[DougShrapnel]

The debate over ethics has a varied history. Believers and non-believers alike have at times have limited correctness and goodness to the realm of God. There are others among us who have taken the stance that we can know of ethics without God. This thread isn’t about the ethics of God. If you wish to argue for the ethics of god in this thread you may do so without using the word god. The general debate over issues is normally a dialectical one. You take this stance, I take the opposite. At certain point in the complexity of an issue it becomes necessary to for debate to exist in a different forum than the dialectic. It is not determinism vs freewill, or absolute vs relative, intrinsic vs subjective, or even altruism vs objectivism. Ethics has reached that level of complexity.

To start the conversation I will propose 3 different systems of ethics. Chezlaw and I have, I think, agreed that ethics are derived from values. David appears to be stating that ethics is determined by society. Chezlaw and I disagree on what the system of values used to determine proper ethics is. A main difference is that Chez wants to say that goodness is based in part on how much you help others, I seem to state the goodness is determined by how your actions forward your own goals and values. I will certainly take more time to give a more correct synopsis, but here are some my thoughts, what are yours?

Some similarities between the 3
Evolution has some say in ethics.
Reason can be used to clarify what one means by saying an action is ethical, unethical, or merely OK.
Ethics is a way to determine actions.
Different ethics for different people. David/intelligence, Chez/feelings, Douglas/knowledge

Some differences
In David’s ethics, evolution may be the judge of ethical actions.
In Chezlaw’s ethics, evolution may be the originator of ethics,
In Douglas’s ethics, evolution may have given us the tools to understand ethics.

Some implications
David’s theory of ethics rests on what is good for society as a whole is correct action,
Chezlaw’s theory of ethics rests on a conflict between actions that help others and actions that only help oneself.
Douglas’s theory of ethics rests on yet to be elucidated hierarchy of values.

Weird conclusions that can be drawn from these ethics
David
Murder is OK
The doctor patient question
One has a duty if capable to provide more to society than those less capable.

Chezlaw
Man’s life exists as a sacrifice.
One has a duty to obey moral feelings.

Douglas’s
Ethics can only be known as much as we are able to know. Ethics are completely useless without correct knowledge.
One has a duty to learn.
One can not be held responsible if one has not been educated.