• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Are Ethics?

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
Spurred by a post entitled "is this ethical," I have made this thread to ask simply if we are in agreement that ethics are nonexistent. - They are only interpretations of phenomena or values ascribed thereto and are therefore void of reality. Can that which is void of reality be useful? Of course. But that is not the question I am asking. I am asking whether or not you believe that anyone can sufficiently answer the question "Is this ethical?" I am asking if ethics are necessarily, or ever, independent of rationality, or is this unreasonable? Irresponsible? Unethical?
 

professor goodstain

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,785
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7~7
Doctors take a hippocratic oath. Is that necessarily, or ever, independent of rationality, or is this unreasonable? Irresponsible? Unethical?
 

stellar renegade

PEST that STEPs on PETS
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
1,446
MBTI Type
ESTP
Well ethics and morality have to do with being human, so of course it's something internal. That doesn't mean they don't have a stronger force than our environment, though, especially if there's an all-pervasive God.

Or maybe you're talking about ethics as distinct from morality?
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ethics are a product of the mind. They are imagined. So, if there were no minds in the world, there'd be no ethics. However, people's ethical beliefs make them do things that have tangible impact. As such, trends in ethical beliefs in society do effect its stability level.

It's a metaphysical question, to ask if ethics "exist".
 

stellar renegade

PEST that STEPs on PETS
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
1,446
MBTI Type
ESTP
Or if God exists, ethics can still exist regardless of whether we exist or not, and if he can never stop existing, then ethics can't, either. Again, if everything exists by virtue of God's existence, then ethics/morality are stronger than the temporal state of things since everything is in constant flux anyway.
 

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
It's a muddy question, and poorly phrased I admit. I guess it's just a train of thought that I would like to hear peoples ideas about, regardless of whether or not they answer my question.

Yes, I see ethics as something distinct from morality. It is the line between morality and customs that is most difficult for me to see.

Is it internal? Maybe. Morality appears to me to be a comparison of standards, and that which is accepted most commonly as morality, that is, what is customary, is necessarily external because it is not a system of internal beliefs but rather a creed which is to be obeyed, or at least agreed with, which implies internal acceptance, though I do wonder how someone is able to obey with conviction a creed that they did not originate.

Is morality then the same as law? The difference between the two is that in the case of law, there is a distinct punishment for the refusal to obey, whereas in the case of morality, one may merely be demeaned or ostracized, or may sustain no punishment at all. Law and morality do not exist. They exist only inasmuch as there are a number of people insisting upon their existence, and reality may then be affected through such subjective truth - through such invisible absolutes. But those morals which are held sacred by many, such as that it is wrong to kill another even if they have wronged you - are these really based on rational analyses, or are morals like this one product of a bandwagon simply because they are intuitive? It is difficult for me to imagine coming to that kind of conclusion through rationality, but I am not so naturally rational as some of you.
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
Spurred by a post entitled "is this ethical," I have made this thread to ask simply if we are in agreement that ethics are nonexistent. - They are only interpretations of phenomena or values ascribed thereto and are therefore void of reality. Can that which is void of reality be useful? Of course. But that is not the question I am asking. I am asking whether or not you believe that anyone can sufficiently answer the question "Is this ethical?" I am asking if ethics are necessarily, or ever, independent of rationality, or is this unreasonable? Irresponsible? Unethical?

Ethics exist to please the crowd. It behooves anyone with some fiduciary responsibility to behave ethically. If they don't they will pay when they get caught. They either don't think they will get caught or the perceived relative pain of the unethical behavior is less than the perceived pain of punishment when they get caught. Of course, that fallacy is revealed when they actually get caught. People are often only remorseful of their bad behavior after having been caught.
 

stellar renegade

PEST that STEPs on PETS
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
1,446
MBTI Type
ESTP
Actually, I'd rather keep 'ethics' defined as societal mores, morality being something natural for us to feel, like somehow feeling like coldbloodedly cutting open a little kid's face is twisted and wrong.

I do think that the latter has more reality to it than our surface impressions of nature. I consider the sensory world we normally percieve to merely be the props on the stage. The heart of reality is behind all that - it's what's 'really going on'.
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
Actually, I'd rather keep 'ethics' defined as societal mores, morality being something natural for us to feel, like somehow feeling like coldbloodedly cutting open a little kid's face is twisted and wrong.

I do think that the latter has more reality to it than our surface impressions of nature. I consider the sensory world we normally percieve to merely be the props on the stage. The heart of reality is behind all that - it's what's 'really going on'.

I believe this is more a question of morality than ethics.
 

laughingebony

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
236
MBTI Type
INTP
Along the same line of thinking as the OP:

What are our criteria for determining what is and isn't ethical?

Do we even have any?

If we do, why do we use those criteria?

What are our criteria for choosing our criteria?

ad infinitum
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
You can't use a broad brush like that. In finance there are several methods to depreciate assets. The IRS requires MACRS depreciation, essentially double declining balance, because they say depreciation is too subjective. They want to remove as much of the subjectivity as possible. Different methods exist and are available for use for financial accounting/reporting purposes. Different governing bodies have different ideas about what is acceptable. GAAP might consider one form of depreciation inappropriate for a given situation whereas IFRS might deem the same thing perfectly acceptable. This is significant because depreciation of assets is one of the areas in financial accounting most susceptible to manipulation (fraud).
 
Last edited:
Top