Ethics is the area of philosophy that studies what is right or just.
My main problem with most ethical study is that everything can always be easily wrapped around the idea that we all want to be happy but, as soon as that happiness depends on the suffering of others, then that individual is a "psychopath" or "sociopath" and is some kind of anomaly to the proper theory of ethical behavior when it seems to me that actually, a whole lot of humans get their happiness either directly or indirectly from the misery of others.
And, these anomalous "few" (or very many, if one looks around a bit) who are outside the bounds of any proper ethical theory always end up ruling the world, starting wars, and robbing the people of their happiness. So, perhaps all ethical theories should begin by delineating the motives of the popular political psychopath or sociopath and then move on to the abnormal people who just want to be happy and not infringe upon anyone else for that happiness.
Also, what a cop-out it is to leave large segments of the population out. How could we possibly include any leaders of most powerful nations, politicans, much of our police force, many who are at the highest eschelons of corporations, and let us not forget all those who sell something to us that we neither need nor want but are tricked, through bullshit and marketing, into thinking we want or need.
All cognitive decisions made by humans take place against the backdrop of emotion. All decisions and all use of reason, I would argue, are accompanied by an emotional response that points to the believed truth, falsity, or fuzzy degree thereof, of the particular representation.
The statement, "It is right to kill in order to defend the lives of my children" is not absolutely right or wrong but only so in the context of the emotional environment of the cognitive representation.
This statement, to a childless absolute pacifist, may appear false because he or she thinks all violence is wrong. But, in a non-pacifist who is a parent of a young child, this statement may invoke anger or fear and it could easily be seen as true.
There can be no ethical reason without ethical axioms that are based on sentiment such as "It is good to make the most people happy" or "Happiness is good".
There can be no ground for such statements except emotional ground. If violence and chaos were what made most people happy, then violence and chaos would be good. But, violence and chaos only seem to make some people happy and that, I think, is good because I am not one of them.
This is not to say that I am a moral relativist because I believe that I am right and those who cherish destructive power are wrong.
While many areas of philosophical study have no direct effect on how we go about our daily lives, ethics and the study of ethics is at the heart of how we act and treat each other. There is, perhaps, no more important question to ask of any human action other than "Is it ethical?"
Often, our ethics and our laws overlap. But, what is unethical is often legal. Sometimes, what is illegal is ethical. Is it, for example, ethical for a doctor to prescribe marijuana to a cancer patient who is dying of malnutrion even though marijuana is illegal?
Ethics are the sum total of an individual's beliefs about how to act. What is ethical for one person may not be another because much of what is ethical is subjectively influenced by culture and society.
We say it is unethical to steal, but is it unethical to steal food when you or your family is starving? We say it is unethical to kill, but is it unethical to kill in order to preserve one's life? We say that it is wrong to lie, but is a lie wrong that saves lives?
John Stuart Mill wrote extensively about utilitarianism, which is a view that asks the question of what is the greatest good for the most people. In a case where a small town has contracted a deadly disease that will surely annihilate the human race, would it be justified by ultitarian principles, to destroy the town and everyone in it?
If everyone in the town is going to die shortly and it is a case of existential preservation, I think it is justified.
But, in cases where existential preservation is not a factor, utilitarianism can produce almost any conclusion because it requires an understanding of good.
All understanding of good is subjective and the greatest problem in ethics is that it is impossible to have a science or strict logic of justice, "oughts", or good because it would be like having a strict science or logic about what the best color is.
This is not to say that I am an ethical relativist or ethical nihilist. I do believe there is good, for a person and people.
What is good, in my opinion, is what reduces suffering and allows freedom that either provides happiness or the conditions for happiness.
Also, we can not simply take into account immediate good or happiness and use it to trump long-term good or happiness.
It can surely be said that if everyone in the world were instantly and unknowingly given a dose of heroin, then most people would be happier.
But, that happiness would either fade or turn into a heroin addiction and these things are not good.
It may be instantly good or make people happy to give them money from a national treasury, but what about the bad of the eventual monetary collapse of the nation from overspending? |
|
|
There is an interesting thought experiment in ethics and philosophy in which a person is given a choice to enter a utopian simulation of reality, not actual reality, in which all of their desires will be met and their memory of stepping into the simulation will instantly be removed from there memory once they enter.
Why would someone not enter? Why would they? What are the ramifications or reasons? Most humans, I think, desire their environment and world to be real.
We often urge people to not use hallucinogens because, we assume, their experience, though it may be real to them, is not real to us. Can this tell us anything about our metaphysical prejudices?
