, by claiming that morals and ethics are purely subjective, with no basis at all in any objective fact the whole discussion becomes pretty moot very quickly.
If all ethics are subjective, then for a given person/nation/whatever X, an action Y is either good or bad to the degree by which it matches the subjective code of X. If we think murder is wrong, we will view a place that says murder is okay as being bad or wrong. Misguided if we're feeling generous. But our stance is no more correct or incorrect, nor will we ever be able to prove that, than any other stance.
The closest we can come is in examples like the Mayans you used above. They believed that human sacrifice was right and good because if you didn't appease the Gods, they would destory you. We can potentially (But not even conclusively) call that a -wrong- belief, on the grounds that we no longer sacrifice people and the world has not ended.
But then, we have absolutely no way to prove that there aren't cults or sects somewhere in the world still carrying out those sacrifices and appeasing those Gods, and I'm not sure you could ever prove otherwise.
How can a culture be elitist?
I can develop an internally consistent set of ethics and defend the values it expresses. I can look at sets of ethics which have been lived by others and criticize or applaud different aspects of them. I can certainly look at other cultures, living and dead, and consider them better than my own. That's not elitist.
-YOU- can do that, which means that -you- are not culturally elitist. That does not in any way, shape or form prove that a culture cannot be elitist. Many cultures have been. Forced conversion of religious, cultural and political mores to match those of an invading or conquoring nation; the denigration, execution, or enslavement of other peoples based on concepts like racial purity, eugenics, all of those are hallmarks of an elitist culture. A culture that accepts only it's own tenets as correct, and all others as being shadows of truth at best, and outright barbarism at worst.
Given the process I described above: "If all ethics are subjective, then for a given person/nation/whatever X, an action Y is either good or bad to the degree by which it matches the subjective code of X. " Cultural elitism is founded entirely in the belief that ahead of time, X cannot possibly be incorrect. And there are MANY people who feel that way.
Ethics across time, take 2
I find ethics to be a rather difficult subject to pin down in a specific way. Different gangs of youths within a community can hold different ethics let alone different groups within a society. It is difficult enough to judge the ethics that exist today without judging ethics that existed in different societies in the past.
When looking at the past, we are restricted to those accounts that we have which, given the diversity of ethical values in existence at any one time within a single society, give a narrow account based on that held, probably, by the ruling class. We cannot necessarily infer that the rest of the society shared the same ethics.
The other point is to consider whether ethical values evolve or merely become replaced. Dickens' stories has probably caused a lot of us to weep and form ideals based on those subjects. Yet, look at our society now. It doesn't seem an awful lot better than in Dickens' day. Seeing as we are living it, it possibly seems worse. Even wars then appeared to be conducted under a code of ethics by comparison to the wars of today though I'm sure that is not the true case.
When looking at the past, we are restricted to those accounts that we have which, given the diversity of ethical values in existence at any one time within a single society, give a narrow account based on that held, probably, by the ruling class. We cannot necessarily infer that the rest of the society shared the same ethics.
The other point is to consider whether ethical values evolve or merely become replaced. Dickens' stories has probably caused a lot of us to weep and form ideals based on those subjects. Yet, look at our society now. It doesn't seem an awful lot better than in Dickens' day. Seeing as we are living it, it possibly seems worse. Even wars then appeared to be conducted under a code of ethics by comparison to the wars of today though I'm sure that is not the true case.
Ethics across time, take 2
And it's this theoretical idea of ethics/good life that interests me, Fuzzy, not heading towards judging our own and other cultures/collections of traditions, customs, prejudices (with the predictable results of such endeavours).
One of my co-apartment block friends here is an ethicist of some repute, having begun as a barrister. One day, maybe, I will find the courage to sit at her feet and ask her what it's all about..
One of my co-apartment block friends here is an ethicist of some repute, having begun as a barrister. One day, maybe, I will find the courage to sit at her feet and ask her what it's all about..
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Ethics across time, take 2
fuzzy butt;1082078 wrote: I was listening to ABC radio national yesterday and they were talking on this very subject . And it got around to crimes and law and such . And something I heard that was very interesting . You've spoken about ethics personal, cultural and societal. but what of those who actually have to use ethical standards in everyday practice? Like Judges ? Well apparently something has been happening over the course of history that not many of us know about . Think we do but really we had no idea the power of a judge.
"Mercy begins where the law stops." This is an ethical practice across all nations and time. It's the only time a judge can bring his personal feelings based on experience into a sentence or decision. It's something that has been found by anthropologists everywhere in the world . Even ancient and tribal areas.
So humans must have an inate internal structure for ethics, so it can't be only cultural .
I find your comment interesting. I know a JP here in West Yorkshire. He is extremely knowledgable, a pleasure to converse with, adores children, and very kindly but not spendthrift.
His ethical values has placed him at loggerheads with the law and he now refuses to sit at trials as he is unhappy with the imbalance in the values reflected in the statutorial sentences.
"Mercy begins where the law stops." This is an ethical practice across all nations and time. It's the only time a judge can bring his personal feelings based on experience into a sentence or decision. It's something that has been found by anthropologists everywhere in the world . Even ancient and tribal areas.
So humans must have an inate internal structure for ethics, so it can't be only cultural .
I find your comment interesting. I know a JP here in West Yorkshire. He is extremely knowledgable, a pleasure to converse with, adores children, and very kindly but not spendthrift.
His ethical values has placed him at loggerheads with the law and he now refuses to sit at trials as he is unhappy with the imbalance in the values reflected in the statutorial sentences.
Ethics across time, take 2
fuzzy butt;1082100 wrote: Maybe that's the problem in trying to sort out if we are any different now as opposed to a certain cultural time period.
personally I don't see any values reflected in statutorial systems. Sentences are changed over time to supposedly reflect public opinion but it leaves no room for ethical rights and standards. a judge makes a decision and then the appeals are handed to him immediately. Maybe that's an ethical standard within itself? I don't know.
hhhmmm this is got me thinking I may go to the library today .
The public is not consulted with regard to sentences. While the judge has some leeway, he/she still has to work within the parameters given. These parameters effectively show the value given to particular types of offences which certainly don't reflect the ethical values of the public.
personally I don't see any values reflected in statutorial systems. Sentences are changed over time to supposedly reflect public opinion but it leaves no room for ethical rights and standards. a judge makes a decision and then the appeals are handed to him immediately. Maybe that's an ethical standard within itself? I don't know.
hhhmmm this is got me thinking I may go to the library today .
The public is not consulted with regard to sentences. While the judge has some leeway, he/she still has to work within the parameters given. These parameters effectively show the value given to particular types of offences which certainly don't reflect the ethical values of the public.
Ethics across time, take 2
spot;1079834 wrote: At any given moment within a given culture there are some aspects of behaviour which are considered ethical and some which aren't.
My puzzle is this. Looking back, do we regard previous cultures, when they acted differently to what we see as acceptable behaviour, as wrong? Are acceptable ethics specific to a particular time or are there any aspects of behaviour which are inevitably essential for a culture to be considered ethical?
What distinguishes those essential aspects, how do we recognize them? How can we be certain that they're fixed for all time? Or is every attempt at defining an enthical culture going to be transient, with future cultures refusing to recognize our values as acceptable?
The benchmark for this sort of discussion has got to be Aztecs with their propensity for human sacrifice.
According to their lights they were acting in an ethical manner but we find their actions abhorrent.
Their motives are, to us, bizarre but within their world-view made perfect sense - without the sacrifices the universe would stop and they would all die therefore it was better to sacrifice the few for the good of the many, especially when the few were mostly defeated enemies.
Thus the Aztecs were not inherently evil and the individuals could be considered moral and upright citizens within their own culture. We can see the culture as misguided and their world-view as wrong but hardly unethical.
My puzzle is this. Looking back, do we regard previous cultures, when they acted differently to what we see as acceptable behaviour, as wrong? Are acceptable ethics specific to a particular time or are there any aspects of behaviour which are inevitably essential for a culture to be considered ethical?
What distinguishes those essential aspects, how do we recognize them? How can we be certain that they're fixed for all time? Or is every attempt at defining an enthical culture going to be transient, with future cultures refusing to recognize our values as acceptable?
The benchmark for this sort of discussion has got to be Aztecs with their propensity for human sacrifice.
According to their lights they were acting in an ethical manner but we find their actions abhorrent.
Their motives are, to us, bizarre but within their world-view made perfect sense - without the sacrifices the universe would stop and they would all die therefore it was better to sacrifice the few for the good of the many, especially when the few were mostly defeated enemies.
Thus the Aztecs were not inherently evil and the individuals could be considered moral and upright citizens within their own culture. We can see the culture as misguided and their world-view as wrong but hardly unethical.
Ethics across time, take 2
spot;1080018 wrote: So you feel there's no way of judging any ethical system? It just exists?
You can examine its internal self-consistency and the manner in which it's applied by the culture on its members.
What you cannot do is judge it in terms of your own cultural imperatives especially where the two cultures do not share a referential framework.
You can examine its internal self-consistency and the manner in which it's applied by the culture on its members.
What you cannot do is judge it in terms of your own cultural imperatives especially where the two cultures do not share a referential framework.
Ethics across time, take 2
fuzzy butt;1082078 wrote: I was listening to ABC radio national yesterday and they were talking on this very subject . And it got around to crimes and law and such . And something I heard that was very interesting . You've spoken about ethics personal, cultural and societal. but what of those who actually have to use ethical standards in everyday practice? Like Judges ? Well apparently something has been happening over the course of history that not many of us know about . Think we do but really we had no idea the power of a judge.
"Mercy begins where the law stops." This is an ethical practice across all nations and time. It's the only time a judge can bring his personal feelings based on experience into a sentence or decision. It's something that has been found by anthropologists everywhere in the world . Even ancient and tribal areas.
So humans must have an inate internal structure for ethics, so it can't be only cultural .
How do you get the last sentence from the previous paragraph?
If you could show that the form of mercy employed in each culture was the same then it would be a logical conclusion but just the fact that judges take experience and mitigating circumstances into account when sentencing isn't enough when we don't know what was considered to be a mitigating circumstance or what experience would be taken into account and what difference it would make to the sentence.
That a similar mechanism exists does not show that the ethics involved are similar.
"Mercy begins where the law stops." This is an ethical practice across all nations and time. It's the only time a judge can bring his personal feelings based on experience into a sentence or decision. It's something that has been found by anthropologists everywhere in the world . Even ancient and tribal areas.
So humans must have an inate internal structure for ethics, so it can't be only cultural .
How do you get the last sentence from the previous paragraph?
If you could show that the form of mercy employed in each culture was the same then it would be a logical conclusion but just the fact that judges take experience and mitigating circumstances into account when sentencing isn't enough when we don't know what was considered to be a mitigating circumstance or what experience would be taken into account and what difference it would make to the sentence.
That a similar mechanism exists does not show that the ethics involved are similar.