Thread: The Art of Ethics *highbrow alert*

One thing is that ethics might somehow involve facts about the reasons for which values are held; those are still facts. And perhaps ethics is, like science, bound up with knowledge - it's not just about cataloguing facts, but also in various ways about providing us with knowledge. So the assessment of reasons and arguments is then crucial.

That's quite true. Why I value something is certainly a fact about me, but it's not a fact about that value. Someone else can have the same value for different reasons, and they can share all my reasons without having the same values. I do believe that the project of ethics is parallel to the the project of science, and that their methods are analogous, but in science, it's an idea or hypothesis that resolves conflicts between facts, in ethics, it's an act that resolves conflicts between values. We can disagree about what ought to be done, while agreeing on all the relevant facts surrounding the issue.

Kant gives examples that use methods that take that sort of stuff into account, but it's surely not completely clear how that's justified; he seems to import rather questionable contingent assumptions in doing so.

Kant is very good at coming up with these sorts of theories, and when you interpret and apply these theories on your own, they almost always seem right. But he's very bad at interpreting and applying his own theories. For instance, he uses the the "lying to a loan officer" example as evidence that lying is always impermissible, even to an inquiring murderer. But his own description of how his theory is supposed to work doesn't allow that kind of generalization. All the example proves is that it's impermissible to lie to loan officers, not that it's impermissible to lie in any other context. He makes these sorts of mistakes all the time, and in other contexts than his ethical theory. But his argument that establishes the Categorical Imperative is very hard to dispute, and all four formulations of it have irreducibly social elements.

I look forward to your return tomorrow!

While I can see practical benefits in all three theories I believe I have a preference for Aristotle's virtue ethics. Perhaps that's the classicist in me. I disagree that only the more educated/refined can achieve such virtue. The masses may absorb virtue from their role models by the osmosis of observation. A little may be lost in terms of elegance and versatility to situations, but I believe there will still be virtue there.

As to your question, I would start with defining good and evil and also right and wrong which, let's say are synonymous. I define good as action which is taken to benefit others even and especially to the detriment of oneself, and I would define evil as its antithesis, action taken to benefit oneself even and especially at the expense of others. I guess I would have to admit that my definitions are dependent upon a civil society. Without community we would all almost always be compelled to act in an evil, self interested manner, but because we must get along with others, must depend upon others and ultimately (unless psychotic) will love and care about what happens to others, we are inspired to be good.

Just as virtue can be learned through observation so, I believe virtuelessness can also be learned. If we experience people in our lives who succeed through evil action, we can come to accept that it is fine or acceptable, even advantageous to act in such a manner. I guess role models can be key.

We get in to the grey areas when people do what could easily be interpreted as evil actions, but are done for good reasons. By releasing his prisoner to the mob, what the sheriff does would be seen as a good thing by the town, but is ironically seen as an evil action by us as observers. SS has exposed that one's viewpoint shouldn't matter, but it will for most of us. There's no getting around that. I'm inclined to agree though.

That's why I like art that employs questionable ethics or at least the illusion of such those those of us who are unwashed. When i see an inherently good character murder a trafficker in child sex workers, i applaud that decision, but can't help but be gripped by the paradox of action vs. intent.

X

PS I haven't actively participated in the thread in question, but suspect you will find most people unable to take the leap out of their own viewpoint which is richly coloured by compounded fallacy and viciously defended with ignorance. As always, I hope I can be shown to be wrong in that.

I've long been a utilitarianist, but in the last few days due to personal strife I've found myself leaning towards deontology.

All in all I know I'll eventually go back to Mills philosophy, though following it I end up finding myself the aggrieved party more often than not.

Well I would venture to say I have the answers to your questions though you will probably disagree entirely. I'm Christian and a decent student of God's word, I've been Christian for about 4 years now after being converted while stationed at Keflavik, Iceland at a communications station where I worked there as my first duty station, outside of school, in the US Navy.

I'll quote scripture a lot, which may seem completely backwards as my answer to all of the questions are based upon scripture - as well the inward working of the grace of God in my heart and life. I suppose this sort of, to most, would seem to pose a problem with question three, since it is all based upon scripture and how can I know it for certain, yet it is certain - as certain as death.

For the first question I would answer with a parable from the book of Matthew, it's found in: Matthew 13:24-30

24
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

I'd say this parable pretty well sums up what is going on here. Christ expounded upon this parable a little later in the chapter, thats here in Matthew 13:37 - 43

37
He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

So now there is a pretty good picture of what is going on here from these two passages, so on to question two. What do I do about it?

The previous passage painted the coming judgement, and condemnation to to them which do iniquity having broken God's law in His commandments. Now all are found in this state of sin naturally from birth since the fall of man. This can be seen in Romans 5:12-19 among other places in scripture.

12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

This can be a little hard to read, but the main emphasis that I would try to convey out of this - at this point - is that all are under to penalty of sin born naturally. Since the fall of adam in the garden of eden man is always born in this sinful state - made partaker of Adam's transgression by birth. Not only is man sinful from what is referred to as original sin (Adam's transgression) but man is sinful by his own choosing. There's not a single person that could say they're not a sinner by God's standards, all have broken some part of the law, lieing, stealing, adultery (looking on a woman to lust after her), etc.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

So if this is true, what is the penalty?

Ezekiel 18:20 (first part of the verse)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Revelation 20:12-14
12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Romans 14:12
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God

The penalty of our sin is not only death - which passes upon all men, for all men die - but also eternal separation from God in hell. This leaves us in a horrible position - if we're born naturally sinners and the penalty is eternal condemnation in hell. So to further answer the second question I'll explain the solution - salvation through Christ.

So if all are sinners and all dieing in their natural state go to hell, then what can be done about it? How do you get to heaven and not end up in hell? More scriptures provide the answer.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

So in God's law He's provided a provision for atonement from sin - through shed blood, and so atonement through the death of His Son Jesus upon the cross.

John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

So Christ died upon the cross to bear the penalty for our sins, how then do we receive it?

Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

When Christ preached the gospel in Mark 1, his message was simple - repent and belive the gospel.

John 3:16-18
16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 10:9-10
9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

So salvation is imparted quite simply through repentance and faith in the completed work of Christ upon the cross. I think the common tendency is to believe that you have to earn it in some way, but this is clearly wrong in scripture as illustrated very clearly in the book of Galatians, I'll just quote one verse from that book and two from Ephesians.

Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

One last passage here to sort of sum this up.

Romans 5:6-9
6
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

So I'd answer question two by saying that based on my answer to question one the solution is to be saved by God's grace in Christ. After this, though, comes service toward God while we remain here and sharing the gospel - that which I'm doing here.

Now on to question three, how can I know that any of this is certain? Again I plan on quoting scripture, my reason for this is that I belive the scriptures answer this better than anything else possibly could. These things are undeniable and plainly manifest themselves within our hearts. So here are some passages on how I know that this is so.

Psalms 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

2 Peter 1:19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

A lot of the scriptures point to facts that can be clearly seen - as those in nature how God's glory can be clearly seen in those things that we see. Additionally the rainbow is a token of God's promise to man after the flood and can be read in Genesis chapter 9. Additionally there are a lot of scientific facts in the bible in some of it's oldest books - like Leviticus and Job. In the verse I quoted in Leviticus it says "the life of the flesh is in the blood" would seem obvious to use today yet it wasn't uncommon in the past for people to "let blood" as a practice that they believed would help when people were sick. As a matter of fact it's said that George Washington may have died from this having had too much blood let. Also barbers used to do this. Another verse from Job - which is probably the oldest book in the bible sets forth some scientific facts, among them is:

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

It is commonly known that the earth resides in an elliptical orbit around the sun in space - but in the past this was not commonly known. Different nations have believed different things at different times, from the earth residing on the backs of mythical animals to the earth being flat. Yet the book of Job was around long before these things and clearly stated what is commonly known to be true today. Here's another passage from Romans on how the things of God are clearly known.

Romans 1:18-25
18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

One final passage just to show where all of the thoughts of ethics come from - as being the source given from God.

Romans 2:12-15

12
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

So even those that don't have the law of God - given in commandments - have an inward working in thier heart as the manifestation of God's law. So they know what is right and what is wrong - inherently from God. I believe this is what is indicated in this verse.

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Now many in the world do come to different conclusions on ethical decisions. I do, however, try to use God's word and follow the spirit of His law to direct my life - though a man can never be justified by it, yet it is clearly wrong to continue a life in sin. This is out of love for God for the work that God has done in my life as well as an inward disgust of my own sin, knowing that it is there, that I am prone to such actions and that it is displeasing to God. I will also say that some are so wholly given to sin as to not care for such things as can be seen towards the end of Romans chapter 1.

Romans 1:26-32
26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So my response is pretty long, but this is what I take for the three answers to those questions that you posed in your first posting. Knowing that these things are certain.

Sorry to post such a big reply, couldn't help but quote so many verses

.................................................L owbrow Alert............................................. ........................
The three fundamental questions I ask myself every morning are a little simpler,and more easily answered(I am a self appointed scholar also) They are
1)Is there a round in the chamber
2)is there enough fuel in the tanks for a round trip
3)Is there enough beer,and hard boiled eggs in the cooler
Life is fun if you keep it simple/it's great to be me

Best regards Gary

to bevansmw-good job! to traveler-keeping it simple isthe best way of not getting caught up in the bs of life. it works for me.

Hi bevansmw! Welcome to the discussion. Don't worry about the plethora of scriptural quotes, people who use their religious faith to find the source of right and wrong often rely on specific scripture, and it's good to have a reference to that scripture for the rest of us who might have questions.

Please don't take offense with what I'm about to say, but I'm going to outline some...difficulties I have with this sort of ethical belief system.

First, I notice that you use Judgment Day and the subsequent consignment to Heaven or Hell to motivate people to do what is right and refrain from what is wrong. But it seems to me that this sort of motivation through fear of punishment or desire for reward isn't the right sort of motivation if one is to be called moral. If the reason they feed and clothe the poor or heal the sick or comfort the afflicted is because they are anticipating some greater reward in the future or because they fear the pain and anguish of punishment, then they're not doing the right thing because it's the right thing. They're still acting selfishly, it's just that they're focusing on longer term consequences. When your kids only clean their room so they don't get a whupping or because you promised to take them for ice cream if they do, we don't feel they are as praiseworthy as we would if they did it because it needed to be done, without have to be externally compelled.

Second, it seems that you're using the King James version of the Bible, or a translation that's very close. The problem with the Bible is that it's pretty clear from its history that what was included and what was left out was made for very human, political reasons. Even if I grant that the Bible was divinely inspired, why would we leave out the Gospel according to St. Peter or St. Thomas, or any of the other gnostic gospels? These decisions were made during the Council of Nicea, because the Emperor Constantine had just converted to Christianity and wanted a reading list to better understand his new religion. The church leaders of the day wanted to make very sure that the Emperor didn't read texts of which they disapproved, and I very much doubt that God was sitting in on these meetings. After all, there were 12 Disciples, why are there only 4 Gospels? You claim that there are scientific truths in the Bible, but the way you justify this is rather like the way people claim that Nostradamus predicted the future. You have some fairly obscure text that's pretty difficult to interpret. Independently, you discover some scientific fact. And then you go back to interpret the original text in line with that fact. For the longest time, aspects of the Bible were used to justify the belief that the world was flat, as the Bible clearly states that when Jesus returns, He will come from the East, but if the world were round, he couldn't come from the East for everybody. Later Christian scholars, who knew from the Greeks that the world was round, used this element of scripture to hold that nobody lived on the other side of the world. The ability to interpret these factual claims of the Bible in almost any way you wish is not a virtue of that text, but a real problem for those of us who are still stuck in the stage of inquiry.

Getting down to the knitty gritty, there is a fundamental question about the relationship of morality to God, and I don't think you're going to like the implications of this question. You claim that God commands what is right, but does he command it because it is right, or is it right because He commands it? If it is the former, then the difference between right and wrong is arbitrary, and depends entirely on God's whims. If we were to ask him why we shouldn't covet our neighbor's wife, ultimately, the only answer he could give would be "Because I said so." If he commanded us to kill our first born children by hanging them by their toes and peeling off their skin in one inch strips, then that would make it right to do so, and that should strike you as pretty wrong. On the other hand, If God commands what is right because it is right, then the difference between right and wrong transcends God's edict. God would then have reasons for his commands, and if we are to be moral ourselves, then we need to discover these reasons and not remain ignorant and simply follow orders.

Finally, why should I be a Christian, and not a Muslim or a Hindu or even a Wiccan? Each of these other faiths have their own moral codes, and their beliefs about God(s) are radically incompatible with one another. In fact, if I am to be entirely honest about the situation, I have to admit that I can't know whether God even exists, because in this life I can never have any sure experience of him. I can hope he exists, and I can behave as if he does exist, even to the extent that I feel really very certain, but I can never know it, because this belief can never be independently justified. There's no experiment I can do to show God's existence, and no successful logical proof of it. When I have what I take to be a religious experience, I have no way of knowing if it's the same sort of experience you have when you claim to have a religious experience, and I have no way of knowing if we are connected to the same thing as the cause of this experience.

This is why I claim that these sorts of ideas aren't particularly good for understanding the nature of morality, because if you're right, then to understand morality, I would have to understand God, and I don't think anybody would admit that they can do that. Don't fret, because where knowledge ends, faith begins. I can still have faith in God, even if I can't know anything about him, but I can know about morality, which means that God and morality are not connected in any simply or easy way. It is far better for us that we can have access to knowledge of right and wrong without needing such access to God, for opinions vary too much about Him, and we require more universality and certainty when we try to figure out what to do. This is why there's a whole discipline devoted to figuring out what's right and wrong, without making reference to any deity.

I like this discussion. Let me first say that I have not read a lot of Kant at all, so I am not the best person to speak on his versions of morality and ethics. However, I have to throw this out there in response to your (Kantian's) primary question (So what do you think about the nature of right and wrong, good and evil? What is its source and how do we come to know it?)... Who is to ever give a definitive answer and KNOW that it is right?

I believe that conditioning plays more of a role in each and every one of our lives than we care to think about. The only way to know something as the truth is to experience it. When that truth needs to be put into a category of right or wrong it gets more complicated. The only things we know are right or wrong are that way because of our conditioning. Leaving a God out of this (if you believe in one), there is only human nature and experience to decide this for us. But where does the experience come from? It comes from everything around us- parents, television, friends, nature, books, etc. Before each of these things was something else that brought them to believe in a set of values of their own. So why do different cultures have different views of "right and wrong"? For this specific reason I would say- because there is no one definitive answer that can be agreed upon by everyone and everything in the universe. If a child were locked in a room with no outside interference or contact for its life (which I don't think would be very long), I do not believe that it would have an inherent system of beliefs and values. It isn't something that grows inside us without contact such as hunger and thirst. We need each other to either learn or figure out our own system of ethics. Obviously most people take the system taught to them and leave it at that. If you break it all down though and started from the beginning with no outside contact, would you come up with the same system?

There's nothing that $2000, .38 cal and a fast car can't solve.