How do you decide if a system of ethics is a "good" system?

[Silent3]

It seems to me that people start with a preconceived notion of what's right and what's wrong -- a list of dos and don'ts* which appeal emotionally to their sense of fairness and justice. Developing a "system" of ethics becomes a process of figuring out some simple set of rules and assumptions that will magically generate that same list of dos and don'ts. If the "system" seems to say that the horrible act/crime/deed/thought X would actually be okay, however... well, it's obvious that the ethical system must be broken.

If, in the end, you always end up "going with your gut" no matter what, is there any sense in trying to systematize ethics in the first place?

Of course, some people can and do fall in love with what they see as the beauty or elegance of a particular system, and they do change their minds about what they consider to be "right" and "wrong" as a result. If someone is suddenly ready to do what they previously found repugnant (or found appealing but guilt-inducing), those of us who still find that same thing repugnant will likely dismiss his or her "so-called ethical system" as nothing more than an elaborate rationalization to do bad things.

The funny thing is, as hopeless as it appears to me to make much progress under these circumstances with any system of ethics, I still find myself wanting to try persuade people to see things my way via my own system. If I'm dealing with a homophobe, for instance, one argumentative approach I might take would be along the lines of establishing common moral and ethical ground in terms of expectations of privacy, what kinds of personal space to do as they please without interference from others that this person expects for him/herself, etc., until I can say, "If you agree to A, B, and C, as you show by your willingness to tolerate D, and by the fact you even do a bit of E yourself... how can you be against homosexuality?"

I'd hope for that kind of argument to make an impact. By the same token, however, I don't know how personally amenable I'd be to the same technique being used on me if I found the end result unappealing -- oh, like feeling obligated to sell off most of my material possessions, give away most of my money, and life a very simple life so that many others could live better lives. I'm not saying I've heard such a convincing argument which follows inescapably from ethical principles I'm willing to agree to -- I haven't -- but even if I did, I figure I'd probably do my best to rationalize my selfishness and keep my stuff and my money anyway.

*There's some special word for a system of ethics or morality which is no more than an enumeration of specific rules, as opposed to a system of general principles, but it's escaping me right now. Can anyone help me out here?

[Evoman]

1. I toss a coin,

Heads I kill Batman, tails he lives.

[cosmik debris]

2. bass ackwards

I kill Batman first then flip the coin to see if I was right or wrong.

[trotsky]

3. *SNORT*

:rofl:

[Evoman]

4. Yeah..I just keep tossing until I get a tails anyway.

Although I'm know wondering what happens when we run out of Batman's. I kill 200 Batmans everday....EVERY DAY. It's become unsustainable.

It doesn't help that my city has a low Batman carrying capacity.

[Silent3]

5. I'd failed to take into account...

...the central importance (and apparent popularity) of batmanicide (or would that be vespertihomicide?) in the ethical dilemmas facing our society today.

[Imperialism Inc.]

6. While I enjoy philosophy I haven't read a lot of ethics.

I do get the sense that a lot of it is just picking a starting point that you like and reasoning from there. I recently read something by Richard Carrier in his book Sense and Goodness Without God where he was comparing secular humanism and a religious ethicist's system. He pointed out that there really wasn't a lot of difference between them. The humanist starts with we should act in the interest of mankind and the religious person that we should act in the interest of God. I didn't get the sense that there was a reason for that difference other than that , as a secularist, he feels he has established belief in a God is untenable.

Right now I have a book on ethics queued up for reading. It is Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy by Susan Neiman. I've read the introduction and first chapter but put it on hold for the moment. She looks at two events, the Libson earthquake of 1755 and Auschwitz, and how they influenced conceptions of evil and ethics. The Libson earthquake influenced many enlightenment thinkers deeply as it was considered the quintessential example of evil in the world (much as Auschwitz is for modern people). In looking at these events she will be examining how they shaped philosophy of ethics and even just philosophy in general.

So, hopefully, I would have more to say on this subject after reading. The very little I do know would suggest that I am probably a utilitarian or consequentialist of some sort (if I understand those terms correctly). That acts are not good or bad in any absolute sense but only when judged against some specific goal (maximizing happiness or beauty or minimizing harm etc).

I think the point of philosophy in general is not always to find absolute answers but to help us understand how to think about things. How to break a subject down to its constituent parts.

[dmallind]

7. I may be a BIT guilty of this, but in reverse

As a utilitarian (of the Toulmin-style act/rule type for the moral philosophy fans) I somewhat prejudge an ethical system based on, naturally enough, its utility. However I think that's a reasonable basic assumption to have - that an ethical system should create more universalized benefit than universalized harm. To get more basic than that entails some pretty nihilistic thinking.

So in short I consider a code of ethics successful if it increases overall benefit OR reduces overall harm. One of the things peolpe often misunderstand is that even if, say, innocent people die or starve, that could still be a sound choice for a moral agent to make if otherwise even more innocent people would have died or gone hungry.

[cosmik debris]

8. You are applying value judgments to your value judgments

A good system of good? A right system of right. All arguments on this subject are destined to be circular.

[westerebus]

9. The failure rate?

I'm sure someone will correct me on this. The test of any system, the lower the failure rate of the system, the more that system rises to the top of the choices available. OK Blast away.

[More Than A Feeling]

12. What constitutes a "failure" of an ethical system? n/t

[westerebus]

15. When paradox becomes the norm on a gross level.

Genocide. That it continues to exist in the 21st century confounds the reasoning: "we are civilized".

[skepticscott]

10. One question

Does it have at its heart a deep and unwavering respect for the truth and a rejection of lies, falsehoods and misinformation? If not, nothing else matters.

[westerebus]

11. If you read the first five posts

you might find your answer. Maybe yes, maybe no, either way batman dies. Go figure?

[Random_Australian]

13. How satisfied would you be if I told you I worked out an approximation

to ethics from the objective world?

Probably not at all, given that while I can show that the properties on which the calculation rests exist, I cannot redo the damn thing for you, at least within only a couple of pages.

But to plainly answer your question, when I hear about another system of ethics, I work out if it is moral in that situation for me to leave them alone completely (or usually ask questions in a very non-aggressive way), and if not, then I will attempt to change whichever portion seems wrong and all those parts interdependent on it such that it reduces the likelihood of people doing certain actions which I would not want.... HOWEVER, one must always argue fairly.

The long explanation for that involved calculating variables of propogation of information and such, the short version is simply I must counter for the fact that I may be wrong.

[westerebus]

16. Random

Have you calculated my methodology for debate? :-)

[Random_Australian]

17. No, I haven't. For three reasons:

1) It's far easier to work out statistical people and then argue against them to increase skill against many people rather than one at a time;

2) I have avatars and images off, so I rarely follow who I am talking to;

and most importantly 3) To guard against arguments from authority, I don't believe in looking at anything in the argument except for the information that makes up that argument. In other words, when you argue, the points you make are important and the personality that comes with it is irrelevant.

:)

[westerebus]

19. BRAVO !!

Your honesty is commendable. Chilling some times, must be the mathematician in you.:-)

[Random_Australian]

23. Well, chillingly honest is better than warmly stealing, as they say.

:)

[Silent3]

18. The notion of fairness...

...is a running theme in what people think is ethical and moral. But what makes fairness a desirable goal?

I'm not trying to be a dick about this. :) I'm just trying to make the point that I don't think you can arrive at an ethical system without making a non-logical (not illogical, but non-logical) value decision first.

[westerebus]

20. It's the personalization of values that your up against.

I consider myself to be good, so your value system must meet my requirements of good. I consider myself to be fair, so your value system must meet my requirements of fair. Good is something possessing a positive value. Fair is understood as reasonableness. My test is that your system meet these two conditions in both directions between actor and subject.
What if you closed off the parameters by excluding "good" as a value? That actions are neither "good or evil", only reasonable to the circumstances. Would the system still function?


spelling/sorry

[kiahzero]

21. It's the bootstrap problem.

You can figure out what's ethical once you have a system of ethics, but without a system, how do you create the system?

[westerebus]

22. Taoist logic puzzle?

Affirm the premises, negate the activity that completes the process, then question how the process can be affirmed.

[Random_Australian]

24. Ah, this one talks about how information sets come and go through time,

and making the rough approximation of people as information sets (I feel like I just said "approximating cows as spheres") and knowing that the ultimate goal is to prevent extinction of information sets, (more approximations :)) and knowing that any set that allows self extinction is already dead (yet more approximations) then the easiest way of preventing the extinction of the sets that govern you is to make a society in which the change of sets is non-arbitrary, in other words, trying to make rules that are not dependent on single minds, in other words believing in bieng 'fair'.

That is the rough answer. There are, of course, better approximations but they give close to the same result.

[Silent3]

25. Therefore...

moo.

[Random_Australian]

26. I cannae see your image, friend. Please restate your point in words.

[Silent3]

27. It's a picture of a sphere.

I'm not sure why it's not showing up though. If I right-click on the broken-image symbol in Firefox and select "View Image", the image shows up. So the link is perfectly good. "Show Image" in IE doesn't help, however. I guess there's something unusual about either the image itself and/or the site it's hosted on that's causing some image rendering grief.

Oh, well... picture of sphere saying "moo". Funny, huh? :shrug: At least I can blame the "bad delivery" of the joke on a technical glitch. :)

[Random_Australian]

28. In case you want to know, the reason that I could not see the image was that

I don't have access to that site. For some reason, it kept on telling me that I need authentication or something.

By the way, would you now tell me what you thought of my response?

[Silent3]

29. To tell you the truth...

...I'm not sure I completely understood your response.

It doesn't sound like you're escaping the problem, however, of starting with an internal preference for fairness and preservation of "information sets" as the basis for the type of system you're attempting to devise.

[struggle4progress]

14. Would I think the system was fair, if applied to me by somebody else,

whatever my circumstances.