Ethics is one of the larger fields of study in philosophy, because it is so complex and has so many questions. Ethics is also a branch almost everyone has an opinion on. While most of us probably don't deal with large aesthetics questions like "what is art?" everyday, most of us probably do wonder if we are making the right, or moral, decision.
Personally, I was a relativist for a long time. But I'm beginning to see holes in that theory. I'm moving generally more objectivist then, but I still find most of the past formulations troubling. I even question the underlying assumption of good and wrong. I want each step proven, but that rarely happens in philosophy. The trick seems to be to try to find someone who makes the same assumptions you do.
What are your moral guides, citizens of Hubski? Where do you think they come from? How do they arise? Are they beyond time and space? Or do you reject all of these questions?
The golden rule sounds pretty good to me. "Do unto others what you wish to be done unto yourself" and "Don't do unto others what you wish not to be done unto yourself" are both working at the same time if you put your views right. Would you want to break someone's heart by leaving them? Of course not. Would you want to leave a person you find no happiness with in order to do your best to find someone better for you (and you, by extension, being good for them), giving the other person the same chance even if it risks breaking their heart (an unfortunate, but temporary condition that leaves no permanent harm)? Of course.
I'm a nihilist because it is not possible for morality objectively exist. And it is a made up subjective tool that limits the possible opportunities and because illogical at any form under a different perspective.
The overall thrust of my ethics, in philosophical terms, is utilitarian - when it comes up I loosely refer to myself as a weak rule utilitarian. But in philosophy-educated circles I often get argued with that I'm really a deontologist (because all rule utilitarians are deontologists) or that I'm really an act utilitarian (because rule utilitarianism that isn't secretly deontology is just act utilitarianism). It's all very funny because the things I apparently really am are kind of in opposite directions along an axis. Having looked into various usages of the terms I've come to the conclusion that the definitions of all three have expanded / bled into one another to the extent that there is flat-out overlap between them, and the arguments are mostly about which label to apply to a static position with static implications. The arguments about what the position "really" is have no real-world impact and "weak rule utilitarian" gets across that I am more or less a utilitarian with emphasis on the need to formulate principles for general cases in order to make utilitarianism more broadly practicable, but also allowing for exceptions to general rules under circumstances where a deviant course of action is guaranteed to maximize benefits moreso than the general rule. So I keep using it, for now anyway. I fall under the consequentialist umbrella because I think most actions/states implied by the other formal ethical positions I'm semi-familiar with can be alternatively justified in terms of their consequences. I think I'm technically a relativist, but don't remember that that excludes me from promoting wide scale adoption of certain ethical standards - it just removes universality as an option for argumentation. Even though I like knowing how to (roughly) couch my ethical perspective in the proper academic terms, I do think that philosophy as an historical and intellectual practice has a really troubling tendency to devolve into nitpicky meaninglessness all too often.
Do more good things than bad things is my general rule. Now what's good and what's bad is the next question but we all somehow have our own opinion on that based on our values and deep ethics questions don't really have big impacts on day to day life in my opinion. I think most people western society agree on the basics of it (don't murder, don't hurt etc) and argue about specifics depending on values (vegetarians vs meat eaters, left vs right etc). In the end, I'm only responsible for my choices so I try do to the best I can.
Ethics, morality, and all that stuff are a bit odd for me. I often fantasize over the idea that all people are good and it is their environment that has coax these less savory traits to the forefront of their personality. Of course it's really unknown whether or not that is the case, but it's nice to look for the good in shitty situations. I took a number of ethics courses in my first year of college, and they pose some really interesting questions about the way we process and act upon information. I do think that sometimes those questions get a little out of hand to the point you are sitting there asking yourself what it means "to be". Like many have said philosophy suffers from this lack of practicality, but does provide us with questions that challenge us to see everyday scenarios in a different light.
This isn't exactly what I've observed over the course of my life. It's people not feeling in control that coaxes them into doing bad things: at least then that they feel powerful. Following higher codes - of honor, of ideals - is really hard, and humans are really brave for doing it, because it's so goddamn easy to fall through the cracks. It's for the same reason that people want to cut themselves: at least they can control that about their lives, which, by that time, are usually shit. Environment might encourage or discourage people taking control over their lives, but it can't be the source.I often fantasize over the idea that all people are good and it is their environment that has coax these less savory traits to the forefront of their personality.
The environment would in most cases be the cause of a loss of control over the self. Whether it is through beauty standards, economic status, or even social status. A lot of what we do and become has strong ties to what we are exposed to. The dynamics of power you are referring to thrive on interaction between one or more people.
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I figured I'd like to take some time to figure out the proper reply, because this topic - of control, of our darker sides and of life satisfaction as a result - is an important one for me. First of all, I'd like to establish that the way you propose people act insults every single person's ability to act on their own accord. You seem to put much more emphasis on the external pressures than they deserve and disregard the importance of decision in any action. Certainly, their effect on our mind is undeniable - it would be foolish to suggest otherwise - but it's not everything there is to acting, especially to acting in ways less desirable. Secondly, the decision-making is important for acting in any way. Existentialism establishes that everything is a choice, even not making a choice. I find this idea empowering, because it reveals that, like many things we think of ourselves, our perceived inability to control our lives and ourselves is just that - a perception, a feeling. It implies that human beings are, indeed, very powerful, emotionally and mentally, and are capable of persevering through the worst adversities of life without bending or succumbing to the ill event. It's incredibly hard to survive the deepest pits of internal Hell, I grant you, but it's not impossible, either. With that in mind, I'd like to refer to a concept I've mentioned earlier. You misunderstood it as the power dynamic between people in a society. What I referred to, instead, was the feeling of power - or, more specifically, the feeling of control over one's life and oneself. It is through lacking it that we feel like doing evil, however petty or big. If a person feels in control of their lives - that is, of the events and, more importantly, experiences that make said life - there's no need for them to commit any sort of crime because there's no need for establishing this control. It's through the collision of the ideals - "That's what I want to have" - and the reality in which we don't seem to even have a clear way of having it that evil motives arise; it's ego fighting back for being important once again as it was in the childhood. It is this power that we desire: to change the circumstances that don't satisfy us. Naturally, this requires a healthily-broken ego (that is, ego that's been subjected to the reality of the fact that the person in question can't always have what they want or that gaining it would require more work than they're willing to put in) to work in a way that's beneficial for the person and for the society as a whole - otherwise, the ego would take over and desire to change everything and stay mad while things aren't being changed - but it's not impossible to acquire said feeling of control, which is what I propose the be the source of evils many people commit. Naturally, there are things beyond our control even in our minds - autists, for example, can't "train" their brain to be like a neurotypical person's, and mental disorders are mostly inaccessible from the inside - but for the mentally-healthy human beings, that's the way to go.
Yet free will and the environmental effects one endures affect us on a conscious level and biological level. There are varying and unchanging ways that our environments affect us as people, and even as far as affecting our children. I never said that it was "everything" as you put it. Don't put absolutes where they aren't. I feel I need to reiterate this again, but I never disregarded the biological inclinations, just that the environment plays a very strong role in deciding who we become. In this you mention perception which is another aspect of self that is heavily affected by our environment. Our perception of self, of others, of institutions, of religion, of any concept under the sun. What is the self? What is one's life? What are either of those concepts without interaction? Society is one giant interaction, one that affects ourselves and everyone we interact with. Essentially what you are saying is when we cannot control certain aspects of our environment we act out which would mean? That the environment plays a strong role in deciding who we become as people, yes? All of this is in reflection to the environment we exist in. In nothing you mentioned does it operate outside of society, interaction, or our environments. Everything you've mentioned is reformed and changed by the environment on a constant basis.First of all, I'd like to establish that the way you propose people act insults every single person's ability to act on their own accord. You seem to put much more emphasis on the external pressures than they deserve and disregard the importance of decision in any action. Certainly, their effect on our mind is undeniable - it would be foolish to suggest otherwise - but it's not everything there is to acting, especially to acting in ways less desirable.
Secondly, the decision-making is important for acting in any way. Existentialism establishes that everything is a choice, even not making a choice. I find this idea empowering, because it reveals that, like many things we think of ourselves, our perceived inability to control our lives and ourselves is just that - a perception, a feeling. It implies that human beings are, indeed, very powerful, emotionally and mentally, and are capable of persevering through the worst adversities of life without bending or succumbing to the ill event. It's incredibly hard to survive the deepest pits of internal Hell, I grant you, but it's not impossible, either.
With that in mind, I'd like to refer to a concept I've mentioned earlier. You misunderstood it as the power dynamic between people in a society. What I referred to, instead, was the feeling of power - or, more specifically, the feeling of control over one's life and oneself. It is through lacking it that we feel like doing evil, however petty or big. If a person feels in control of their lives - that is, of the events and, more importantly, experiences that make said life - there's no need for them to commit any sort of crime because there's no need for establishing this control. It's through the collision of the ideals - "That's what I want to have" - and the reality in which we don't seem to even have a clear way of having it that evil motives arise; it's ego fighting back for being important once again as it was in the childhood. It is this power that we desire: to change the circumstances that don't satisfy us.
I think it is more of a consequentialist application of Kantian ethics. Kant was all about the motives, and said disrespecting another's human dignity should be avoided because our rationality tells us to respect each other. But, that leaves some strange things open, which may however play into your second point. If someone dies because you lie, Kant says you did the right thing (as long as it was motivated by duty to rationality). I think most people would disagree. But of course, that situation is likely to be rather rare.Generally, any action which benefits an individual at the expense of others is probably going to be wrong, especially if there's something underhanded in it. This definitely isn't a bulletproof heuristic, but I think it works pretty well. I guess this would qualify as Kantian?
You are absolutely right, I thought one thing and wrote the other. That's always what's troubled me too. Why not both? I can see that if someone has good intentions, but it turns out slightly differently than they expected, they can't really be at fault. But sometimes people just mess up so badly, they have to be held accountable., but wouldn't Kant say that if someone died because you told the truth, you did the right thing?
I think both the "means" and the "ends" are important,
Have you ever read Karl Jaspers? His *Way to Wisdom" takes a similar approach to what you just said, urging a renewal of focus on the actual issues of philosophy rather than "epistemology and syntax." He also said that even not having a philosophy is in itself a kind of philosophy, which is both a compelling statement, and a very frustrating one. On the other hand, he's a Christian existentialist, and so some of his other ideas can end up seeming rather weak.
Formal axiology. It is a thing. There exist consultants.Every now and then when this question comes up I'll describe myself as a Gygaxian Axialist just to see if anyone notices.