Please define "Ethical" 3

[GreenTeeth]

Not being funny or anything, just thought it might make an interresting thread.

And while yoou're at it, could you compare it to "Moral"

Regards

Rob

 

[skiflyer]

What if they're right on the wall? Doesn't the majority have an obligation to be fair to the minorities and pass votes which are the best for the entire population, while at the same time being just to EVERY INDIVIDUAL in the population? Rule by majority does not have to mean the majority being favored above all other groups. In a representative government the idea is to elect intelligent representatives of your views, who are then to go into cabinet/senate/whatever meetings, and use reason and good judgement to both represent you and help you... but not above the point of being fair and just and respectful to all humans/the environment/etc.

To actually make a technology point here, I think this is one of the exciting things about tech in a democracy. Points can be debated and discussed and hashed over in amazing detail, with an amazing amount of research at ones fingertips... while in many ways being ignorant of ones minority/majority standing in society. (allowing the points to be debated on merit alone) Obviouslly groups like the illiterate, or those who can't afford to get to a computer are still screwed... but with public access points, and the like becoming more popular we're getting better about as many groups as possible.

Cynicism reigns king, and in today's society I don't think that's necessarily wrong... but I think your above comments go too far as to how far it reaches.

-Rob

 

[sleipnir214]

skiflyer:
Just out of curiosity, to whom was your last comment directed?

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[skiflyer]

sleipnir
to Greenteeth... you snuck in a post while I was typing, sorry I should've been more clear.

-Rob

 

[GreenTeeth]

Just apologising if anyone was offended by my last post, I was merely putting in a point of view for the thread. Surely a thread of this sort is likely to have political conotations. What is ethics about if it is not implicated within a society.

I was unaware that politics was such a firey subject, and would certainly not started the thread had I known.

Regards
Rob

 

[sleipnir214]

GreenTeeth:
Politics are, of course, a normal part of modern human discourse. And you are right, it is often impossible to separate the logic of ethics from the morass of politics in a lot of subjects brought up in this forum.

However, there is a difference between hyperbole and considered criticism of a nation's government's policies as it pertains to an ethical discussion. Your post, in my anything-but-humble opinion, fell into the former category.

But I was not offended. Believe me, it takes a lot to offend me. The problem is that when political hyperbole gets inserted into a thread, that thread ends up getting deleted. And I hate to see threads get deleted.

Now, if you have facts to back up your assertions, that moves your post from the "hyperbole" to the "criticism" side of the line....


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[PCLine]

GreenTeeth

Don't worry about it. You haven't said anything particulary offensive, IMHO.

I don't agree with your assessment of the UK political situation ~ but I'm sure we won't fall out over that, lol.

Remember, just because "you're" wrong doesn't mean that "we're" right :-D

All the best.

 

[xutopia]

I've been thinking about this thread a lot lately. I have to agree with CC about his ethymology and his definitions. I love ethymolody (BTW where do you have any good online ethymology dictionaries? I've been looking and never found anything worthwhile).

I think people that find ethics/morals interesting might enjoy reading about Evolutionary Stable Strategies (ESS) and Game Theory. One author I found remarkable regarding this was Richard Dawkins a Zoologist who uses mathematics to explain how a group, when cooperating can actually achieve way more than if they didn't cooperate. I see this as proof that cooperation is better than rampant selfishness.

Many of the basis we have for ethics and morals are based on the greater good of the whole rather than the selfish gain of an individual. When someone does something selfish we often hear "What if everyone started doing that?". Dawkins presents us with mathematical models explaining what happens with different balances of altruism and egoism.

Morals I see as being the principles to which people abide in order to define their actions. These are mainly religious, handed down by family or simply something thought of on your own. It usually comes from a mixture of different sources and (thankfully in some instances) can change over time. For example it used to be considered immoral for a lady to have a social drink. Today it is considered normal for a woman to have a drink (and some men seem to encourage it even though their ancestors bemeaned women that would do such an evil thing). Morals is all about what is good and what is bad in the generally accepted term in a period of time.

Ethics is the rationalisation of it all and is meant to be impossible to refute. For example an ethical rule saying doctors should not harm but heal their patients is hard to refute (though admitedly there are exceptions when they prick that needle in your arm but we'd understand it is for the greater benefit of the whole body). The rule means that doctors should see what they can do to fix a problem doing the least damage to your body. For example if your finger hurts they don't immediatly cut your arm off. They first see what is wrong with your finger, attempt to reduce pain and fix the problem as best they can.

Morals are actually hard to rationalize into ethics because what is considered good or bad at one time can be completely irrelevant or immoral in another (women not being allowed to vote, slavery, taking over a country for their ressources, etc...).

In this forum we often get into arguments and discuss for long periods of time. We actually talk more about morals than about ethics here.

I hope my post doesn't confuse but rather clears things up. I'm in favor of discussion and dialogue and believe consensus cannot always be reached in the world of morals. Ethics is a hopeful place for a cynic witness like myself.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************