Ethics

[TheMindRapist]

However when society as a whole things something is right it is.

Right for that society maybe, but certainly you do not mean absolutely right.

[terminus]

Right for that society maybe, but certainly you do not mean absolutely right.

How can something be absolutely right? Aren't the previous posts discussing how to establish what is 'right'? If right is determined by the beliefs of the majority of a society then how could there be an absolute right? For example: in the US it is unacceptable to rape a woman. The male would be charged for the rape. In some middle-eastern societies rape is considered the fault of the woman for showing too much of her body and causing the man to sin. Nazi Germany - it was considered a norm of the society (I don't know whether they thought it was ethically right or not) to identiy, imprison, torture, and kill jews. Within their culture and society that was the norm. However, the rest of the world established that was not ethically right. However, if the entire world's ethics were changed in the same way a countries ethics could be changed then how could there be an absolute right? Is it always absolutely wrong to kill?

[TheMindRapist]

That is exactly what I mean.

[Jesus_of_Suburbia]

However when society as a whole things something is right it is.

Right for that society maybe, but certainly you do not mean absolutely right.

Exactly, thats what i'm saying, what might be right for you may not be right for some (cause the world doesn't move to the beat of just one drum...)

[kamikazicomeback kid]

just like every one else has said. depends on the view your taking.

just like a traitor. one nation regards them as a enemy and the other regards them as a hero. just like genocide depends on how you look at it.

best way to look at it with a laugh mate-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYq_-zju_P8

[Crystal_Bearer]

So you're basically saying that morality (and therefore ethics) are based solely on the direction of society's endeavors? That is to say that morality as a whole is nonexistent outside of our own interpretation. However, I don't believe that any of us would dare to say that killing everyone you meet would be moral, but what if someone else did think it was right? Would they be justified? Even if you're talking about a society, it is still just as malleable there as with individuals. With the number of interacting societies (and more importantly: sub-cultures), it is growing into a straight discussion of egoism.
Personally, I believe that it is the intention of a person weighed against an inbred ideal of morality that is the deciding factor. People should be expected to know if an action is right or wrong. If they can't tell the difference, then it depends on what their intentions were. If they were noble, then they are at least justified. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between justification and moral correctness, where-in justification is a measure of deontological value, and 'moral correctness' is a measure of the consequentialists' outcome....
The question is... which is more important to embody?

You know... I'm tired. Goodnight, lol.
Yeah, and I'm sorry.... I'm a philosophy 'major', so this is my passion.

[terminus]

So you're basically saying that morality (and therefore ethics) are based solely on the direction of society's endeavors?

Yes. Society as a whole is one unit where ethics are determined for the entire society.

However, I don't believe that any of us would dare to say that killing everyone you meet would be moral, but what if someone else did think it was right? Would they be justified? Even if you're talking about a society, it is still just as malleable there as with individuals. With the number of interacting societies (and more importantly: sub-cultures), it is growing into a straight discussion of egoism.

I believe there are people out there who would say killing is right. I even think some would say murder is right. In fact - history has shown us that people will say this. Killing is justified for holy wars, extermination of witches, genocide, cannibalistic socieities, and maybe even in the minds of sociopaths. On an individual level the persons ethics are highly skewed from the ethics of the majority of society. The question then is which ethics are more influential. In general, societies' ethics as a whole are a major influence over the generation of law and the behavior of a society in general. As such, a societies ethics would be more influential and thus more important than an individuals. However, what if the individual was completely isolated from society? Then societies ethics would have minimal to no impact on the individual (probably none if they were completely 100% isolated). Therefore, societies ethics may mean nothing to this individual and this individuals ethics would be the most important set of ethics in their life.

Personally, I believe that it is the intention of a person weighed against an inbred ideal of morality that is the deciding factor. People should be expected to know if an action is right or wrong. If they can't tell the difference, then it depends on what their intentions were. If they were noble, then they are at least justified. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between justification and moral correctness, where-in justification is a measure of deontological value, and 'moral correctness' is a measure of the consequentialists' outcome....
The question is... which is more important to embody?

Are morals inbred? I think you're presenting a completely different topic here of nuture versus nature. I don't know that any valid testing has been done to prove whether ethics are actually born into a person or if they develop over time due to the influence of society around an individual. However, I believe Nazi Germany would be a good case study to show that the attitude and ethics of a society can be vastly deterministic upon an individuals ethics even if they vary greatly from the societal norms of the rest of the world. In my opinion this is one instance that would provide a strong argument that ethics are not inbred but are a product of society. How do you define noble? Nobility is in the eye of the beholder. One man's nobility is another's evil - A gallant knight that fights evil witches and slays them is a highly respected nobleman in one man's court. Whereas the 'witches' who are noble for serving and worshipping their god/goddess are martyrs to the evil crusading knights. Another example: islamic suicide bombers are noble to their people and extremist organizations but are terrorists to the rest of society. American troops are noble warriors for America but are nothing more than meddling terrorists with expensive gear and powerful backing to many countries...

[Leafman]

I believe we all agree that ethics are 'in the eye of the beholder', everybody has his own. In general lines they might be the same but I think they always will be different.
I believe that it might be Nature and Nurture, you get spoon fed don't steal, kill, rape,..
Yet people still do it.
Some people kill because they can't see it's wrong, those would be psychopaths ('The truth about killing', Grub Smith talks about how the army trains people, .. Also mentions what I just said)

Another example (nurture), we have a class in school not sure what it's called in English, 'Morals' I think?
Anyway here we saw this video of 2 little girls, singing songs..
About how great Hitler was, ...
Because their parents raised them with bull**** books, kept them out of school, ..
So now they think like bloody Skinheads
They think it's perfectly normal.

-Btw correct me if I'm wrong , I'm sure there'll be something faulty

[Crystal_Bearer]

However, I don't believe that any of us would dare to say that killing everyone you meet would be moral, but what if someone else did think it was right? Would they be justified? Even if you're talking about a society, it is still just as malleable there as with individuals. With the number of interacting societies (and more importantly: sub-cultures), it is growing into a straight discussion of egoism.

I believe there are people out there who would say killing is right. I even think some would say murder is right. In fact - history has shown us that people will say this. Killing is justified for holy wars, extermination of witches, genocide, cannibalistic socieities, and maybe even in the minds of sociopaths. On an individual level the persons ethics are highly skewed from the ethics of the majority of society.

Is that because of people's individual ethical values, or is that society's belief? I, personally, wouldn't say that killing is justified in those times. Also, you're looking at what society as a whole has done in the past. There are two basic errors in basing your analysis on these examples. Firstly, you are looking at what society did, whether any save a few actually agreed with it or not. Society's actions are based upon its leader(s). Secondly, you're focusing on action rather than intention. In war, killing is not <i>generally</i> based solely on eradication. People fight for a reason (whether that reason is shared by the society's leaders or not, is another matter.

The question then is which ethics are more influential. In general, societies' ethics as a whole are a major influence over the generation of law and the behavior of a society in general. As such, a societies ethics would be more influential and thus more important than an individuals. However, what if the individual was completely isolated from society? Then societies ethics would have minimal to no impact on the individual (probably none if they were completely 100% isolated). Therefore, societies ethics may mean nothing to this individual and this individuals ethics would be the most important set of ethics in their life.

To be honest, it doesn't matter which are more influential. To each person, this changes. What I'm saying is that every person is influenced by their society. What differs is to what degree it defines their character. You are saying that everyone is a mindless drone that believes whatever they are told. Undoubtedly, this is true in some cases. However, if ethics were based solely on society, there would be no such thing as rebellion or protest. The majority of the wars in human history have been because of this.
[qutoe="terminus"]Are morals inbred? I think you're presenting a completely different topic here of nuture versus nature.[/quote]
You're right. I am presenting that exact topic. I don't believe that we can say that ethics are determined my individuals any more than we can say that it is determined by society without at least acknowledging this distinct possibility. It is true that people will do as they please. In fact egoists are right in saying that every person does what they feel is right (whether it is true or not). I do not, however agree that no matter what you do, you are considered morally right. That is, however, what you are saying when you say that ethics are based on the individual (or societal) whim.

I don't know that any valid testing has been done to prove whether ethics are actually born into a person or if they develop over time due to the influence of society around an individual.

Also... you are right in saying that there is not sufficient testing. Therefore you can neither accept nor deny its truth from a scientific standpoint. That is why there are philosophers.

However, I believe Nazi Germany would be a good case study to show that the attitude and ethics of a society can be vastly deterministic upon an individuals ethics even if they vary greatly from the societal norms of the rest of the world. In my opinion this is one instance that would provide a strong argument that ethics are not inbred but are a product of society.

Again... you're speaking of their actions. Why did they perform those actions? Their intentions were based on moral principles that were grossly distorted when applied. Again, though, they did what they thought was right (no matter how wrong they were), and were completely justified in their own minds. If it was solely their society, however, we wouldn't have skinheads in most countries today. We do, though. This is because, for whatever reason, they can relate to the ethical values presented by the Nazis of old.

How do you define noble? Nobility is in the eye of the beholder. One man's nobility is another's evil - A gallant knight that fights evil witches and slays them is a highly respected nobleman in one man's court. Whereas the 'witches' who are noble for serving and worshipping their god/goddess are martyrs to the evil crusading knights. Another example: islamic suicide bombers are noble to their people and extremist organizations but are terrorists to the rest of society. American troops are noble warriors for America but are nothing more than meddling terrorists with expensive gear and powerful backing to many countries...

Well, now we're back to:

Are morals inbred? I think you're presenting a completely different topic here of nuture versus nature.

I hate to use your own quote here, but you are also bringing up nature vs. nurture. The only difference is that you are saying the it is nurture, and I am saying that it is nature. I do agree, however, that it is 'nurture' that determines how these ethics are applied to real life situations.

[grot3sq]

Hmmm... I think The Plague from "Hackers" claimed the best conclusion ever. There is no right and wrong. There's only fun and boring. I myself believe that way too. I mean, if u save some1s life, it's generally a good thing, but maybe there is some1 who don't like that. So u never can do just good things and stuff like that...