Ethics ...

One of the Six Perfections (Paramitas) of Buddhism

1. Giving
2. Ethics
3. Patience
4. Effort
5. Concentration
6. Wisdom

Welcome!

Though, this is not about Buddhism but the philosophical discussion of Ethics and Philosophy, I extend a hearty welcome and invitation to each and every one of you for your discussions here on Ethics.

Enjoy!

Darrell

 

parfait!

Ethics: There is a clear and unmistakable line between ethically good and ethically evil behavior. It is universal, and not culturally influenced or dependent.
Morals, on the other hand, are the societal norms that vary culture to culture.

 

What I am about to say here is from my own opinion, and does not necessairly reflect the opinions of other religious or sectarian views. But it seems to me that conscious thought, which results in actions, are all based on intent.

The underlying cause of all action is an intention to do something. Intent has three outcomes, virtuous (ethically good), non-virtuous (ethically evil), or neither virtuous nor non-virtuous (ethically neutral).

With the production of an intent we continuously generate the intent so that whatever outcome we produce is either originally produced, or whatever outcome has already been produced increases in production. That is, with the production of virtuous intention, virtuous states of mind are either produced or increase in the presence of already produced virtuous states of mind. And likewise, with the production of non-virtuous intention, non-virtuous states of mind are either produced or increase in the presence of already produced non-virtuous states of mind.

I also think that to the average individual, once the intention has been produced and generated, the only way for the intention to decrease or cease is to either become exhausted, or the "morals" (or ethics) of the individual kick in and any unwholesome states of mind (or non-virtuous activities/intentions) are abandoned through extensive conscious effort.

By exhausted I mean that anything produced requires a certain amount of energy to cause production, and a continual flow of energy to increase in production. Once the energy has become exhausted, then the intention, or production of the intention also becomes exhausted.

Take sexual behavior as an example, and I may be stepping on toes using this as an example, but once sexual climax has been reached, the intention to perform sex has also been exhausted because the energy required to increase the intention and to carry out the action also increases until exhaustion and climax occurs, then a state of non-production, or decay (disentigration) occurs and the intention becomes exhausted and disappears.

In the case of deviant (or non-virtuous) sexual activity, ethics or "morals" of the individual should be sufficient enough to cause an abandonment of the intention itself, and in most cases are, but also in some cases are not because the continuous production of the intention are sensually pleasing to the individual. And let's face it, all humans are driven by their sense's, either sight, sound, smell, taste, touch or mental, and the sense objects associated with these sense's, and also the sensual activities associated with the contact of the sense objects to their sense's.

Thoughts?

Darrell,

 

So are you saying that there is nothing intrinsically good other than the good will? If so, then I totally agree with you. It's a crazy notion at first, but it's totally an abstract concept that is actually totally universalizable (to tie both posts together). Kant wrote about that very concept in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.

I am personally a Kantian in the sense that I believe that no one who has good intentions is doing something universally bad or evil. I would almost go out on a limb and say that most people are actually, in this sense, people living with the best of intentions. I agree a lot with DarellKitchen that the evil or bad comes as a result of removing the morals from the experience and giving in solely to the sensual pleasures, which may or may not be the total end of the intention. Morals are not going to stop deviance in most cases, rather the intentions of the person in question are usually evaluated and the result of the intentions are simply put aside.

I would say that the true deviance occurs when the intention in question doesn't include the result of the action on the universe, rather it only questions the ends of the intention on the person themselves. That is to say that thinking of only yourself, and not the world around you, is what leads to something that could be truly deviant. Murder, rape, theft, and so on can all be seen and understood in a different light that is not simply arbitrary to one culture's set of beliefs, rather to a universal code that seems intrinsically good for all of us. Therein, I believe, lies the difference between ethics and morals. Morals seem to only be the system of arbitrary judgement that a culture adopts, rather ethics seem to be the greater universal code that explain the reason for intentions and actions that may be falsely accused of being evil or wrong.

That's just my spin on it though... Thanks for adding the ethics section!!!

 

There is NOTHING universal.

What is the distinction between ethics and morals? I suppose I have erroneously been using them interchangably.

 

The statement, "there are no universals" is itself a universal. Someone was inevitably going to jump all over that, so it might as well be me because I actually agree with you. No matter what law is conceived, there will always be something or someone who can't or won't go along with it. It's just a paradox we have to accept and suggests a problem with lanuage and reason, which is bound by the rules of language.

 

Originally Posted by BlackGuardXIII
There is a clear and unmistakable line between ethically good and ethically evil behavior. ...

so you disagree with my above statement? that is what i am seeing.

I say there are some universals, I guess. Like pregnancy, you either are or are not, there is no almost pregnant, or a little bit pregnant. Hurting another person purposefully, against their wishes, to me, sounds like an evil act, no matter when, where, or who it is. No?

 

You believe it is 'evil' because of you have been subject to socialization. Why do you think purposefully hurting some one is evil? Because you have lived in a society that often preaches to treat others how you want to be treated. Or perhaps it is your own valuation. In any case nothing can be universal, because there is no objective source to draw this universality from (in my view).

 

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

You are absolutely right, in theory.
I am referring to the here and now, in my real world, wherein be it objective or not, I see a clear delineation between good and evil.
Sure to the planet Saturn, torturing little children to death is a non issue, neither good nor bad. But here, now, to me, it is evil
That is all I mean.

 

1) Conscious thought is based on intent.
2) Action is based on conscious thought.
3) Actions are either good, evil or neutral based on the outcome of the action.
4) If an action is judged good, intent is good. Eg. An evil action only suggests evil intent.
Sounds good. I would like to know what standard decides whether the outcome of an action is good or bad. Is an action good if it produces happiness/greater good for all/etc?

This confuses me a little bit. It seems to suggest that once we pinpoint an intent we recognize the universal nature of that intent, and thus of each separate intent. This explains how a good/evil/neutral states of mind can be original upon the primary recognition of intent, and stockpiled when a single intent is recognized a second or third time. Or does this mean to suggest that the more a single intention is recognized (good/bad/neutral), the more it is produced?

I wonder if the ‘state of mind’ is synonymous with ‘conscious thought’? Or is ‘state of mind’ that which defines the process of action, from intent through to judgement according to outcome?

Finally, what produces intent? Do they self-produce? If intent is ‘produced’ through recognition, couldn’t it be argued that intent is based in conscious thought?

This suggests that intent is subordinate to morals/ethics. But if intent is decidedly good because the outcome is decidedly good than how could an ethically wrong intent be produced more than once?

This suggests that intent is subordinate to energy. That intent will disappear when energy disappears.

I am still trying to work out the logistics of your argument. For now, I am confused as what the guiding principle of intention is. In the beginning you suggest that it is an end in itself, but go on to say intention is subordinate to energy, morals/ethics, and recognition.

 

Tomorrow is not an absolute, it has no existence now. Universal means always, always is from the beginning to now.

Eminent anthropologist Donald Brown devised a list of human universals. These were traits that every society on record shared.

On that list is the prohibition of murder of innocents.

It would seem that that ethical statement is universal.

 

Because it is universal among all recorded societies does not mean it is necessarily a universal.

 

I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstood what I said (or typed). I'm not sure if you thought I said "ALL" conscious thought, or perhaps the placement of the commas in the sentence gave the intrepretation of "ALL". What I did say was (and I'll try this without the commas and then again rewording the statement) ... ... it seems to me that conscious thought (without comma) which results in actions (without comma) are all based on intent.

(reworded)
1) ... it seems to me that resulting actions which require conscious thought are based on intent.
2) ... it seems to me that conscious thought which produces actions are based on intent.
3) ... it seems to me that conscious thought resulting in actions are based on intent.
4) ... it seems to me that actions resulting from conscious thought are based on intent.

Not sure if all four of the statements come across as meaning the same thing, but none say "ALL" conscious thought.

Cognition is perception, reasoning, judging, recognizing all of which are a result of consciousness. Cognitum: to become aquainted with, to know.

I state that with a majority of sentient beings, it is not possible to "pinpoint" an intent. Recognition comes from [re]cognizing continually the aspect of an object with all applicable senses, i.e., eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness to produce the general consciousness or awareness of the object ... so I contend that recognizing an intent is not possible if intent is the basis of consciousness, and consciousness is the basis of cognition. Chicken before the egg if you will.

If you don't mind, I'm going to leave you to ponder on the "state of mind" thought. In all honesty, I believe you understood what I meant.

What produces intent? Hmmm... like I said, "my own opinion, and does not necessairly reflect the opinions of other religious or sectarian views." I guess ... perhaps ... I have not given in to too much 'thought' on it. If I said craving, then I would have to agree that intent is produced by consciousness. If I said clinging, again I'd have to agree that intent is produced by consciousness. If I said contact or feeling, also I would have to agree that intent is produced by consciousness.

In all, I cannot honestly answer this without using Buddhist philosophy on dependent origination and mutually dependent causes and condition.

In regards to your statement (This suggests that intent is subordinate to energy.), something produced cannot initially [added 11/12/04 10:28am] produce itself. Production has to begin with some type of cause. Intent itself is nothing more than a condition to a cause, just like the appearance of ripples on the surface of a lake are a condition to some cause agitating the surface of the lake, such as a stone being thrown into it. Again, perhaps I should have worded it differently and used the word "Cause" versus "Energy".

Thanks for the provocative interaction here. It gives me pause to reflect on my own thinking process.

Darrell

 

A lot and a little depends what you mean by connected. Definition of connection?

There is a connection between you and I. Without one, you could not respond to my question.

really? I disagree.

fill us in! perhaps another thread?

 

There is no theory when you know you're right, even though your terms are not yet known. A theory, then, is like when your mind drifts next because you have nothing material left to finish the thought with.


We shouldn't generalize so much with this ethically good and ethically bad people. True as it is, there are people who do the wrong thing to get ahead, but they percieve it as "if I don't, someone else will", so it may as well be them. So they don't percieve themselves as bad, only average. However, most people do not (I wouldn't think) fit into that category so much as this next one, that not being part of the solution, they are part of the problem. I don't think most people actually look to take advantage of others to get ahead, but that they percieve themselves as helpless victims in a "have to work a job in order to survive" society, and loose touch with the importance of cancelling out the jobs that are the most harmfull to the environment and to other animals. With the way that it is, it's difficult to draw a line on that one, since so very much of making a buck involves unethical uses of natures substances, and, it all ties together in one form or another--even though I could work in a vegetarian restaurant, still, some of the food that's bought for that restaurant is not organic, and, for my weekly paycheck, I am responsible for putting bad chemicals into the soil where those foods are grown, not that I should feel responsible, since it's the farmer's property, not mine, why should I care, but, on the other hand, people would ordinarrily go to a vegetarian restaurant and expect everything to be perfect, that everything they experience there is going to be comletely healthy and karma-free. And that is a very slight example. How many jobs working in a vegetarian restaurant are available to the unemployed public? There's McDonald's, where you KNOW the animals are being given poor living conditions, and, the techniques used to take their lives before slaughter may not be doing the job adequately--look at me! What is adequate? I do know sometimes when animals go to slaughter, they are not all the way dead, sometimes awake and alert, and the people do it anyways. There you go. Buying a hamburger, or working at McDonalds makes me a bad person, simply for not informing myself of the disastorous (sp?) suffering that it causes nature's (God's, if you will),animals.

Mainly, the topic I wanted to reflect on is the "intentions" thing. People can have great intentions, but if the input doesnt relate in a way that makes some progress on the situation, but rather "sugar coats" it, even though it may make the person's feelings not get hurt and that was the intention, still, in the long run, it causes more harm than good, because the person will have to confront their situation sooner or later, and since we are rational, thinking human beings, isn't it best to be up-front about everything, at least the element of honesty is there to work off of.

My pet peave phraze is "at least....". People never get around to the nitty-gritty when they use that term. It's always an excuse and it always ends the conversation. ARGGGGG! (But I just used a good one in my last paragraph!)

 

And, a theory is only a theory until the facts are explained out. So, if you know what you're talking about, you don't have to call it theory. Opinion is great, (everyone's entitled to theirs), but opinions can lack integrety, and are usually egotism at work. Much of what is part of our establishment at this time is just that--like saying the gmo's (genetically modified organisms) are safe. So what's the difference between an opinion and a fact? I guess it's all in how well you can convince others, since there's no money in trying to prove better. Sad, isn't it? Wonder what it takes to convince a Judge, where, if people could/were paid to make the world righteous, that these changes could actually get signed into law and enforced.

 

God, I just gotta add one more. What to convince a Judge? You'd have to have a good strategy, a formula of changing the law in an effort to provide the workings so that you HAVE law to present when presenting your case. (Like the horse thinking about what's IN the cart, and deciding WHAT'S gotta be delivered before WHAT ELSE, so that the END RESULT is everything delivered in THE SEQUENCE all will agree on[leaving no loopholes]). Law and facts and evidence. The law has to be there that (a). The food cannot be on the market unsafe. (b). Facts (scientific data) that the food is indeed unsafe. (c). The way it is now, you'd have to present medical evidence of each food product having caused some condition in one or more individuals. But that should change. It should, at our level of scientific exploration, particularly of genetics and molecular structure, that a gmo is predisposed to causing canser, and be able to prove how on a peice of paper, and take THAT into a court room to have the law changed, so as to ban gmo's. After all, a person islegally dangerous if they threaten, and these foods on the shelves are a threat by neglect, scientific data I'm sure can prove that.

 

"Could" prove that, rather.