Philosophy Now Forum

I think Ethics is to solve Ethics, to solve Ethical Dilemmas.

When a Dilemma is presented, an ethical system solves the dilemma. It is usually determined that the act of solving a dilemma is good. (The specific individual interrogation of the dilemma or of another's solution is the debate of Ethics and thus out of the specific scope of my inquiry. The importance of the intent of Ethics as a whole rather than the many debates within Ethics is to what I'm referring.)

It is Ethical to solve Ethical dilemmas. Does that mean the intent of Ethics is to be Ethical?

san wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:43 pm I think Ethics is to solve Ethics, to solve Ethical Dilemmas…

…It is Ethical to solve Ethical dilemmas. Does that mean the intent of Ethics is to be Ethical?

For me, the purpose of ethics is to assist in living the good life. Whenever there’s a conflict of values, a system of ethics can help me to sort out the importance of one value v. another.

BTW, a thread about the intent of ethics as a whole would more appropriately be situated in the forum on ethical theory, however you can probably be afforded a degree of leeway this time.

ethic is crowd control, nothing more

-Imp

san wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:43 pm When a Dilemma is presented, an ethical system solves the dilemma.

Wha this should say is, "When a dilemma is presented, it is only recognizable as a dilemma through the suppositions framed by an ethical system," or possibly "When a dilemma is presented, and an ethical system proposes a solution."

But two points are worth making: first, that dilemmas are not automatically recognized without a set of ethical suppositions already in place, and secondly, that ethical systems don't solve things: they only suggest how things ought to be solved, given the truth of the ethical system invoked.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 8:24 pm For me, the purpose of ethics is to assist in living the good life. Whenever there’s a conflict of values, a system of ethics can help me to sort out the importance of one value v. another

Excellent! That is exactly what ethics would be. Too bad no philosophy to date recognizes the purpose of ethics.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:06 pm ethic is crowd control, nothing more

-Imp

It's also a rationale for the failures and missed points that don't get ignored, often applied after the act as a justification.

The point of ethics is to give people who don't know how to behave something to do to stop them misbehaving.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:26 am The point of ethics is to give people who don't know how to behave something to do to stop them misbehaving.

...like a distraction?

Oh shit, I gotta go. The commercial is over...

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:59 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:26 amThe point of ethics is to give people who don't know how to behave something to do to stop them misbehaving.

...like a distraction?

So I gather:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:54 pm...if I were an Atheist, I would know that no moral constraints remain upon we at all, and would very likely take full advantage of that fact, I think.

I suppose obnoxious is a step up from immoral.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:04 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:59 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:26 amThe point of ethics is to give people who don't know how to behave something to do to stop them misbehaving.

...like a distraction?

So I gather:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:54 pm...if I were an Atheist, I would know that no moral constraints remain upon we at all, and would very likely take full advantage of that fact, I think.

I suppose obnoxious is a step up from immoral.

A question (for IC, especially)—must ethics be God-given?

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:27 pm A question (for IC, especially)—must ethics be God-given?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "must" and "ethics."

One could ask, why "must" ethics be anything? Whence the source of this "mustness"? I think there's a reasonable answer to that -- I'm not sure what your own specific concern in posing the question that way would be, though, so I'm inclined to wait to see before trying to respond.

As for defining "ethics," would you mean that term as "the discipline which examines questions of good," or would you mean it as, "can people actually BE good" (even merely conventionally)," or "can people know what 'good' is," or something else? Again, I'm inclined to try to understand the question before trying to answer.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:46 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:27 pm A question (for IC, especially)—must ethics be God-given?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "must" and "ethics."

One could ask, why "must" ethics be anything? Whence the source of this "mustness"? I think there's a reasonable answer to that -- I'm not sure what your own specific concern in posing the question that way would be, though, so I'm inclined to wait to see before trying to respond.

As for defining "ethics," would you mean that term as "the discipline which examines questions of good," or would you mean it as, "can people actually BE good" (even merely conventionally)," or "can people know what 'good' is," or something else? Again, I'm inclined to try to understand the question before trying to answer.

Perhaps the question would have been better formulated if I had asked whether you thought there could be a system of ethics that has been derived from any source other than God.

As for the explanations that may help you with the question as posed originally, I would suggest substituting “is there a necessity that” for “must”. I could go on to explain “necessity”, but I’d rather invite you to use the word as you see fit.

And by “ethics”, I mean a system to guide a person’s actions such that a person is leading a good life. Again, I leave it to you to decide what a good life would be.

Or, I might have asked if all moral constraints are dependent on a belief in God.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:07 pm Perhaps the question would have been better formulated if I had asked whether you thought there could be a system of ethics that has been derived from any source other than God.

Oh, thank you.

Yes. Neither Deontologies nor Consequentialisms are derived from any belief in God. Neither appeals to God as an explicit starting point. Deontologies claim to correspond to "reason," and Consequentialisms to various forms of "utility" or "outcomes." Pragmatism regards the question as unimportant. Nihilism denies we can even ask the question. Virtue Ethics...that's more debatable, but there are forms which claim not to require that. So there are a variety of Ethics frameworks that, in their theorizing, choose not to presume the existence of God as a starting point.

But I'm guessing you knew that already, so the question must be somewhat different.

So I'm guessing that the "must" means, "if an ethic is actually to be warranted or legitimate." And if that's what you mean, then the answer to your original question is this: if there is no God, there are no such things as objectively-right ethics. There are, perhaps, strategically-useful ethics that have no ultimate "oughtness," but if there is no Absolute Source, then there is no such thing as an ethical claim that is, in itself, absolutely right.

We could say, with the Pragmatists, perhaps, that some ethics are contingently useful, helpful to us for practical purposes we may choose to have, and for as long as we choose to have them. But no more than that, I would suggest. Because any universal or absolute ethic would have to presuppose teleology -- and if there's no Creator, there's no teleology.

Consequentialisms subsitute a contingent teleology for an absolute one. But this means, of course, that all Consequentialisms are merely contingent, local, and temporary. There seems to me no escaping that conclusion. And Deontology becomes arbitrary, as well; for it can no longer explain its fundamental claim that "reason" is the legitimate basis of moral reflection -- even if it could ever show that a pure and neutral "reason" is what it is actually using.

But I am going on too long. I hope I've honoured your question enough.

san wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:43 pm Does that mean the intent of Ethics is to be Ethical?

Unfortunately, that is exactly what most views of ethics results in. "Ethics is the principle of right behavior. The ethical principle is to behave right." Nonsense.

No one on this thread has actually addressed the question, "What is the point of ethics," except commonsense.

Ethics assumes human beings are volitional. If one is unable to choose their behavior, ethics is useless, since their behavior is determined. An honest determinist must reject ethics as meaningless.

Since ethics is about, "right behavior," what one should or should not do, there must be some purpose, (objective, end, or goal), relative to which any behavior is either, "right," or,
"good," (if it furthers or achieves the purpose) or, "wrong," or, "bad," (if it hinders or prevents achieving the purpose). Without defining exactly what the purpose ethical principles pertain to, there can be no ethical principles.

All values, including ethical values, only have meaning relative to beings capable of having identifiable purposes, objectives, ends, or goals, that is, individual human beings. commonsense identified that purpose of ethical principles as, "a good life," without defining what a, "good life is." Nevertheless, he is right.

But ethics is not going to be possible to define without identifying what a, "good life," for a human being is. To know that, exactly what a human being is, what the requirements of human nature are for human success as a human being must be identified. The question for ethics is: "what is the nature of a human being, and what kind of behavior is right for an organism with that nature to live successfully and fully as the kind of being he is?"

This is where the answer to the OP's question must begin.