Philosophy Now Forum

Benign Ethics
We live in a world in which every country does at least protest its concern for individual welfare. Benign ethics such as this may not be all it seems. In the usual tripartite way this applies to all three fundamental forms of society.
What may be named as authoritarian society, even a tyranny, will protest that it has the welfare of its citizens at heart. But it is the state or its pseudo-god that determines that benefit and beware those who speak heresy. If what is being promoted is altruistic then authoritarianism must diminish.
Anarchistic society, based on the autonomous individual, may also create a shared ethic. One that implicitly allows maximum individual liberty. This may have some similarities to Woke society. In this those who make what may be rational objections to a particular ethic or freedom or ‘right’ may be treated as heretics and not permitted publicity.
The third form of society is the most difficult. Responsible altruism for individuals and communities being something that must be defined logically. It is not what the state decides, or what a random mass of individuals decide. It is not so much rights as responsibilities to each other, between communities, and to the natural world holistically. Everyone in this form of society must be able to discuss all and any subject without limit - albeit altruistically polite.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:14 am The third form of society is the most difficult. Responsible altruism for individuals and communities being something that must be defined logically. It is not what the state decides, or what a random mass of individuals decide. It is not so much rights as responsibilities to each other, between communities, and to the natural world holistically. Everyone in this form of society must be able to discuss all and any subject without limit - albeit altruistically polite.

So, a few questions:
1) how does this arise without authoritarian approaches to implement it nor via a random mass of individuals deciding? IOW a kind of classic problem/issue of the means potentially not matching the goals, and given that means often become/influence the goals, how is this protected against?
2) Why must it be logic? or why not at least also desire/emotions contributing to the process?
3) Related to 2: You want to move from rights thinking to responsibilities thinking: so a set or rules that guide behavior and possibly attitude. This seems to presume that we need to be controlled, if only at this conceptual level. Is this true?

Benign Ethics is truism.
There cannot be malignant ethics at all.

• the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
  
  Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness"
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:45 am Benign Ethics is truism.
There cannot be malignant ethics at all.

So, no group can have malignant ethical principles?

• the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness"

It can be, but it can and more often is used to describe what people think of as good and bad, and this obviously varies.

When we use 'moral' as an adjective in relation to a person or act, then it tends to be a positive value judgment. The noun is used in a variety of ways.