ETHICS WITHOUT ABSOLUTES

Homepage › Forums › Small Talk › ETHICS WITHOUT ABSOLUTES

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 44 total)
1 2 3
  • Author
    Posts
  • November 15, 2017 at 7:23 pm #6136
    Unseen
    Participant

    Twenty years ago or so I started a group named Food For Thought where people would gather over food in a restaurant to discuss a topic of the month, which was proposed in the monthly newsletter a week or so ahead of time, allowing them to give some thought to the matter.

    I can’t remember exactly what topic we were discussing but I do remember it was in an exchange with a woman who does psychological counseling. The exchange was over what obligations counselors have to the victim partner when one person in a marriage is unfaithful.

    At one point I said, “You can’t have ethics without absolutes.” I was probably arguing that without absolutes, anything goes.

    She was frustrated by her efforts to refute my claim. I wrongly thought that was the end of it.

    At the group’s next gathering, she arrived with a friend. At some time before the meeting, she introduced me as a guy with an MA in philosophy. She introduced her friend as the then Chairman of a nearby university’s Dept. of Philosophy, and turning to him she said “(my name) thinks you can’t have ethics without absolutes.” He raised his eyebrows, smiled, and said, “And he’s absolutely right. You can’t.” She, of course, was crestfallen.

    Like many psychologists, her “ethics” were relativistic. She didn’t realize how few philosophers push relativism when it comes to ethics.

    Obviously, there’s cultural relativity when it comes to ethics, but if you think that’s the end of it, you don’t have any way of criticizing ethics, making it hard to say that a culture that sanctions child marriage or outlandish punishments for low-impact crimes are wrong.

    Or do you?

    November 15, 2017 at 8:23 pm #6137
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    What exactly do you mean by absolute ethics?

    What I mean is “white lines” – lines that I absolutely won’t cross.  In other words, ethics only have to be individual, since it is the individual who acts ethically.

    November 15, 2017 at 10:17 pm #6141
    Matt
    Participant

    I was hoping for more of a philosophical introduction to ethics with/without absolutes. @Unseen, Why can’t we have ethics without absolutes? If we did have ethical absolutes, wouldn’t that mean that they are universal across all cultures (i.e. no child marriage)? Or if child marriage is acceptable by the ethical absolutes, why is it not allowed in western civilisation, if not for relativism?

    November 16, 2017 at 2:27 am #6145
    _Robert_
    Participant

    The situation affects the depth of the infraction. If the new-to-the-frontline idiot army officer orders a suicide charge and gets shot by his own men…well it’s wrong….but you can argue it was for the greater good…

    November 16, 2017 at 5:46 am #6147
    Unseen
    Participant
    Simon Paynton wrote:

    What exactly do you mean by absolute ethics? What I mean is “white lines” – lines that I absolutely won’t cross. In other words, ethics only have to be individual, since it is the individual who acts ethically.

    I didn’t use the term “absolute ethics,” I said that you can’t have ethics without absolutes. That’s shorthand for something like “If you’re going to have ethics which are meaningful, which can claim to decide whether ethical claims are true or false, actions good or bad, by which is meant REALLY good or bad or REALLY true or false, you need a standard which works across situations, across cultures, at all times and for everyone.”

    If you’re willing to accept that ethical claims are relative and not true or false, then you need to accept something like this: Bill: “In Sparta, they would look newborn male babies over and if they seemed scrawny, unhealthy, or otherwise unpromising as a soldier, they’d toss them into a rocky ravine to die.” Joe: “That’s just wrong.” Bill: “Well, if you were a Spartan, you wouldn’t think so. It’s just wrong for  us in our culture today.”

    So, were the Spartans wrong, or is it just right for them but wrong for us? Absent an absolute of some sort, some basis for deciding such things with finality seems impossible.

     

     

    November 16, 2017 at 6:48 am #6148
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @unseen – I don’t think that ethical absolutes exist in the way that you mean.  All there is, is what individual people, or groups, think is right or wrong. Then, the question is, how many people think that way, which is a measure of how universal it is.

    I can think of three separate ethical systems,  each based on a different fundamental value.

    1.  The one that most of us use, founded on empathy (helping in response to need, even if this just means minimising the bad impact of actions) and fairness (giving people their fair due).

    2.  The one that a psychopath told me about.  It’s missing empathy, but includes everything else.  The ultimate value is “character” – what would someone with a good character do.  A good character is someone you can rely on.  A good character would not pick on the weak, because someone who does this is weak, and therefore, not to be relied on.  The whole thing reminds you of a military code of honour.

    3.  The Spartans’ one, whose ultimate value was “being a hardened warrior”.

    Number 1 is in the vast majority.  That makes it the closest we have to an ethical absolute.

    November 16, 2017 at 8:10 am #6149
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think those fundamental values are what the philosophy professor referred to as “absolutes”.

    November 16, 2017 at 8:41 am #6150
    Unseen
    Participant
    Simon Paynton wrote:

    @unseen – I don’t think that ethical absolutes exist in the way that you mean. All there is, is what individual people, or groups, think is right or wrong. Then, the question is, how many people think that way, which is a measure of how universal it is. I can think of three separate ethical systems, each based on a different fundamental value. 1. The one that most of us use, founded on empathy (helping in response to need, even if this just means minimising the bad impact of actions) and fairness (giving people their fair due). 2. The one that a psychopath told me about. It’s missing empathy, but includes everything else. The ultimate value is “character” – what would someone with a good character do. A good character is someone you can rely on. A good character would not pick on the weak, because someone who does this is weak, and therefore, not to be relied on. The whole thing reminds you of a military code of honour. 3. The Spartans’ one, whose ultimate value was “being a hardened warrior”. Number 1 is in the vast majority. That makes it the closest we have to an ethical absolute.

    So, you’re an ethical relativist, then. There’s no such thing as REAL right and wrong, just what your culture tells you is right and wrong. If you were born in Sparta, your empathy would be with those feeling the pain of lives lost due to letting weaklings into the ranks.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: unquoteblocked unseen's part of the post
    November 16, 2017 at 8:59 am #6151
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    “REAL right and wrong”

    – I’m not sure what this means.

    “ethical relativist”

    – I’m not sure what this means either.  The situation is, I think “this” is right and wrong, other people think “that” is right and wrong.

    November 16, 2017 at 9:08 am #6152
    Unseen
    Participant
    Simon Paynton wrote:

    “REAL right and wrong” – I’m not sure what this means. “ethical relativist” – I’m not sure what this means either. The situation is, I think “this” is right and wrong, other people think “that” is right and wrong.

    That’s the position of a relativist. You appear to be a relativist who doesn’t think that, say, child molestation is actually wrong unless it’s wrong in your culture. Right?

    November 16, 2017 at 9:42 am #6153
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    To me, it’s wrong if I say it’s wrong, and to other people, it’s wrong if they say it’s wrong.

    Child molestation belongs to the category of “moral” rather than “conventional” crimes – it concerns direct harm done by one person to another, rather than breaking a convention, no matter how deeply felt.  People can tell the difference.  As such, the sexual abuse of minors is seen as wrong everywhere, in every culture, with a handful of exceptions.

    November 16, 2017 at 10:33 am #6154
    .
    Participant

    Absolutes are a false security blanket that give the illusion of universal moral obligation. Most people don’t live up to their own ethical standards of others anyway so what difference does it make? Lol

    November 16, 2017 at 1:59 pm #6158
    Strega
    Moderator

    There are all types of absolutes.  Personally I cringe when people use the terms ‘always’, ‘everybody’ and ‘never’.  It’s almost a compulsion for me to find an exception.  However, red lines have to be absolute, even if they inadvertently trap or adversely affect an ‘innocent’.

    November 16, 2017 at 6:15 pm #6162
    Unseen
    Participant
    Belle Rose wrote:

    Absolutes are a false security blanket that give the illusion of universal moral obligation. Most people don’t live up to their own ethical standards of others anyway so what difference does it make? Lol

    So, slavery, child sexual abuse, wife beating, mass murder…not really wrong, just wrong to those who think it’s wrong, otherwise not wrong.

    This is  your position(?).

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by Unseen.
    November 16, 2017 at 6:21 pm #6164
    Unseen
    Participant
    Simon Paynton wrote:

    …the sexual abuse of minors is seen as wrong everywhere, in every culture, with a handful of exceptions.

    Sexual abuse of minors may be wrong across cultures (though I’m not entirely sure to what extent that’s true). The rub is this: what exactly constitutes child sexual abuse may be defined differently in an African tribe and Boston or London.

    It’s said that in some Polynesian clans, close relatives like aunts and uncles introduce teens to the wonders of sex, which would send a Brit or American to prison. And yet, Polynesians might consider sexual enslavement as sexual abuse of a child as a crime, just as in Boston or London.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 44 total)
1 2 3
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.