Poll: Ethics

[walkingdead127]

Ethics only slows you down in this world. That is the way the generations before us made it.

 

[Sigel]

Contractarianism is the ethical model which I believe comes closest to describing the way the world really is. People are social animals - natural selection picks those who can co-operate with others, for the most part. Our brains have a natural impulse to "fit in". Of course, biology is messy and some of us are born with brains that do not desire to fit in, but most human beings try to form a "contract" with society. I do not kill you and you do not kill me, and that increases both our chances for happiness, reproduction and survival. You do not steal from me and I do not steal from you and at the end of the day, we both feel safer.

We find crime detestable, even if it does not happen to us, because if we didn't find crime detestable, society would not exist. The truly sociopathic tend to get themselves killed very quickly, thus, elminating their genes from the system. It's just the natural order of things. Now because neural development is a messy affair, and genes can recombine and get "shuffled", sociopaths occasionally arise and always will - but for the most part, human beings aren't like that. Nature has set us up to form social contracts with each other, because if we didn't.... WE WOULDN'T EXIST!

Contractarianism is basically a way to let individuals pursue their own selfish interests. Individually, no matter how strong, fast or smart we are, we can't get much done and our chances of survival are very slim. However, by creating a caring, orderly society, we increase our chances of survival greatly.

Truly co-operation is humanity's greatest power. Only by co-operating in large numbers can we achieve anything. Even Issac Newton, widely regarded as the most intelligent person who ever lived, said that he only got where he was by standing on the shoulders of giants.

I think that was very eloquently stated, covers the point nicely,and I agree with you.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

...

Man this is a tough one. I guess I'm also a person that wants to see ends meet no matter what gets in the way.

Nice topic!

 

[SsilverR]

So how many peoples lives are worth a new renewable enrgy source that functions in standard combustion engines?

that would depend on how readily available it would be, what sort of impact it would have on society and the rest of the planet and the effectiveness of it. Also i cant see how torture would be nessesary to help find this re-newable reasourse in the first place.

However would you oppose the torture if the deaths resulted in cures that could potentially save your life and the lives of thousands or even millions?

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few .. so i don't there would be a choice either way

 

[riskroWe]

A combination of egoism and relativism, where even the most horrible acts can be justified under extreme circumstances. Like that scene in Saw where that chick cuts that guy's stomach open.

 

[Scarecrow38]

Morality and Ethics, in my humble opinion, can't be split into a poll or a exclusive selection. The best approach isn't to try to pigeon hole each person's view, but to realise that almost everyone doesn't pull on a single level. Rather, you pull each a little.

I didn't vote because I honestly don't know. Any choice I make involving ethical or moral consequences occurs subconsciously and instantaneously. As I'm sure many of you will agree, you just know whether a choice is right or wrong, your brain isn't a maths student. It won't give you it's working out and won't explain how it got the answer, it's a calculator. You get the decision and then you decide whether to follow, or not.

 

[Axeli]

Morality and Ethics, in my humble opinion, can't be split into a poll or a exclusive selection. The best approach isn't to try to pigeon hole each person's view, but to realise that almost everyone doesn't pull on a single level. Rather, you pull each a little.

I didn't vote because I honestly don't know. Any choice I make involving ethical or moral consequences occurs subconsciously and instantaneously. As I'm sure many of you will agree, you just know whether a choice is right or wrong, your brain isn't a maths student. It won't give you it's working out and won't explain how it got the answer, it's a calculator. You get the decision and then you decide whether to follow, or not.

No, no, no. It's very important to dwell on how you should define right and wrong. I give you that there are many people who can decide wisely without much of a philosophy, but too often the reluctance to ponder the definition of ethics and morals only spawns people with moral ideas based solely on primal reaction to things they don't understand, biased opinions and narrow minded views.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Utilitarianism, maybe. But I can see how that could go wrong.
So..Relativism?
No. You can't just choose one.

Nihilism, there you go. World is ridiculous and meaningless. Simple-way-out-ism.

 

[Scarecrow38]

Morality and Ethics, in my humble opinion, can't be split into a poll or a exclusive selection. The best approach isn't to try to pigeon hole each person's view, but to realise that almost everyone doesn't pull on a single level. Rather, you pull each a little.

I didn't vote because I honestly don't know. Any choice I make involving ethical or moral consequences occurs subconsciously and instantaneously. As I'm sure many of you will agree, you just know whether a choice is right or wrong, your brain isn't a maths student. It won't give you it's working out and won't explain how it got the answer, it's a calculator. You get the decision and then you decide whether to follow, or not.

No, no, no. It's very important to dwell on how you should define right and wrong. I give you that there are many people who can decide wisely without much of a philosophy, but too often the reluctance to ponder the definition of ethics and morals only spawns people with moral ideas based solely on primal reaction to things they don't understand, biased opinions and narrow minded views.

Don't get me wrong, I am far from the person who relies on primal reaction, narrow-minded stubbornness and bias. I have thought about it before and examined many theories of morality and ethics but I have not yet found a theory with certsin aspects that I disagree with. But I totally agree with you about the importance of critical thinking and self- regulation.

I suppose my morality has alot to do with the rights of those involved. I don't consider 'happiness' per se, though that can be associated with their right to feel good and to not have me infringe upon that. The overall benefit to society doesn't fit into all of my moral choices, but I consider the rights of society in that: does this issue mean that large numbers of people will be disadvantaged?

For me though, rights are the big one. Pro- choice, pro-gay marriage, pro- euthanasia. It isn't the whole story though because I'm against legalising drugs. I don't know why.. but I have this deep rooted opposition to illicit drugs (with cigarettes lumped in with these to a much, much lesser extent), and people with a need to get drunk at every opportunity.

So I also believe that there are some cases where people need to be protected from themselves. So I have no idea which moral theory applies to me. I can definitely argue and support my beliefs on any moral choice I make though so it's not a case of blind action.

 

[Amishdemon]

Every one is worth someone else s life. So in other words their is always some one who i would find it right to kill to save your life.

 

[lazy_bum]

Hmm, I'm not quite sure really, if I said yes than that would mean I supported Unit 147(or some such, the Jap's that tortured soldiers horrifically, often operating without aneasthetic and removing organs until the person died).

After considering, no, I would not support the tortures. What right do we have?

I can understand where he's coming from, after all we already do this to a limited extent with animal testing (a form of torture?) and less strict human testing is only a short step up that has potential benefits, it's just a question of balancing those benefits with the cost. Not that I support this view, after all I believe in natural rights, just that I understand how one could subscribe to it.

I can understand where he is coming from, I just don't know if I would be able to live within such a society. I appreciate society, and I would sacrafice my life for many things, but the idea of torture for progress removes the humanity from humanity...

I suppose i have a rather pessimistic view of humanity, but from what i've seen of humanity from history and current affairs is that humanity (not as individuals usually though) as a species is savage and brutal as it is. We just like to pretend different, but when it comes down to it we wont think twice about attacking each other and pretty much anything else in this world without a second thought, and causing much death and destruction in the process. Therefore i personally reason why do we shirk away from such methods when we can see there caould be more overarching benefits than the usual petty gains we do at the moment. Wondering if it might be no-one would like to admit it was premeditated suffering, despite the fact that we know what sort of affect we will have with our current wars and weapons already. or because of the fuss that would be kicked up by activist groups, such as we have with groups like A.L.F (Animal liberation front) who while well meaning often do more harm than good.
Just a thought that popped into my head just now.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

Hmm, I'm not quite sure really, if I said yes than that would mean I supported Unit 147(or some such, the Jap's that tortured soldiers horrifically, often operating without aneasthetic and removing organs until the person died).

After considering, no, I would not support the tortures. What right do we have?

I would have to say the right to survive as a species as well as a duty to future generations so that they would not have to make the same sacrafices. after all it is a cruel and uncaring universe and i personally feel that if we cannot make sacrafices, however distastefull then we will not be able to survive as a species.
However i respect that you may feel differently.

Hooray for the species!

I choose which ever one is the 'A few must die so that more may live' option.
we're going to die anyway, might aswell be at the helpful end of a knife than the murder end.
And by helpful I mean being experimented on for the greater good.
Sorry if this view offends you, but it's just a temporary mood.

 

[lazy_bum]

Hooray for the species!

I choose which ever one is the 'A few must die so that more may live' option.
we're going to die anyway, might aswell be at the helpful end of a knife than the murder end.
And by helpful I mean being experimented on for the greater good.
Sorry if this view offends you, but it's just a temporary mood.

I always find it interesting that we would sacrafice millions in a world war so that the people will be able to live in a democratic society, but not willing to sarafice a far fewer number of people so that those same people or their descendants can live better lives. Maybe it's because in a war we can blame somebody else for all the deaths and not have them on our conscionce (sorry for the bad spelling, have totally forgotten how to spell at the moment.)

 

[Rolling Thunder]

My personal philosophy is a bastardised hybrid of Egoism and Natural Rights. It functions thusly: I am, therefore. I'm not sure what I actually 'therefore', but the current list is fifteen hundred pages long and growing. I assert the right of others to do as they like, provided it does not harm me or those I care for. I assert the right to retaliate in any manner I see fit if you do so. I assert the fact I can be fallible in these matters, and that in most cases, the legal system is the fittest manner to respond.

I have the right to kill, in protection of myself, others or my nation.
I have the right to say what I damn well think, and the opinions of others are a matter for my own conscience.
I have the right to debate, argue and contest with others in a rational fashion.
I have the right to make my own way in the world, with or without the aid of others.
I have the right to leave my nation is I object to it's behaviour, ethics, society or other manners. I also have the right to attempt to alter these by means of rights #2 and #3.
I have the right to live, work, breathe and indulge myself to the greatest lengths, and experience as much of the world as I can and wish to.