I don't buy ethics

Post Reply New Topic

Hello World,

I find it hard to buy ethical rules just because they are ethical. I feel the need to question every societal rule with logic to determine if it really works or not before accepting and applying the rule, and I find myself question some of the ethical rules like no castration, no death penalty, no torture, no lying, no prostitution, etc in a way like I question whether chocolate milk or yogurt for breakfast is better for me. This makes some people around me angry as they believe unethical is unethical, and this reason is enough to ditch those unethical options, while I feel the need to consider the unethical option and see if it really is good for us in the long term before ruling it out.

Thus I have always been called cold, unemotional, unethical, antisocial by people despite I don't enjoy inflicting pain on others. I guess part of it is also because I don't react with disgust or anger when those unethical stuff gets brought up, I generally react with calm logic and interest like the way I would react to a math question. I guess it makes people think I don't care about others' suffering? Well, I do take others' suffering into consideration but it is only a part of the equation and I feel the need to consider the whole picture if that makes any sense.

Your thoughts and experiences regarding this matter are welcome!

Kinda have to agree with you there. "Ethics" is just a word people throw around like "animal "welfare". Animal rights opposes cruelty to animals period, whereas, animal "welfare" says you can do whatever you like with them as long as you supposedly do it in a "humane" way. Yeah, sure, you can starve them or electrocute them, as long as you starve or electrocute them "humanely".

People must die. As hobbible as it is to say, some people must die. Like bin Laden... he just hadda go.

Without ethics, humans can't live in large groups to enjoy the benefits of trade and technology. We have an instinct to demand fairness and teach mutual respect. The Golden Rule sums up the field quite well. Those who reject moral behaviour cause a lot more damage than their basic theft, but can still prosper individually. If too many choose that path, their whole civilization collapses.
There is also the related field of polite manners. These can seem artificial and phony, but they are also a good guide to getting along with people of indeterminate emotional condition and mental capacity - things we are not good at knowing anyway. On the whole being polite works better than being rude, especially if one's message is upsetting.

Interesting post. I find a lot of what people believe to be ethical and moral are quite convoluted with their own emotions and opinions (and bollocks). As hard as it is for people we need to have an objective (and closer to the truth) view of things. I find Sam Harris' discussions of morality interesting.

Whats the morally correct decision from the unlikely scenario below:

In your home you have the cure to a disease which your about to release [that day] and save MILLIONS of lives. Also in the home is your child. A fire breaks out in your house and you know that you will only be able to save either your child or the cure. What is the ethically right thing to do?

Now I understand this is a) unrealistic and b) a case where emotions should likely win out every time.

Good discussion though guys.

My post wasn't supposed to be opposed against empathy or compassion by the way, I just felt that the individual should decide what he/she thinks is good and ethical rather than simply accepting what society tells them. They should adapt their own moral guidelines to everyday life while doing good unto others.

I'm always surprised when I hear about someone getting so shocked by the mere questioning of accepted norms of behavior; most people I spend time with are open to such discussion.

However, I have to accept that people have different value systems than I do and thus prioritize different things than I do - which can make discussion problematic if not impossible. A few possible sources of values could be:

1) Logic - If my values systems tells me that what's important is maximizing happiness and reducing suffering, then my ethical standards are going to be centered around the best ways to accomplish that. Logical and empirical evaluation will be essential.

2) Authority - If my values system instead tells me that what's important is obeying and carrying out the will of a divine being, then my ethical standards are going to be centered around looking for signals of that being's will. Whether something is logical is less important than how closely I believe it matches the preference of the divine being.

3) Emotion - Another possibility could be that I value my own emotional state above all else. Each action is evaluated based on how it makes me feel: things that make me happy are good, and things that make me upset are bad.

You can see how if three people held a different one of these outlooks, a productive discussion could be difficult - because they all have different values prioritized. They could all agree on a course of action, but for different reasons. Even more confusingly, one person could hold all three value systems that take precedence at different times.

I think it's ironic that you say "I Don't Buy Ethics", because it sounds like your problems arise from your willingness (and your peers unwillingness) to practice ethics (as a field).