Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Subjective ethics can be objectively defined

AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:55:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
What I mean by the title is the following. Lets say we have no values places on a system, ergo everything is equal to everything else. Then it'd be easy to say ethics is subjective. But if you say, value ants, then there are obviously methods to benefit ants. We could start ant farms and we would say its the moral thing to do because its what we value, it sounds silly but let me compare it to something more reasonable.

Like, is it right to eat salad for breakfast? First we should set down all the values we have. Second we should set down all the factors of the salad you would get and weight them against each other.

So lets say that the salad is prepared by starving Africans, if you value people's feelings as a whole or such then obviously you would declare it immoral. But what if I said they were getting paid 50$ an hour to make a salad just for you? Then it'd suddenly become moral. Or what if we paid you five mill to eat a salad they were forced to make? You could say its unethical, but wait, you can then pay them some of it, they earned it right, so therefore it'd be overall unpleasant but moral to do, but if you cannot handle it then you don't get the money. This is why people value their feelings, some wouldn't do it based on how much force was used to force them to comply. So its a value placed on emotion.

Now to get a little more complicated add social pressures, people judging you based on how you interact and you value your reputation or friendship with said people. It just gets complex but there is still ultimately one correct answer no matter which way you spin it. So lets say that 5 million you can support 2 African kids for life and that that money would literally be burned otherwise, and if you don't they live in an area with many hazards and the like. So now you suddenly made a good difference by committing an act that is unethical, you overall had the ethical result.

Now that example might be bizarre and extreme. So lets say it this way.

Is it ethical to reject hitch hikers? We need to compare not rejecting them to rejecting them, and how strict in the environment it would be on them, how others would reject or help them, what our values are. So lets say we value the happiness of all. This means if someone tries taking happiness to receive happiness (trolling or abuse) that its unethical because it impairs your ability to help please more than just they.
So then we ask, how likely is the hitch hiker going to be waiting and to what conditions will they face and is my urgency at a higher level than theirs and how trustworthy do they appear? Once its all factored out whatever is decided is ethical towards the value of happiness for all. Basically for the one who values happiness for all, if they do not look dangerous they'll give them a ride, regardless of the intensity of the weather or environment.

Similarly if we value the intellect education health and/or quality of life of the people of the world then some actions in some circumstances would be definably ethical/moral or unethical/immoral. Like is it fine to subject people to exposure therapy if said therapy had evidences for or against it? The odds are for most to go for it if it has no possibility it'd make them worse off, even if the odds are very low it'd actually work. (This is how people get scammed, not due to exposure therapy but due to willingness to try the unknown or desperation)

Also then we need to consider who is making the call on this decision? What knowledge limitations, or what perception limitations do they have?

This means something can be ultimately unethical or immoral due to ignorance even with good intentions. Like the hitchhiker just murdered a family and is making his/her escape. You do not know that calling the police would be more ethical. Or perhaps they murdered their family because they were murdered someone innocent and were serial killers and that sad sap wants to drink himself to death at a bar. I mean you don't know all you see is a hitchhiker, or what if its a tv program like What Would You Do? You have no idea and you have to weigh the unknown into the equation.

Then what if you cannot think of the most ethical decision, like having a gun held to your head you press switch A to kill someone in room a or switch B to kill someone in room B and if you don't press one you get shot, and you have no way of escaping, they give you one minute. They do not answer questions about who is in the room. Well for one you could disbelieve the scenario it might be a prank. Or someone in the other room might be more or less ethical than you. So if you value your ethics system more than your self-preservation if you are a terrible person you would opt for them to live, which has objectively a better chance of working out in regards to your system of values.

Also if you do not know the consequences of your actions, like you are not told what the buttons do and you know you don't know, then you cannot decide so easily. But while we do not know the immediate consequences of some of our ethical issues or decisions, there is a miraculous method to finding out.

Its called science, but this is philosophy so, is it banned? Idk. But lets say people think its ethical to pray then we can measure the effect of two groups of randomized people one praying the other not and set them each into their own self ran societies to find the differences between each group. Once we notice the differences, we can say exactly what effect it has on society, and if you value it then its ethical and if you don't value it its unethical.

Also sorry for mixing n matching ethics and morality. Lemme say that I know the difference is ethics already values everyone to an extent, like is it ethical to have abortion is a different question from asking is it moral. Morality is like doing x is bad!(therefore I am better than you because you are doing x and I am not) Ethics says doing x results in y and if y is bad then its bad. This is why ethics can be measured, morality not so much. Which is why this topic is on ethics, and not morality, but sorry to confuse you all.

So in short I think opinions about ethics do not exist, it is either inaccuracies, or assumptions. I think ethics is set in stone depending on which things you value for it and the context. But lets bring up abortion. Is it ethical to let someone abort, or is it more ethical to force them not to. Well I would say abortion is ethical because why waste their entire life when they can help us do other things with their life instead of raising a kid they do not want and might actually end up abusing. Like the person is an engineer and could've invented something humanity could benefit from, or they could raise an entitled brat and drink and get obese from eating icecream.

But those saying abortion is bad think, they should've used prevention or etc. Sure, but that doesn't change anything now, are you really going to force them to poorly raise a kid as a punishment when punishments are not intrinsically teaching when their methods do not clearly express themselves? Also it forces the issue underground where it can be unsanitary and jeopardize their life if they wanna do it anyways, but to them it might as well be worse than death being a slave.

Also what if its some scientist working on a legit cure for cancer but them getting a kid stops their progress in its tracks and if they are the only person working on it humanity would objectively get better from letting abortion happen. If you force a bad or a good person to raise a kid its always bad, because if they are bad initially they are going to neglect a lot of children, and just use them for welfare or something to enable them even more and it'd make them resentful and work against society in some way they wouldn't have before, or they can just fly out of country and do it if they are well off. No skin off their nose, just promotes dishon
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 7:23:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Ethics are not set in stone. People can change. But we each have 2 sets of moral values. Conscious and subconscious. These 2 sets can contradict each other but as we are not conscious of our subconscious moral values we only become aware of the conflict when we have done or said something which we can't explain. This is when our subconscious takes over briefly such as during moments of anger or while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 8:38:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Also sorry for mixing n matching ethics and morality. Lemme say that I know the difference is ethics already values everyone to an extent, like is it ethical to have abortion is a different question from asking is it moral. Morality is like doing x is bad!(therefore I am better than you because you are doing x and I am not) Ethics says doing x results in y and if y is bad then its bad. This is why ethics can be measured, morality not so much. Which is why this topic is on ethics, and not morality, but sorry to confuse you all.

I was already confused about the difference between morality and ethics. Either there isn't one, or people don't agree what it is. Henceforth I am not going to worry about it and use whatever word sounds best.

On the actual topic, I am still struggling to untangle what the OP is actually saying...