Some Thoughts on Ethics
These are some miscellaneous thoughts on ethics roughtly organized. It is not one of my best posts, but I felt like making a post on philosophy.
Ethics is defined as the science of determining right from wrong. It has been studied from the time of Aristotle up to the present day and shows no signs of slowing down. I would like to outline some of my own thought concerning this branch of philosophy.
My position here is that there are absolutes in morality; something is right or it is wrong. There is a distinction whether something is morally right or morally wrong. It is exceedingly difficult to argue because the contemporary breed of ethics is different from many other ethical systems in history. My assertion is that there are absolutes of rights and wrong, and in every situation of multiple options there is one that is more moral and ought to be done, and in every action it is either moral or immoral. I also believe that there is this idea of purity of ethics, and under the categorical imperative (a major part of my thesis so if you are not fond if this be ready for something you will take issue with), and that no single religious ethic is correct. There is this ideal of an ethic that does have its roots in the Jewish ethic, but it is still different, and the Jewish ethic is not sufficient for all of western ethics.
In a somewhat organized essay on my miscellaneous thoughts on ethics, the discussion shall begin on the idea of a perfect ethic. My belief is that there is an underlying code of morality that ought to be adhered to. I believe that this is a completely secular ethic, and an ethic without a sense of punishment and reward. If an ethic can be the ultimate law, if something is immoral or unethical it should not be done, that would be the pinnacle of a law code. Imagine a code of laws that was adhered to without, any sort of punishment? An ethic like this could work in a few ways. One is that if one committed an unethical act, his community of people would look down on him so much that he would feel so terrible as to not commit another act like that. Another would be his own internal feelings would compel him to never do anything such as that again. A third would be an acceptance of an ethic that would make people deem unethical acts pointless, and have no desire to commit them.
As Professor Timothy B. Shutt in his lecture series Foundations of Western Thought discusses the fact that the Jewish ethic (I use Hebrew, Jewish, Hebraic interchangeably) is the foundation for our contemporary western ethic. It is marked by the ethics of the Ten Commandments, and while these are not originally Hebrew but taken from previous ideas such as the Code of Hammurabi. Regardless, the western ethic is nothing without the Hebraic ethic.
But what does this ethic look like? It is best to begin with some server ethical taboos. First of all, any killing, and stealing would be immediately outlawed. This follows the same basic ideal of taking what is not yours; in terms of property and livelihood. Along this line forcing someone to do a relatively extreme act against their will would be under the same jurisdiction. For example, no one wants to pay taxes, yet they must be done in order to ensure a secure state. However, one cannot force another to perform a lascivious act without consent.
So if the first aspect of this ethic is the right to not have someone else take something from you, or to do something to you within reason, the second aspect is the idea of self protection. For example, victimless crimes are crimes. Under this ethic, suicide would be illegal, but I doubt that there would be any great need for suicide. Granted, some would argue (and this is a field that I have little knowledge of) that depression and suicidal thoughts are due to a chemical imbalance, and not a product of the society and immediate society that one lives in. This is a good transition to another point, the idea of drug use. While Muslim heaven is a land of excessive wine, my ethical utopia would be a sober place. Drug use is not beneficial to mankind. However, it can be used to get one back to equilibrium, i.e. if they have a cold or are depressed medicines can be utilized to assist the person. However, I treat drugs as an entity harmful to the body and to the mind; therefore it is a “victimless crime.” If suicide is outlawed then drugs use ought to be outlawed. Some may not see what one has to do with the other, but to me it is crystal clear.
So two of the foundations of moral law hitherto discussed are the idea of victimless crimes being crimes and anything that may be deemed a victimless crime is unethical, and the right to one’s property in term of one’s own body and time, and one’s material property e.g. one’s baseball card collection. This is where the ethic gets tricky. The role of relating to the less fortunate. If you cannot hurt yourself, and you have the right to yourself, why should you be compelled to help others. This may be under the realm of situational ethics, but in any sort of formulation of an ethic it cannot be ignored if we are making generalizations. I tend to adhere to a Deontological ethical point of view. While this is contradictory to some of what I have hitherto stated, it appears that with respect to others, deontology is the route to go.
Since I cannot do anything else with the Deontological ethic right now, I would like to reinforce some of the other side of ethics. The secular ethic that I am talking about is essentially being ethical for ethic’s sake. In the contemporary world, only fear can keep people behaving ethically. Fear of the law, and/or fear of religion. Regardless, the idea is there is a force of some kind preventing me from acting unethically or immorally. Granted the law is not perfect, but assume it is for just this exercise. First to address the religious side of this. If it is religion preventing one from acting unethically, what happens when one loses faith with their religion, or meets someone of a different religion with a different ethic? Religion teaches that their respective doctrine is the truth, and many teach that others are faulty and “thou shalt not kill because I, the lord your God, commandeth it.” Well why does God need to tell me that? Shouldn’t murder be wrong even if God didn’t command it? I say yes, hence the secular ethic and the categorical imperative.
The religious ethic is based on a doctrine and an absolute truth derived from a transcendent being; my ethic is derived from the absolute truths of human nature and interaction. I find it more likely that human nature exists than God exists.
My secular ethic will not save humanity, or is necessarily practical. However, I believe that a secular ethic, and if we can convince people to be ethical for ethic’s sake, that is ideal. This ethic does not particular to an economic theory, but it does allow for capitalism and that horrible idea that is socialism. The ethic is a reality in this secular world. However, over half the world believes in some kind of God, so this ethic is not too practical for this generation or at least three subsequent generations. Yet I believe that a secular ethic is the way to go, and it would be an improvement for humanity.
This has been some rough thoughts on ethics. Do not criticize the lack of organization or the ideas not presented; criticize the ideas presented. I have not said all that I want to say but I feel it is time to make a post, and I am currently writing a piece on Jewish history that I would like to work on. Ethics is not a subject I will drop, but I believe that I have presented ideas worth sharing.
Ethics is defined as the science of determining right from wrong. It has been studied from the time of Aristotle up to the present day and shows no signs of slowing down. I would like to outline some of my own thought concerning this branch of philosophy.
My position here is that there are absolutes in morality; something is right or it is wrong. There is a distinction whether something is morally right or morally wrong. It is exceedingly difficult to argue because the contemporary breed of ethics is different from many other ethical systems in history. My assertion is that there are absolutes of rights and wrong, and in every situation of multiple options there is one that is more moral and ought to be done, and in every action it is either moral or immoral. I also believe that there is this idea of purity of ethics, and under the categorical imperative (a major part of my thesis so if you are not fond if this be ready for something you will take issue with), and that no single religious ethic is correct. There is this ideal of an ethic that does have its roots in the Jewish ethic, but it is still different, and the Jewish ethic is not sufficient for all of western ethics.
In a somewhat organized essay on my miscellaneous thoughts on ethics, the discussion shall begin on the idea of a perfect ethic. My belief is that there is an underlying code of morality that ought to be adhered to. I believe that this is a completely secular ethic, and an ethic without a sense of punishment and reward. If an ethic can be the ultimate law, if something is immoral or unethical it should not be done, that would be the pinnacle of a law code. Imagine a code of laws that was adhered to without, any sort of punishment? An ethic like this could work in a few ways. One is that if one committed an unethical act, his community of people would look down on him so much that he would feel so terrible as to not commit another act like that. Another would be his own internal feelings would compel him to never do anything such as that again. A third would be an acceptance of an ethic that would make people deem unethical acts pointless, and have no desire to commit them.
As Professor Timothy B. Shutt in his lecture series Foundations of Western Thought discusses the fact that the Jewish ethic (I use Hebrew, Jewish, Hebraic interchangeably) is the foundation for our contemporary western ethic. It is marked by the ethics of the Ten Commandments, and while these are not originally Hebrew but taken from previous ideas such as the Code of Hammurabi. Regardless, the western ethic is nothing without the Hebraic ethic.
But what does this ethic look like? It is best to begin with some server ethical taboos. First of all, any killing, and stealing would be immediately outlawed. This follows the same basic ideal of taking what is not yours; in terms of property and livelihood. Along this line forcing someone to do a relatively extreme act against their will would be under the same jurisdiction. For example, no one wants to pay taxes, yet they must be done in order to ensure a secure state. However, one cannot force another to perform a lascivious act without consent.
So if the first aspect of this ethic is the right to not have someone else take something from you, or to do something to you within reason, the second aspect is the idea of self protection. For example, victimless crimes are crimes. Under this ethic, suicide would be illegal, but I doubt that there would be any great need for suicide. Granted, some would argue (and this is a field that I have little knowledge of) that depression and suicidal thoughts are due to a chemical imbalance, and not a product of the society and immediate society that one lives in. This is a good transition to another point, the idea of drug use. While Muslim heaven is a land of excessive wine, my ethical utopia would be a sober place. Drug use is not beneficial to mankind. However, it can be used to get one back to equilibrium, i.e. if they have a cold or are depressed medicines can be utilized to assist the person. However, I treat drugs as an entity harmful to the body and to the mind; therefore it is a “victimless crime.” If suicide is outlawed then drugs use ought to be outlawed. Some may not see what one has to do with the other, but to me it is crystal clear.
So two of the foundations of moral law hitherto discussed are the idea of victimless crimes being crimes and anything that may be deemed a victimless crime is unethical, and the right to one’s property in term of one’s own body and time, and one’s material property e.g. one’s baseball card collection. This is where the ethic gets tricky. The role of relating to the less fortunate. If you cannot hurt yourself, and you have the right to yourself, why should you be compelled to help others. This may be under the realm of situational ethics, but in any sort of formulation of an ethic it cannot be ignored if we are making generalizations. I tend to adhere to a Deontological ethical point of view. While this is contradictory to some of what I have hitherto stated, it appears that with respect to others, deontology is the route to go.
Since I cannot do anything else with the Deontological ethic right now, I would like to reinforce some of the other side of ethics. The secular ethic that I am talking about is essentially being ethical for ethic’s sake. In the contemporary world, only fear can keep people behaving ethically. Fear of the law, and/or fear of religion. Regardless, the idea is there is a force of some kind preventing me from acting unethically or immorally. Granted the law is not perfect, but assume it is for just this exercise. First to address the religious side of this. If it is religion preventing one from acting unethically, what happens when one loses faith with their religion, or meets someone of a different religion with a different ethic? Religion teaches that their respective doctrine is the truth, and many teach that others are faulty and “thou shalt not kill because I, the lord your God, commandeth it.” Well why does God need to tell me that? Shouldn’t murder be wrong even if God didn’t command it? I say yes, hence the secular ethic and the categorical imperative.
The religious ethic is based on a doctrine and an absolute truth derived from a transcendent being; my ethic is derived from the absolute truths of human nature and interaction. I find it more likely that human nature exists than God exists.
My secular ethic will not save humanity, or is necessarily practical. However, I believe that a secular ethic, and if we can convince people to be ethical for ethic’s sake, that is ideal. This ethic does not particular to an economic theory, but it does allow for capitalism and that horrible idea that is socialism. The ethic is a reality in this secular world. However, over half the world believes in some kind of God, so this ethic is not too practical for this generation or at least three subsequent generations. Yet I believe that a secular ethic is the way to go, and it would be an improvement for humanity.
This has been some rough thoughts on ethics. Do not criticize the lack of organization or the ideas not presented; criticize the ideas presented. I have not said all that I want to say but I feel it is time to make a post, and I am currently writing a piece on Jewish history that I would like to work on. Ethics is not a subject I will drop, but I believe that I have presented ideas worth sharing.
posted by Brian Hillman at 8:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home