Poll: Ethics
- Thread starter DrunkWithPower
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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'm actually right there with you, though they can be quite contradictory.Gormourn said:
If I absolutely had to choose one, I guess I'd go with relativism, though I believe in a few universal principles that don't necessarily work with that ideology.
Relativism and Contractarianism, with a little Utilitarianism and Naturalism at important places.
Sadly many of these ethical frameworks are built around the same system, however, critics have reshaped the opposing themes in negative ways.
For example I had a professor tell me that utilitarianism actually supported the killing of black people within America.
For example I had a professor tell me that utilitarianism actually supported the killing of black people within America.
Google is a wonderful tool; and smarterfox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9825 allows you to quickly find information on unknown topics.1ronJ4m said:Dude, I don't even know what these things mean
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.stinkychops said:
However i respect that you may feel differently.
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.stinkychops said:
felltablet said:
Hmmm, I can see it because of the "needs of the majority or the minority" but I don't know about the killing of African Americans. Interesting to read into I guess.
Perhaps a more meta-ethical thought, but...
Personally, I like to break things apart into the basic two things when it comes ethics, which would be pain and pleasure. Basically because those are the only two things that are objectively good and bad, no one liking to be hurt unless a greater satisfaction is gained (or vice versa).
Not in a hedonistic manner, mind you, but rather looking at things how they will affect people in the long run.
This alone, of course, does not say whether an individual should care only for themselves, all people or everything that can feel pain or pleasure (i.e. most animals).
I suppose the answer is in following the right amoral whims of psyche, judging which will give the greatest satisfaction in the long run, rather than choosing what brings the most instant and easiest pleasure. I.e. acting on accord of empathy might seem counter-beneficial to the individual, but acting in a manner that afterward causes pride and no guilt can be the biggest reward in itself.
Sociopath on the other hand would have no "emotional penalty" for stepping on others for their own benefit, making it from their perspectice the right thing to do. Unfortunately for them, openly acting in such way makes a lot enemies and few people can survive without a support of others. People are social animals after all. Sadly, modern society gives more than few openings for people like that, and they are often good manipulators even if they have no real friends.
Personally, I like to break things apart into the basic two things when it comes ethics, which would be pain and pleasure. Basically because those are the only two things that are objectively good and bad, no one liking to be hurt unless a greater satisfaction is gained (or vice versa).
Not in a hedonistic manner, mind you, but rather looking at things how they will affect people in the long run.
This alone, of course, does not say whether an individual should care only for themselves, all people or everything that can feel pain or pleasure (i.e. most animals).
I suppose the answer is in following the right amoral whims of psyche, judging which will give the greatest satisfaction in the long run, rather than choosing what brings the most instant and easiest pleasure. I.e. acting on accord of empathy might seem counter-beneficial to the individual, but acting in a manner that afterward causes pride and no guilt can be the biggest reward in itself.
Sociopath on the other hand would have no "emotional penalty" for stepping on others for their own benefit, making it from their perspectice the right thing to do. Unfortunately for them, openly acting in such way makes a lot enemies and few people can survive without a support of others. People are social animals after all. Sadly, modern society gives more than few openings for people like that, and they are often good manipulators even if they have no real friends.