Ethics = completely pointless

What does ethics achieve?

If you are religious then (usually) your morality is laid down by a God. It is black and white, do this, don't do that. No discussion needed.

If you are not religious then morality is subjective.. and so doesn't have any real meaning. Asking an ethical question without religion is asking a question based on terms with no logic.

Q: Is it wrong to murder?

A: If you are a christian yes, if you are an atheist then wrong has no context. If you are a Christian then do not murder. If you are an atheist then it's up to you.

Without religion every question is subjective. An answer can't be given without circumstances. At the end of the day there is no right and wrong and a person must just choose what is most beneficial to them... whether it be in a selfish manner of selfless.

Questions like "Should i cheat on my gf blah blah" are so mundane.. if you ask a priest he will say no.. anyone elses opinion is just that.. personal opinion. It is neither wrong or right to cheat on your gf.. if happiness is your goal then weigh up what will make you happier. If loyalty is your goal then weigh up what is more loyal.

Questions only make sense in relation to something else.

Murder is wrong - nonsense
Murder of your best friend is not a very good idea because he is your friend and you like him - logic

 

Ooh, can I play?

I think ethics is more like heartless or uhmm... hearted.
Murder, if you're ethically sound, would make you feel bad
Murder, if you're heartless, would make you feel nothing

It's not so much about right and wrong. It's about how you should be.
Empathy might help. You could say it's 'wrong' to ruin someone else's life, by killing it or stealing from it, or whatever. You could say it's 'right' to not hurt them.

So the question 'Should I cheat on my girlfriend' can be seen as 'Should I hurt my girlfriend by boning other chicks' (empathy) or 'Will cheating on my girlfriend make me feel bad'

Ethically, don't do it because you'd feel bad or you care. Unethically, do it because you don't care and your Jr. wants a change of pace.

Unless you have no ethics and you just don't care about anyone

Ethics are a 'guideline' If everyone followed em, we'd be better off.

 

That's not true. Religious and non-religious people are both exposed to and live within moral codes that are mutually established by the society they live in.

 

Nope. Religious people live by (what they think to be) objective moral codes.

Non-religious people live by non-objective law that everyone has agreed to abide by.

Social law has nothing to do with what is wrong and right it is to do with mutual respect of what individuals want.

So ethical consideration is meaningless... because it concerns objective morality.. something which the law of society doesn't deal with.

We can either discuss actions in regard to the law of a society or to religious objective morality.

 

Not really. Most religious people I've met pick and choose which religious laws they follow.

How is that different?

Well, as I understood it, ethics is an attempt to construct a non-religious objective morality, or at least, objective compared to personal subjective moralities.

 

You're making an assumption that everyone who murders is not normal or that they don't want to murder and don't like it.

What does heartless mean? I'm sure murderers have huge motives for doing what they do, otherwise why would they do it. Soldiers murder everyday.

That's the same thing. If someone is saying how you should be they are saying what is right and wrong.

If someone doesn't feel empathy then how can anyone expect them to relate to it?

You could do... but it would lack any meaning. Just as i could say it is wrong to eat apples on a Tuesday.

People do things for reasons. If cheating didn't offer anyone any pleasure or benefit then why would they do it? You could see it as "I don't care enough about my girlfriend to not find fun elsewhere".... or you could see it as "I love my girlfriend and it would hurt me too much to see her upset". Either one is in favour of the cheater.

What?

You don't have to believe in man made morality to care about people.

Ethics aren't set in stone. Some peoples ethics say it's okay to beat their wives.... some say it is not okay.

 

Well that's ridiculous. If something is the word of God why would someone think that some morals are real and some false. People who pick and choose religious morals are just suiting themselves and completely fail to claim they are truly religious.

Morality is objective.

Murder is wrong = objective moral
Murder is wrong within our society = mutual agreement

Morality implies that the law is applicable anywhere in the universe.
Law within a society does not claim to declare "right" and "wrong" it just enforces the wishes of the people. But peoples wishes are different all over the world.
It may be okay to kill in some societies.

Yes that is what ethics attempts to do and that is why it is pointless.

You cannot have objective morality outside of religion because there is nowhere to obtain the knowledge of "right" and "wrong" from. Everything is just the opinion of an individual or group of individuals that hold no more truth than any other.

I have no problem with law within society... but to claim an objective morality.. and there for use "ethics" is pointless.

 

Well I can't claim to know, but I think it would be pretty stupid of you to just declare that religious people are a certain way and dismiss the millions of religious people who don't fit a definition that suits your argument.

So what? The fact that morality isn't the same everywhere does NOT mean that everyone has a choice of morality. It's objective to them, they haven't made it up as their own code to live by.

By and large though, people's wishes are pretty similar. Look as Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example. There are needs or values that derive from biology and psychology as it relates to the biological, and these rarely vary from one society to the next.

So what if there's no god behind it? To most of us, our bodies are a lot more precious than the approval of a supernatural being. I think that's possibly true of a lot of religious people as well as the non-religious; they'll devote their lives to God, but with some notable exceptions, very few become martyrs to Him. So clearly their lives are more important in the end.

I don't see how that makes it pointless at all. If there is no objective right and wrong, it makes sense that we have to make one up.

I think you're wrong if you believe that the non-religious don't have objective right and wrong (objective to them, anyway). People grow up in a culture and that is where their values come from. It's pointless to simplify it the way that you have.

Ethics is simply about trying to create a set of widely and mutually agreed values - really basic ones - that it would be unreasonable for one to disagree with. For that reason, while it is an attempt to create an objective right and wrong, there is room for debate, so clearly it is also flexible and subjective.

Really, I can't work out what point you're trying to make. There's a massive leap from ethics not being the absolute word of some god to ethics being pointless and you're not giving us anything to bridge the gap with.

 

As for where we obtain "knowledge of right and wrong", I think that much is pretty obvious. Trial and error, cause and consequence, these are all things that we've used to establish truths and theories. Over the centuries we've learned how to be nice to each other. I don't believe that this is something innate to us as people, so I would say that we clearly can acquire a sense of right and wrong through experience and from experiences handed down from the previous generations. I'd say that that's where most of our ethical principles come from.

 

Oh, and while I'm here:

Murder is wrong - nonsense
Murder of your best friend is not a very good idea because he is your friend and you like him - logic

OK, so why is murder of someone who is not your friend, and whose death would not negatively impact you in any way still wrong? Because it must be regarded as wrong by the majority of people, otherwise there'd be a lot more murders!

 

A simple answer would be (if you aren't familiar with them already) for you to check out Existentialism, Nihilism, Relativism, Subjectivism etc.

Here is my response though:

No i mean.. of course people can have different values and morals from religion.. but for someone to say "i am a Christian and i stand by the bible" and then to go to war and kill people.. even though it clearly states though shalt not murder... is ridiculous... they change the interpretation to suit their own human needs.

Objectivity means that the morals hold true to everyone in the world. Either the "objective morals" hold true to everyone and everything or they are subjective.
Yes they have made it up as their own moral code to live by as you have said here:

"Ethics is simply about trying to create a set of widely and mutually agreed values - really basic ones - that it would be unreasonable for one to disagree with."

All that confirms is that we are similar beings. We are all humans.. big deal. Just because we have the same needs doesn't mean there is an objective morality. Maybe you don't have the right understanding of objective?

Yes we all treasure our bodies but what has that got to do with morality. Just because someone else doesn't want to die doesn't mean we shoudln't kill them (i wouldn't do it myself.. but it is not because of objective morality).

Just because we can empathise with other humans doesn't mean we shouldn't enflict on them what we don't like.

Making morality up makes subjective morality. Objective morality doesn't exist. If you and another person in.. say africa both decided to "make" objective morality and they were different then how would that work? If humans make it, it is subjective... because one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Yes it is objective to them... but only to them.. the objection is an illusion. If two societies have different moralities then people grow up believeing different things so how is morality objective? That is completely subjective.

For morality to be objective it has to apply to everyone. If everyone is coming up with different moralities how can we know that any of them are the "true" ones? It is impossible without God.

Yes.. that's called a law and they are subjective... accept ethics deals with morality so it is usually utilitarianist governments that makes laws.

It is impossible for morality to be both objective and subjective.

I think we have different views on what objectivity is.

I agree that society will, can and does benefit from creating laws that govern society... perhaps the whole of the world one day.. but they do not hold anything universal in a higher sense.. they could be any kind of laws as long as its what everyone wants the most.

If ethics in your mind equals law making then i agree ethics is important. But if it equals determining what is "good" or "bad" then it is pointless.

Tell me... if there is no God where on earth can you obtain meaning from?

Majority? - The majority means nothing.. just a larger group of people. The Nazis were a majority in Germany.. where they "right"?

Individuals - Why is one opniion anymore truthfull than another?

Oh wait.. u have answered me:

First of all, scientific theories are empirical experiments. We can try to understand science through physical tests.. but science can't explain morality it just describes the world. Morality has never been proven.

Secondly, even science does and can come under scrutiny. Scientific theories are often disproved.

It is not a sense of right and wrong it is a sense of how to keep friends and family. It is subjective. I think it's just your understanding of objectivity.

Yes we can apply a moral to the whole world i.e. "do not kill" so it is then a widely accepted subjective moral.. or law. But what of the people that want to kill? Are they "wrong" just because they are in the minority? Why would you say so?

They are not "wrong" because there is no such thing as wrong and right... they are just unlucky that they landed in the minority of people.

Terrible logic.. so majority = morality?
Just because the majority of people are happy doesn't mean that what they do or agree on is objective morality.

Sorry if i sound pissy i'm tired and rushing this.

 

Well I believe the standard is "do as you would be done by", and while religions do teach this, I'd argue that the fact that just about every religion teaches this would suggest that it goes deeper in the human consciousness, that it's not just something someone decided was objectively true one day but that it's something people believe because they understand it.

No, I would not agree that it is completely subjective, for the reasons that I've already stated.

How is morality imparted by religion any more "true" or "objective" than morality imparted by society or social forces? Answer: IT ISN'T. If you're arguing that ethics is pointless because it isn't consistent from one society to the next, I'd have to agree that it isn't consistent. But the same is true of religious truth, so I really don't see why you're even going via God on this one. Different denominations of the same religion will have different rules, and people will rarely observe a religious rule that goes heavily against their own instincts. Unless you have the idea that religion is about "sheeple" mindlessly following whatever is handed down to them (which is obviously ridiculous), I don't see how religion is any different from society in relation to your argument.

They are wrong by the artificial but well-rooted decree that killing is wrong, based on the widely understood notion that one should not do to others what one would not be willing to let others do to them. This is why most people can support voluntary euthanasia without supporting all killing ever.

So no, they're not wrong "just because they are in a minority". You could make that argument about someone who is vilified for actions that do not adversely affect the lives of others, but by trying to make this extreme and emotive argument relating to something like killing people, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

You're obviously very good at manipulating debate though: "Are they "wrong" just because they are in the minority? Why would you say so?" is up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"

So you're arguing that people don't kill each other because they all happen to be really happy? And your evidence of this will no doubt be that they must be happy because they don't kill each other, yes?

What I can't understand, throughout all of this, is why you are arguing that, because ethics isn't objective, it is pointless. I'm not aware that ethics claims to be objective truth, at all. It is about mutual acceptance of certain values, so long as those values are supportable. If you can argue, for example, that there is strong grounds for a belief like "do as you would be done by" to be overturned, I'd like to hear it.

But you are simply asserting that it is pointless. Now, I would ask you at this point to explain: how can you argue that this or anything else is "pointless" when there is no objective truth to tell you what has a point? What you are doing is no different from an ethicist making an argument that someone is right or wrong. They use common points of reference to make their case, they don't simply assert and invoke Logic as a god (like so many do).

This argument simply makes no sense. What you're saying is that ethics is pointless because it refers to non-objective ideas like "right" and "wrong", while referring to non-objective ideas such as "worthwhile" and "pointless". Unless you have some notion of what "the point" is - and because of the argument you're making it has to be an objective one - you can't argue that something is pointless. And again, if you know what "the point" is, I'd like to hear it.

 

What's the point in making a law against something you don't think is "bad"? In most societies, there is a mass consensus over what is right or wrong. That is why, just as scientific theories are overturned, so are laws that become unpopular. This is dynamic social truth. It's not "right" or "wrong", neither is it "worthwhile" or "pointless". It is simply something that exists in societies of people. You can ignore it or claim that it doesn't exist just because it's not "objective". But doing so would make you a terrible politician.

The social forces that sculpt these laws are any less "real" or worthy of our awareness and consideration just for being subjective (and we really need a better word for this; there is a world of difference between subjectivity and Gustav LeBon's "crowd psychology", in which the will of the individual is frequently lost). Ethics is about life and consciousness, not about physics or chemical reactions. Yes, the two cross over, but the key difference in this context is that, while science should be unemotional, ethics should be emotional. Ethics is not about saying that something should or shouldn't be done because of some objective truth, so it's absurd to argue as if it thinks that it is and that you are somehow disproving this.

Actually, ethics exists to regulate this. In the absence of ethics, anything that is popular could become "moral" or legal. We have ethical codes because, as you say, there is a house of cards that prevents us from fully realising that, for example, we outnumber the police massively and thus they should not represent a threat to our liberty. Why shouldn't you kill someone if they would not be missed?

Why shouldn't you do whatever you want? If the only argument against it is that the consequences will be bad, then if you believe that are still worth it, why not? We shouldn't beat people up because they might beat us up back. But what if we're really really strong and can handle anyone who tries to beat us up? Without ethics, there is no reason for us not to do whatever we want. You can see this in action in global politics all the time. Nations invade other nations not because they think there would be no negative consequences, but simply because those negative consequences are seen to be worth putting up with.

So yes, basically ethics is trying to establish a "code of conduct" that doesn't depend on people's capacity for empathy. Whether that has anything to do with "objective truth" or not, I think you're a fool if you declare it "pointless".

 

Ok. So i think perhaps the title was not a particularly good one.

- I don't think that application of objective morality makes sense or can be done.
- I don't think that objective morality even exists.
- I think ethics relates to decisions made by people based on objective morality.
- I think people should (and do without realising) make decisions based on personal gain and benefit. This can involve helping others.. but it is then through the effect giving has on the giver that benefits them.
- I don't think people make generally selfless acts.. for instance "do unto others as you would like done to you" involves mutual respect.. not selfless action.
- In this respect ethics has no meaning because actions are (or should be) based on benefit, not some vague moral code pulled out of the air.
- Perhaps you will claim that by saying what "should" be done i am using ethics. I only use "should" in relation to having a functional society. I don't think it is universally necessary to ever to anything. But in terms of the most logical and happy way to spend ones days, i would argue that people "should" act on things beside objective morality if that is what they want.

I will also note that this is not a redundant argument. The position you are arguing from is one of ancient Greek philosophy.. natural law etc. I am standing by the Postmodern world of Existentialism that deals with creating our own reasons to live. Existentialists (a modern and well supported argument) claims that existence precedes essence... in other words we are born into the world before we have reason to be here or the universe has any morality or meaning. Objective morality is dependent on always existing whether or not we are here. Objective morality would exist from the beginning to the end of the universe if at all. Existentialism implies that we are all completely free and if we are going to have a moral code we must create it ourselves, BUT this code cannot be objective because we have created it.

You are saying that since the vast majority of humans have a "general sense" of what is wrong and right and people seem to adhere to it around the world it must therefore be objective.

Firstly, humans all have one thing in common; We have emotion. We all feel pain.. so regardless of how many do.. it is only natural that we stay away from pain and hurt, murder, rape, fights blah blah. It is not any in-built consciousness that tells us "pain is bad" it is simply the fact that most people don't like pain. If we had no emotion or pain then killing would be irrelevant to us. It is the human condition that gives humans all around the world similar laws. It is the fact that we all have emotion not that fact that we have any sense of a "higher" wrong and right.

Secondly, majority opinion can never justify anything as being objective. People are guided by power, sense of belonging, revolution, greed etc.. any kind of power has the chance to rule the world.. or the majority of it.

If the majority of the world (lets say Europe Asia and America) had a ritual by law every Christmas where they sacrificed their oldest relative to the "Hamburger God" then you would be saying.. no that is wrong because murder is wrong. But they are a majority. What about the few people who refuse to sacrifice anyone on Christmas? How are they different from the people in our world that do murder? They are both the minority.. and there is no way to claim they are going against an objective moral code.. because you can't obtain it from anywhere, least of all (as shown above) majority opinion.

I agree that morality imparted by religion isn't any more true than it being imparted by society, that is because their is no God. When i refer to having to obtain your morals from God or nowhere.. i simply mean that at least religious people are thinking logically about morals. If there really was an all powerful and knowing God then of course it would make sense to follow what he says about morality. Atheists however don't have a basis from which to obtain the morality. Christians sometimes agree.. as i have heard many arguments from them saying that morality can't exist without a God.

Also, lets say that there is objective morality without God. Where is the deterrent for people who don't share the same beliefs as most people to not go against the objective morality? With God.. people have the motive of going to heaven.. and the deterrent of going to hell. If there is no heaven and hell.. and someone genuinely enjoys going against what most people follow as objective morality.. then why would or should they stop? There is no punishment... so do they mean anything if they really do exist?

There is no empirical evidence to show that it is inherent in the human consciousness. As with God, belief should not exist until their is proof.
"Do as you would be done by" is the most basic rule of society.. which is perhaps why it appears everywhere. People like to cooperate and avoid killing each other.. hence the mutual agreement of treating others how you would like to be treated is popular. Also, religious people tend to pass down teachings without even considering them.. not only do most religions teach "do as you would be done by" they also teach of heaven.. hell.. god.. punishment.. sin... does that mean all those things are probably true and built into the human mind as well? Or does it mean that religion is very good at indoctrination?

If they ignore a religious rule that goes against their own instincts then they are living for themselves and not objectivity. Just as some crazy people feel the need to kill or rape w/e and ignore societies laws. Why do people pick and choose if the supposed "oh so definitive and truthful" objective laws are there for a reason? Surely objective laws are bound to be hard to follow.. they usually are e.g. don't be jealous of your neighbours possessions. If you think objective morality comes from inate consciosness and people naturally do what is "right" then how do you explain the thousands/millions that naturally choose differently?

You're kidding me right? Although i don't adhere to the "fuck religious sheeple mannn!" kinda of thing.. it is plainly obvious that many, many religious people don't think twice about their beliefs. I have met a number of them. There are millions in America. I don't deny that people in society are particularly diferent to reliigous people. I don't think society is perfect.

If it is artificial then they are not wrong in any sense more than that they went against the opinions of lots of people. How can people say "killing is wrong" but support euthanasia? Don't you mean they say "killins is wrong, unless they want to die"... oh and "unless we are at war... and if they try to knife me in the street... and maybe if i was really really angry with them... oh and maybe if i was a contract hitman.. oh and also if i had to choose between the life of my daughter and a random person."
Decision is relative to every situation.. people make choices to benefit themselves in relation to a situation.. NOT to a universal law that is decided before they even get into a situation.

Everything i say i agree with.. im not trying to twist things. The implication of an example shouldn't effect debate.

Ethics implies the use of morality on acts within society. Objective morality does not exist.. therefore only subjective morality can be applied. But having a debate about subjective morality will never reach any conclusions besides "more people agree with this.. so thats how its gonna be". In that respect asking an ethical question can be done.. but means nothing of relevance.

Well.. "do as you would be done by" only helps other people. As is shown time and time again all over the world.. people can benefit from not "doing as you would be done by" and if they do not feel guilty about it.. then why would they stop? Bussiness men do it.. theifs do it.. friends do it.. politicians do it... countries do it..
Sometimes there is not enough guilt to be had at the expense of someone else for people to give a damn about.
Why do wars take place? People are not interested in respecting others.. they look after themselves... with exceptions of course.
"do as you would be done by" does help society fucntion.. but it means nothing objectively.

I simply claim that there is no point. Nothing has a point. We can all choose to do what we want how we want and when we want.. but nothing has a reason. Perhaps people like pleasure? it has no point but that doesn't mean it can't be experienced. I'm not saying that what you're saying is wrong and that something else is right.. i'm saying that to claim "rightness" of anything is false. Sure you can imply objective morality.. and it would be just as meaningless as not implying it.. but some people have goals i.e. happiness and the quickest route to this is to avoid objective things.

What we are discussing is the existential/nihilisitic life of absurdism.. which is a valid claim. Nothing means anything. I have to use language to explain that "right" and "wrong" are pointless.. but i'm not implying i have "the point"... that is life for you... there is no point. We just exist and do what we want..

This is why the non-existence of God is so scary to some people. A life without God automatically implies a life without morality, meaning, reason, purpose or direction. We must just live for livings sake... or die if you decide otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_crisis

 

If it is it is unconscious, but I think you misunderstand me if that's the case. I don't claim that anyone does anything altruistically, although I've had many lecturers argue with me that they do. It seems that there is historical precedent for humans doing things which either benefit everyone but themselves, or else benefit no-one including themselves.

 

You sound like you're arguing my point now.. I have never denied that society has its own idea on what is right and wrong. Yes like you have just said.. it is not objective... every society has their own laws that are subjective. You've completely switched sides of the argument.

All i have argued against is an objective moral code. Ethics deals with objective morality. Society doesn't make its laws based on what are the "right" and "wrong" morals.. they make them based on the majority emotion. If most people do not like death then murder is banned. But murder is not therefore objectively wrong it is just banned subjectively in a society.

What? But you have just said that ethics is not objective and that it is the consideration of societies emotions and feelings/opinions. How can ethics exist to regulate itself? Ethics does not exist before the people make it as it is not objective. Nothing regulates popular opinion because popular opinion makes ethics!

Well that's how the world works.

Then whyyyyy in the world would people want to restrict themselves. Just because some people disagree with it... if countries don't care about ruining other countries to get their oil then why would they stop? Why would they create laws to stop them doing what they want? Madness!
This is why trying to create objective morality makes no sense! It is not there in the first place so why would you make it if you don't have to?

People who create laws are only doing it for their own interest. The code of conduct you are talking about would only be made to help the people who made it.

If you've read all of that i congratulate you.

 

Okay, would you agree that:
Ethics = search for right or wrong
What is good for all of mankind = right
What is bad for all of mankind =wrong

 

Yes.

Good = right and Bad = wrong...... in effect that is narrowed down to wrong and right.

I believe wrong and right are concepts held by people. But i don't believe in them myself. Wanna know why? There's a hell of a lot of writing above.

 

Yes I know I read it.

What I'm asking is:
What is good for all of mankind = right
What is bad for all of mankind =wrong
Not:
Good = right
Bad = wrong
Slightly different but different none the less.

 

For that question to make sense i have to believe in wrong and right.
If they do exist then.. no i don't agree. You can't just pull that out of thin air. there needs to be a reason for you to make those points.

Why not the other way around?

Good and right mean the same thing though.. you are saying "What is good for all of mankind = good"