Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Ethical consistency

#1
Syne Offline
This thread is a catch-all for ethical issues. No ethical issue exists in a vacuum, and a comparison of a person's views across many issues is the only way to determine ethical and logical consistency. This thread is not about morals, since there is no reason to expect morals to be consistent, and ethical consistency is the only rational means by which to evaluate conflicting moral obligations or schema.

Definitions:

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morals are largely beliefs.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. Ethics are largely logically justified principles.


All of these ethical topics are interrelated:
  • Abortion
  • Animal rights
  • Death penalty
  • Equality
  • Human rights
  • Murder
  • Rape

Can you describe your position on some of these in a way that illustrates your own ethical consistency?

Since I seriously doubt anyone here will take me up on the challenge...this thread will serve as a place to take interrelated topics that crop up as off-topic in other threads.
Reply
#2
Secular Sanity Offline
Consistency?  You mean rational idealism. 

Being consistent can in and of itself be unethical.

Principles vs. Consequences

  • Principles focus on moral rules and duties (Kant, Divine Command Theory)
  • Consequences focus on outcome (Bentham, Mills)


Principles:  Like you, Kant tried to base all of his ethics in rationality and reason.  Should you stick with your principles or rules regardless of the outcome?

Consequences: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few, but what if you’re the one?  This requires us to violate an individuals autonomy, is it worth it?  How would we know all the players?  How can you calculate short-term vs. long-term benefits?  Who gets to decide and dictate what is good?  How do we measure different types of suffering and pleasures?  Which type should we try to maximize?  Do we go for durability, intensity, or goods that yield more good?  What about the things that are hidden from us, e.g., inhumane farming?  What about the lack of information?  

There’s always going to be a subjective element whether you like it or not.

Abortion:  Pro-choice/Anti-abortion.
Animal rights: For
Death Penalty: Undecided


Why are you in favor of death penalty?
Reply
#3
Carol Offline
Whoo, I don't know if I can meet the high standard of argumentation that is happening here?  I am an amateur at this.

I thought a moral was a matter of cause and effect?  We used to read children moral stories like "The Little Red Hen" and "The Little Engine that Could" and then ask, "what is the moral of that story?".  The expected answer was an explanation of cause and effect.  

I try to live by 3 rules.

1.  We respect everyone.
2.  We protect the dignity of others.
3.  We do everything with integrity.  

Now those rules apply to me, but I am not sure on imposing any rules on others.  I tend to shy away from people who do not respect them, but as for what others do, my grandmother would say, "To each, their own said the lady as she kissed the cow".  

Liberty being the right of individuals to determine right from wrong, as long they do not harm others, and trusting the human condition does compel us all to do the right thing when we know what that is, and we are not emotionally disturbed.

Abortion- sometimes necessary
Animal rights- not equal to human rights
Death penalty- I would not want to take responsibility for the death of another
Equality- not if it means I have to be as a man
Human rights- are to be respected
Murder- violation of another
Rape- violation of another
Reply
#4
Syne Offline
(Nov 7, 2016 05:39 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Consistency?  You mean rational idealism. 

Being consistent can in and of itself be unethical.

Principles vs. Consequences

  • Principles focus on moral rules and duties (Kant, Divine Command Theory)
  • Consequences focus on outcome (Bentham, Mills)


Principles:  Like you, Kant tried to base all of his ethics in rationality and reason.  Should you stick with your principles or rules regardless of the outcome?

Consequences: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few, but what if you’re the one?  This requires us to violate an individuals autonomy, is it worth it?  How would we know all the players?  How can you calculate short-term vs. long-term benefits?  Who gets to decide and dictate what is good?  How do we measure different types of suffering and pleasures?  Which type should we try to maximize?  Do we go for durability, intensity, or goods that yield more good?  What about the things that are hidden from us, e.g., inhumane farming?  What about the lack of information?  

There’s always going to be a subjective element whether you like it or not.

Abortion:  Pro-choice/Anti-abortion.
Animal rights: For
Death Penalty: Undecided


Why are you in favor of death penalty?

consistent - (of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions.

rationalism - Philosophy
the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.

idealism - Philosophy
any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.


Although I am philosophically a rational dualist, I am ethically an empirical physicalist, just as I am scientifically. Even though I think reason is the only way to justify knowledge and that reality is dualist in nature, ethics, like physics, involves interactions which occur in the external observable world of our senses among physical things, bodies, etc..

Principles (deontology) and consequences (consequentialism) are not mutually exclusive. For example, Kant's deontological categorical imperative is actually complimented by his consequentialist kingdom of ends (where no person is to be seen as a means to selfish ends, but that all people are treated as if their well-being is the end goal). It is unethical to both blindly follow duty where unethical consequences will likely occur, and to use end goals to justify unethical means. Kant was only deontological in his view of what could motivate people to be ethical, favoring reason over things like religion and desire, but reason is not a solely deontological process. But Kant was actually too much of an idealist for my liking. I have no illusions that reason alone could motivate people to be ethical.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but where it come to ethics, you sound like an subjective idealist. An ethical subjective idealist is someone who believes that the only ethical truths are the attitudes of people and that perception/experience is the ultimate arbiter of reality/knowledge. Would that be a fair assessment?

Pro-choice necessarily includes abortion, whether you approve of it or not. So it is both inconsistent and likely self-deluded, unless your only exception is for risk to the life of the mother. If you wouldn't have an abortion, but you're perfectly willing to see others do so, then anti-abortion is only a personal preference and pro-abortion your ethical position.

Most everyone is for animal rights, so that doesn't tell us much. Like many other ethical positions, it only has meaning in comparison to other values, like abortion and the death penalty. From what you've said elsewhere, you don't consider a human fetus to have equal rights to an animal until the development of higher brain function...even though such higher brain function is only shared by primates and dolphins.

Being undecided on other issues is to be expected where there is no consistency. Inconsistency is the basis of cognitive dissonance and confusion.

There are many ways you could be consistent while still disagreeing with my positions. You could consistently be pro-abortion, anti-animal rights, and pro-death penalty. You could also consistently be anti-abortion, pro-animal rights, and anti-death penalty. You see, consistency and reason are not the huge restriction you seem to assume. The problem is that you do not seem interested in forming a consistent ethical stance...only justifying your arbitrary emotional responses.

(Nov 7, 2016 07:46 PM)Carol Wrote: Whoo, I don't know if I can meet the high standard of argumentation that is happening here?  I am an amateur at this.

I thought a moral was a matter of cause and effect?  We used to read children moral stories like "The Little Red Hen" and "The Little Engine that Could" and then ask, "what is the moral of that story?".  The expected answer was an explanation of cause and effect.  

I try to live by 3 rules.

1.  We respect everyone.
2.  We protect the dignity of others.
3.  We do everything with integrity.  

Now those rules apply to me, but I am not sure on imposing any rules on others.  I tend to shy away from people who do not respect them, but as for what others do, my grandmother would say, "To each, their own said the lady as she kissed the cow".  

Liberty being the right of individuals to determine right from wrong, as long they do not harm others, and trusting the human condition does compel us all to do the right thing when we know what that is, and we are not emotionally disturbed.

Abortion- sometimes necessary
Animal rights- not equal to human rights
Death penalty- I would not want to take responsibility for the death of another
Equality- not if it means I have to be as a man
Human rights- are to be respected
Murder- violation of another
Rape- violation of another

No, morals in stories are usually analogies to teach a lesson that may not be obvious otherwise. Like The Tortoise and the Hare, the obvious cause and effect would be that the faster one will always win, but the moral is that overconfidence is bad and perseverance is good. Cause and effect have nothing to say about value judgments of good and bad.

It may be naive to assume humans are innately good, considering the crime statistics and history of things like murder. People can easily misjudge the degree of threat someone may be to them, allowing them to easily justify a more sever response than may be justified by the facts alone.

Abortion- sometimes necessary _______________________________________________When is it necessary?
Animal rights- not equal to human rights ________________________________________Do we have the right to kill/eat them? How do their rights compare to those of a human fetus?
Death penalty- I would not want to take responsibility for the death of another _______Do you support the right of the state to use capital punishment?
Equality- not if it means I have to be as a man __________________________________Equality only means equal rights, not sameness or equal outcome.
Human rights- are to be respected ____________________________________________Does this extend to human life in the womb?
Murder- violation of another
Rape- violation of another


I ask these because they are so interrelated. For instance, since murder is only defined as the taking of human life, if a fetus isn't granted human rights then abortion is not murder.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Unpacking the hype around OpenAI’s new Q* model (Is it really an ethical concern?) C C 2 117 Nov 29, 2023 01:40 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Article Colombia’s ‘cocaine hippo’ population is even bigger than thought (ethical choices) C C 1 75 Jun 5, 2023 01:33 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research Are rich people really less ethical? (sci does critique itself, but it takes time) C C 0 68 Mar 15, 2023 07:37 PM
Last Post: C C
  An unfolding 'ethical' drama - elsewhere Kornee 0 75 Sep 29, 2022 09:06 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Polygenic screening of embryos is here, but is it ethical? C C 0 62 Oct 18, 2021 06:58 PM
Last Post: C C
  There are moral reasons to be vaccinated – but doesn’t mean it’s your ethical duty C C 4 196 May 10, 2021 11:53 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  AI development safety concerns: New ripple for ethical posturing & red tape tangles? C C 0 200 Mar 18, 2021 05:21 PM
Last Post: C C
  What young socialist voters want from Santa + Ethical questions: facial-recognition C C 2 218 Nov 21, 2020 11:19 PM
Last Post: C C
  Surgeon had dilemma only Nazi medical text could resolve. Was it ethical to use it? C C 4 602 Jun 1, 2019 06:49 PM
Last Post: C C
  Is There Anything Ethical America Can Do in Syria Now? C C 17 2,157 Apr 18, 2018 05:50 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)