*splashes water in sherpafish's fishtank*
*swishes tail*
*preens self*

quote:

---

Are ethics a product of logical thought; a 'rational balance of competing intrests or values'?

---

eth-ics n. A set of principles of right conduct. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" (Gregg Easterbrook). ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

I think the key answer to your question lies in what ethics is - which is essentially moral philosophy.

So to answer you, it is possible to derive an ethical system that is logically based, given certain starting assumptions.

For example, if you start with a basic maxim, "Harm no one unless it is unavoidable", then out of that grows the basic ethical code of conduct that would dictate not killing or hurting someone, and the converse, rendering aid when someone else is harmed. It also gives rise to the notion of self-defence - that is, if I were to harm you, and you had no choice but to harm me (as minimally as possible) in order to protect your own existence, that would be ethically justifiable on the grounds of minimization of overall harm.

quote:

---

And, if so, how would rational ethical thought differ from the 'gut' or moralistic definition?

---

It doesn't necessarily have to - we all seem to have a basic built-in 'program' that sometimes says even when something seems perfectly legal, it still stinks. A prominent example would be the actions of Enron CEOs.

quote:

---

Do ethics limit possible choises or do they provide a system of guidlines to further remaining choise?

---

I would say ethics provides a framework that both limits certain options (for example, in the ethical system I outlined above, I am constrained from harming you to gain your property, or any other motive except that of self-defence or to prevent harm to someone else), and provides guidelines for those options which remain open. For example, if I wished to buy your property or make a fair trade for it, the ethical system outlined above would suggest that harm might be extended into the emotional realm so that paying you an unjustly low price for your items might be harmful, or trading you something of mine (if it were defective and you didn't know) for your working items might also be harmful.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

In any case, ethics is a product of thought - not all of it logical. We have various ways of thinking: emotional, inductive, deductive, speculative, pattern-forming, reflective. We have memory, desire, relationships. Ethics evolve from how people fit together in groups, and how people fit into the environment; what their needs and experiences have been and how they want the group to function.

Here's what I've come up with.

We have to be aware of what we are. We are animals. Social animals. And as such, there are observable interactions that have been summed up by scientists in terms of "tit for tat". I suggest some reading on it.

In some ways, it suggests we are rather selfish creatures, and this seems to jive with the conservative notion that people always opperate within their own self interest. And, it does more than just seem to, it does. We are carrying cases for our genes, make no mistake. Our behaviors are predicated on this, everything about us is.

However, where conservatives fall down, is that their perceived self interests usually don't extend much beyond arm's length, while we on the left, being quite a bit more clever and farsighted than conservatives, understand our self interests are much broader than this. We recognize, even if some trick themselves into believing they are being "altruistic", that we are social animals, and that our own self interest is inextricably linked to our nieghbors, to all our fellow citizens.

30 million Canadians, all playing "tit for tat". It works quite well, it has it's own ethic that works.

So yes, you can have a reasoned, fact based guide to ethics and morals.

And, you need to frame your starting concepts based on what we are as creatures.

de Sade's view of liberty, the libetine philosophy is fine, very workable-- if we had evolved from bears, who are not social animals. In fact, the family Ursus seems to embody the libertine philosophy-- the ultimate conservatives.

But being the apes we are, we have to come up with something else. The idea of everyone being free to persue life, liberty and happiness is an expression of "tit for tat". You riegn in your short sighted, anti-social impulses against your nieghbor, so you don't suffer from the short sighted anti-social tendancies from your other nieghbor. I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine.

Interestingly, those who violate "tit for tat", end up being penalized somehow. Our laws are an expression of that morality. And, if we computer model the "tit for tat" game, we see that the eventual "winners" are the ones who co-operate with others who co-operate, but avoid those that just "take".

Ethics are the principals of the society. The ethical process of a certain society is the process that determines how decisions are made, the evalution of individual merits, so on and so forth. Basically, within our 'democratic' society all legal decisions "are" based on the ethical process. The two major components of the Canadian legal system are the ethics of consequence (utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) and the ethics of principle (Emmanuel Kant)
Utilitarianism looks at firstly, what groups are affected by the issues? And in what way does the decision impact these groups. Basically it is concerned about the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

Ethics of principle has two main questions:
1. does the act treat others with respect
2. can you will the acts maxim as a moral law?

SO basically our legal system integrates these to philosophies into one cohesive unit, which in theory is a strong and fair ideal. The reasons and benefits for the integration should be obvious.

An ethical process overview.
1. What community is affected? (a majority or minority)
2. Does the act (solution) treat others (and the subject) with respect.
3. Can you will the act's maxim as a moral law? (Will this solution be adequately fair and effective in all such situations "mitigating circumstances")
4. How will this act effect the subject groups? (will the decision be detrimental to the progression of the group?)

Now you have a good idea of our legal system (Uhh I hope)

Morality is the individuals codice of personal principle's, generally the individuals morality will reflect the ethics of its environment. The microcosm is a direct reflection of the macrocosm.

Are ethics useful or do the aide to the hindrance of social progressiveness?

quote:

---

There is nothing basically wrong with 'western' morality. It's a bit confused, having come down through the Roman Catholic era, but all of Europe's other nations have added their bit, and modern thinkers sorted out some contradictions.

---

Uhh.. its not the morality that is "confused", it is the practice of the ethics in question. Ethical debates are generally overlooked because of the intellectual nature (see "anti intellectualism") and the inherent reviewing of established doctrines (especially those with vested financial interest).
And dont blame western societies problems on the "roman catholic church", whatever man. The root of our modern thought is began withthe philosophies of Plato(Socrates) and Aristotle, and even St. Augustine, but he was xian but not catholic. The problem is that there are very few people who subscribe to any base of ethics or even morality, a distinct lack of principles causes mushc of the corruption and greed and environmental destruction. So far as the corporate "elites" go, it isnt all of their fault either, blame the lazy bastards who want conveniance, a product can only exist if there is a market. And apparently there is an overwhelming market for all things "evil", dont simply consider people are zombies and cant make decisions on their own. But what is happening is we are being influenced to abandon the community and become "individuals", and with individualism comes indiviual morality, which disrupts the harmony amongst people. And just for the record, this ideology had come about long before corporate rule. The roots of much of the struggles can be traced back to the splitting of the catholic church into the catholics and the protestants, industrialization, the invention of the time piece and over agressive agriculture.

quote:

---

But there is a third possible reason for a civilization to end: natural catastrophe. In our case, far more likely is our own overweaning technology.

---

What! Technology and the responsible use thereof may be the only answer to the environmental problems we have caused, yes we. The time of tribes is long gone, stop being so goddamned trendy and "postmodern". Respect the planet, respect our knowledge, have faith in the human spirit, and start working honsetly to a better world. We are where we are, and there is no going back, that isnt to say things will be this way forever so we might as start stockpileing the marshmellows to roast on the burning cities.

quote:

---

Every previous civilization has collapsed for one or both of two reasons: 1) a stronger and more vigorous enemy and 2) so much internal corruption that the people can't function as a unit.

---

The roots of our system of thought actually go quite a bit farther back than Plato. Remember Egypt, Babylon, Sumer; before that, early agrarian societies; before that, hunting and gathring nomads - and before that... The roots go back through the apes to mammals in general.

What i meant about the confusion was that the ancient Greek model was repugnant to the Christian Church, which suppressed it for several hundred years; in fact it discouraged any discourse on ethics, having its own set of laws to enforce. On the other hand - and at the same time - it inadverdantly absorbed pagan cutures and their methods of thought. So, the system got a bit cluttered from 300 to c1500 AD.
Much of that clutter was cleared away (and some peculiar riffs added) by thinkers since the Renaissance.

The system we now have includes elements of all the civilizations which have gone before, plus the modern departure of individualism. It can be applied coherently. This is not being done at the moment.... but what's a moment?
We are in History. History has its ups and downs.

Basically, he says that if you are REALLY an empiricist, then you can't make any moral propositions whatsoever, because they are meaningless. Why are they meaningless? Because you cannot measure morality (despite utilitarian claims to the contrary), and you can't verify moral claims objectively. And since you cannot make any knowledge claims whatsoever about anything unless you can verify them empirically and objectively, then it is impossible to know what is right and wrong. All moral propositions are is emoting. You're just expressing an emotion when you make a statement about morality, and it is meaningless.

Therefore, when you say something like "It was wrong for you to hit that person", the moral part of the statement (it was wrong for you to) is meaningless. So the only thing you're really saying is, "You hit that person". The equivalent of the first statement might by saying, "You hit that person" in a tone of horror. But since you cannot empirically verify the rightness or wrongness of hitting the person, saying that it is wrong is nonsense.

I thought Tommy might like that - he tends to make lots of moral claims, but also considers himself to be a radical empiricist. According to at least one radical empiricist, this is a complete contradiction in terms.

(Oh, and I don't think you can be a radical empiricist and a true skeptic at the same time, otherwise you would be skeptical of what your senses tell you, as skeptic philosophers in the past have been.)