DougShrapnel
11-08-2005, 02:04 PM
Ok I tried to do this post before but I was hung over.
The debate over ethics goes in waves. It appears that the truth of the matter is one not that the correct ethics is focused like a laser beam. But more of a broad target. Confusing the issue further is that people who come up with a good reasonable approach to ethics step are really just a backlash from those he came up with a good approach to ethics before them. So that truth remains allusive, always bouncing back and forth, above and below what is true in ethics. Clearly whatever I come up with will also be over-steered as a result. It seems that as a backlash to utilitarianism the type of ethics I'm familiar with are ones overly focused on the individual. I'm going to try to get back to truth, and I'm sure I'll also overshoot the target.
The correct ethics is one that produces the most of value for the individual as well as producing the most value for society. The best approach is to have a society that has ratios of ethical beliefs.
Sometimes it's good to give some examples of how this works out. Let’s take murder. Let’s say 100% of the populace believes that murder is GOOD, or OK. These people clearly care little about others. And society becomes unlivable. If you have anything of value, people will try to kill you to get. And if you don't have anything of value, you’re safe from being killed but what kind of life is that.
No let’s take 100% of the population thinks that any type of killing is morally wrong. Bliss you think, sure until a disaster hits, a shortage of resources would wipe out the human race if 100% of the populace could not kill. Or a group of people suddenly change and decide to take what they can, who would stop them?
So you have to have some people who think that murder is OK, and some people who think that murder is wrong. I'll guess a ratio of 89% to 11% would be good.
So it becomes more of a question of what the best ratio of ethical belief is correct. I'd go on but I think this is enough to get it started.
I'm trying to include as much of morality as a value as I can.
The debate over ethics goes in waves. It appears that the truth of the matter is one not that the correct ethics is focused like a laser beam. But more of a broad target. Confusing the issue further is that people who come up with a good reasonable approach to ethics step are really just a backlash from those he came up with a good approach to ethics before them. So that truth remains allusive, always bouncing back and forth, above and below what is true in ethics. Clearly whatever I come up with will also be over-steered as a result. It seems that as a backlash to utilitarianism the type of ethics I'm familiar with are ones overly focused on the individual. I'm going to try to get back to truth, and I'm sure I'll also overshoot the target.
The correct ethics is one that produces the most of value for the individual as well as producing the most value for society. The best approach is to have a society that has ratios of ethical beliefs.
Sometimes it's good to give some examples of how this works out. Let’s take murder. Let’s say 100% of the populace believes that murder is GOOD, or OK. These people clearly care little about others. And society becomes unlivable. If you have anything of value, people will try to kill you to get. And if you don't have anything of value, you’re safe from being killed but what kind of life is that.
No let’s take 100% of the population thinks that any type of killing is morally wrong. Bliss you think, sure until a disaster hits, a shortage of resources would wipe out the human race if 100% of the populace could not kill. Or a group of people suddenly change and decide to take what they can, who would stop them?
So you have to have some people who think that murder is OK, and some people who think that murder is wrong. I'll guess a ratio of 89% to 11% would be good.
So it becomes more of a question of what the best ratio of ethical belief is correct. I'd go on but I think this is enough to get it started.
I'm trying to include as much of morality as a value as I can.