Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7
Send Topic Print
Ranking Ethics (Read 24608 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #30 - Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:12pm
 
Soren wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:01pm:
Risk? Risk of what? Ethics is not just OH&S.



Risk of harm to society. Give me any ethical principle and it can be graded in terms of risk.

(I may be sticking my neck out here, but I'm pretty sure that the golden rule relates to ethics)

OK, there may be some skewing depending on how dysfunctional the society is.  

Let me apply another criterion - that of mental well being. In other words, an ethical state or act should be beneficial (or low risk) to both the individual and society as a whole, and beneficial (or low risk) on both the material and mental levels.

(minor grammatical correction)
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 27th, 2010 at 7:33am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #31 - Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:15pm
 
Yadda wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 3:28am:
p.s.
To be an ethical person, don't we have to make choices, which we think will have consequence, for good?
But, to make an ethical choice, don't we first need to be able to discern, between good, and, evil???


Can you accept that what may be good for one person or community may be bad for another? It's all a question of reference point.

Think of it like a financial transaction. One man's bargain is another man's loss. Eventually everything balances out.  

Let's say that a community is in danger of losing their livelihoods, and one enterprising person diverts water from a river during near-drought conditions to grow more crops. The community thrives. That person is a hero (good)

Downstream,  another community suddenly finds that it's out of water. People starve - children die. Now that man is a murderer (bad).

The two communities are in different countries.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:38pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #32 - Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:53pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:12pm:
Soren wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:01pm:
Risk? Risk of what? Ethics is not just OH&S.



Risk of harm to society. Give me any ethical principle and it can be graded in terms of risk.



Those who thought that crucifying Jesus was the answer thought that very thing. They nailed him up to minimise risk. Yet Christianity spread, despite the continued perseution and repression.

How does the emergence of Christian ethics fit your OH&S hypothesis of 'oh, ethics - it's all just risk-minimisation'?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #33 - Dec 26th, 2010 at 11:04pm
 
Clearly to murder a person is unethical.

Christian ethics has a strong teleological focus which causes a considerable skewing in societies that are largely Christian.  

You could call it results-based ethics. In the case of Christianity, it's a question of risk of going to hell or a fall from grace, spending a minimum time in purgatory, depending on the particular sin and branch of Christianity.
Quote:
How does the emergence of Christian ethics fit your OH&S hypothesis of 'oh, ethics - it's all just risk-minimisation'?


I thought I explained that risk minimisation was just one factor.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 26th, 2010 at 11:15pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #34 - Dec 26th, 2010 at 11:11pm
 
Yadda wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 3:28am:
muso,
Can't you see, that by pursuing such logic [in the world], the logic that peace comes from 'wanting it' or, that peace comes from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction in the face of evil], we would simply become the slaves of violent, evil men.

We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it!
Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.



A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #35 - Dec 26th, 2010 at 11:20pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 11:04pm:
Clearly to murder a person is unethical.

He wasn't murdered. He was sentenced to death. Not the same thing, ethically.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #36 - Dec 27th, 2010 at 4:37am
 
Quote:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).


That's a nice load of crap.
Do so, and you will find yourself "downstream" without a paddle..just as religions would wish for you.

It's all well and good to purport benevolance when you can afford it, but when you can't, then sorry, it's just mano-a-mano as it's always been.
There really is no other choice.

If you're talking about ethics, then you must also include the distinct possibility of your own non-existence and how your ethics will relate to that possibility.

"Ethics" has always relied upon abundance. Without sustainable nourishment, ethics goes out the window, or takes on a different reality.
We will crawl over each other, knaw at each other, and even eat each other if circumstances dictate.

You may as well do your very best to take down everybody else before they get the opportunity to take you down. Otherwise you are risking your own God given worth.

Aquire for yourself a castle with a very large moat, you deserve it. You deserve to dictate for yourself where and when you may toss an ounce of bread to the plebs. If you give them the opportunity, they will take all from you.

Don't give a sucker an even break.












Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 27th, 2010 at 4:48am by Amadd »  
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #37 - Dec 27th, 2010 at 6:57am
 
Quote:
That's a nice load of crap.

Well, I just wanted give Yadda a chance to reply, but is it entirely? What were the circumstances of India gaining independence in 1948? 

Yadda - You are a follower of Jesus Christ. How do you reconcile your statement:

Quote:
We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it!
Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.


......with Biblical teachings?

It's clearly not what the Bible says. The whole message of Jesus in the gospels is one of peaceful resistance - Love thy enemy, turn the other cheek.

Nowhere does it say to attack aggressors. In fact the parable of the tares makes exactly that point. I'll expand on that if you wish, but basically the message is that it is not our position to judge and take action - it will all be set right on the day of judgement.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 27th, 2010 at 7:36am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #38 - Dec 27th, 2010 at 7:05am
 
Soren wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 11:20pm:
muso wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 11:04pm:
Clearly to murder a person is unethical.

He wasn't murdered. He was sentenced to death. Not the same thing, ethically.



It all depends on the perspective, which is exactly the point I was making before.  Was the Roman Empire a civilizing influence that brought peace to an unstable and turbulent region -that did what it had to do in order to suppress lawlessness and disorder?  - Or was it a brutal  occupying army? Either way the ethical basis of society was skewed.

The clear message of Jesus was one of peaceful resistance. John Dominic Crossan is one of the world's most renowned scholars of the historical Jesus.

This is what he had to say recently on "The Spirit of Things":

Quote:
John Dominic Crossan: As a historian I am completely convinced, historically speaking, that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. And now from that I get two things—and this is not original with me necessarily. First of all, he had to be doing something that was a public threat to Roman law and order, or he would simply have been garrotted, say, in the barracks and tossed over the wall. Pilate would not have wasted a squad of soldiers, who had to stay there until they were certain Jesus was dead, and iron nails and all the rest of it except to make a public statement: 'This person has done something publicly against Roman law and order. We are going to execute him publicly as a warning.'

But then the other part of that—equally important—is that Pilate made no attempt to grab Jesus' followers, as you find in the story of Barabbas, for example—for Barabbas is a violent rebel, might be called a freedom fighter from the Jewish point of view, and he's in jail along with his followers.

So Pilate's action tells us two important things: Jesus is a revolutionary, but he's non-violent; otherwise his followers would be rounded up. And the way that the Romans—and it's also true of Antipus of course and John the Baptist—the way they handled non-violent revolutionaries, radical people who are not just being a nuisance but are negating the whole Roman law and order and Roman occupation but doing it non-violently, what you do is you pick off the leader and if you're still at it, we'd pick off your next leader, and your next leader, until you get the message.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 27th, 2010 at 8:03am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #39 - Dec 27th, 2010 at 7:54am
 
Soren wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:53pm:
Those who thought that crucifying Jesus was the answer thought that very thing. They nailed him up to minimise risk. Yet Christianity spread, despite the continued perseution and repression.


- not unlike today's situation between (that most Christian of countries) the United States, and Julian Assange in fact.

They would definitely crucify him if they could get a hold of him.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 21690
A cat with a view
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #40 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 10:44am
 
muso wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:08pm:
In retrospect, no argument, however to Hitler and the large number of Germans who voted for him, the Jews were the tares.

The problem is that there is no feedback loop.



Yes there is.
Many people just choose to ignore it.
And when they persistently do that, 'the feedback loop' 'goes away', and therefore cannot [can no longer] speak to us.

Conscience.



+++

muso,

I will respond to your "Biblical teachings?" and quotes comments.
Its coming.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 21690
A cat with a view
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #41 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 10:58am
 
muso wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:08pm:
How would you know that Hitler was one of the tares? Would you ask God?




Response...

Dictionary;
ethical = = morally correct.

Dictionary;
ethics = =
1 moral principles governing or influencing conduct.
2 the branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles.



The highest ethical position, imo, would be to allow all persons to decide what is in their own best interests.
And to then, allow those persons to act in their own best interests.

Of course those persons whom we define as a criminal and as non-criminal, would make different life choices.
But the criminal, and the non-criminal personality, would each consider that they were acting ethically.
e.g.
A criminal always considers that, in destroying another person so as to further their own [selfish] interests], they are acting ethically.
Why so?
Because otherwise, the criminal personality could not act in the way they do.
Because, what we believe [including criminals], always determines how we act [i.e. what we believe affects our behaviour, and our life choices].


Ethics is about [determining, AND, having already determined] what is good. [i.e. the feed back loop]
Ethics is about making choices [which have consequences], based what we believe is good, and morally acceptable.
We come to such determinations, on a personal level, through the 'feed back loop' of life's experience.

But how do we, or how should we, define what is 'good'?
And how do we, or how should we, define what is 'evil', or wicked behaviour?

+++

PROPOSITION...
If there is no God, then good and evil are meaningless concepts, except as they are defined by society, and/or by ourselves.
Logically, [if we can ignore or evade societies rules, i.e. if we can evade its 'ethics'] we ourselves [within our own 'sphere of influence'] always become the absolute arbiters of what is 'good', and, 'evil'.

Q.
And so, what happens, 'ethically', within an environment where there are no overriding rules?

A.
Whatever gives us pleasure, and materially enriches us [so as to enable us to gain yet more pleasure], IS DEEMED TO BE GOOD.
And whatever stands in the way of us obtaining pleasure, logically, HAS TO BE BAD, AND 'EVIL'.

Q.
And what is [or seems to be,] the primary 'morality' which has precedence in this age?

A.
"If it feels good, do it!"

And, in an environment where ['morality'] rules are essentially absent, feelings of 'guilt', are 'illogical', as feelings of guilt do not serve us, in the delivery of those things which give us pleasure.

So the logic of an unethical [in my eyes] man goes;
"Why shouldn't i do whatever will give me the most pleasure in this life??"

+++

PROPOSITION...
The criminal and a non-criminal personality will always be in conflict, and will always define 'ethical behaviour' differently.
A criminal personality, and a non-criminal personality, will ALWAYS be in conflict with each other [on some level], because their respective interests do not coincide [concur] - on an 'ethical' level.

+++

IMO, 'freedom', and 'the pursuit of pleasure', to this generation of mankind, means being able to do whatever they like,
...so long as there are no adverse consequences for themselves.
And that is basically what our society actually teaches our children.
[i.e. avoid consequences, at all costs!]

Like their community leaders [i.e. politicians], this generation want to exercise authority and freedom, but, they invariably seek to reject responsibility [for the consequences of their choices].
Not so?
Look at the stories on the TV news each night.

IMO, the moral 'imperative' for modern, natural man, is this;
Whether i do something good, OR, or whether i do something evil, is unimportant.

What is important, is this;
Is such an action 'in my interests', AND, can i get away with it?
If i can, AND, if such an action is in my interests, it is 'good', otherwise it is 'bad'.


If 'ethical behaviour' is defined as acting 'morally'.
How would immoral behaviour be defined?

I offer this;
Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god. "...shewing himself that he is God."]
I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it.
i.e.
"If there are no consequences [brought upon me] for my actions, then what's the prob!!?"


Well, i am a person who does believe in the scientific process.
And i deeply believe in the scientific principle of 'cause and effect'.


+++
To me, freedom means, i should try to separate myself from those influences, which, if i allow them act upon me, and my life, they will cause my bondage [through their consequences].
i.e.
If i separate myself from wickedness, in my life, i will, remain free, AND, happy.
This is the principle of, 'Cause and effect'.
Its not rocket science.

Some time ago, i saw an approximation of our society's 'morality' emblazoned on a T-shirt;
"Its only illegal if they catch you."

Murder?
Paedophilia?
The assault and rape of granny's within the confines of their own homes, by young house breakers?

Its only illegal if they catch you?

If that is not the prevailing 'moral principle', for many, then may i suggest that you have not been watching the nightly TV news.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #42 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 11:03am
 
muso wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 7:54am:
Soren wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:53pm:
Those who thought that crucifying Jesus was the answer thought that very thing. They nailed him up to minimise risk. Yet Christianity spread, despite the continued perseution and repression.


- not unlike today's situation between (that most Christian of countries) the United States, and Julian Assange in fact.

They would definitely crucify him if they could get a hold of him.

The US is in the grip of the most powerful motivator - hysterical fear. The US now perceives any criticism as an assault on the integrity of the nation. They have subsequently invoked the greatest justification for any means to its end - Survival. They believe they are going to be destroyed.
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 21690
A cat with a view
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #43 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 11:04am
 
Yadda wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 10:58am:
If 'ethical behaviour' is defined as acting 'morally'.
How would immoral behaviour be defined?

I offer this;
Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god. "...shewing himself that he is God."]
I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it.
i.e.
"If there are no consequences [brought upon me] for my actions, then what's the prob!!?"





Further...

Morality = = I treat others, as i would like to be treated myself.

Leviticus 19:18
...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

The OT Bible teaches and encourages altruism, through adoption of moral standards, and through [applied] judgements, made against a moral standard.
[i.e. God's moral standard.]

I am a student of the Bible.
And IMO, the OT Bible does teach man ethical behaviour.

And in my experience, people who reject that last proposition [that the laws in the OT Bible teach ethical behaviour in man], are either,
1/ uninformed [i.e. wilfully ignorant], or,
2/ they are invariably people who seek to reject any responsibility for the consequences of their own choices.


Immediately above, i said,
"Morality = = I treat others, as i would like to be treated myself."
i.e.
I believe, that if i murder, i forfeit the right to my own life.
i.e.
I believe that if i murder, then it is a moral act, for another person to act towards me, in the way i myself have behaved.

Deuteronomy 19:19
Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20  And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

+++

"We had thought that we were human beings making a spiritual journey; it may be truer to say that we are spiritual beings making a human journey."

Teilhard de Chardin



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 21690
A cat with a view
Re: Ranking Ethics
Reply #44 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 12:13pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 6:57am:
Yadda - You are a follower of Jesus Christ. How do you reconcile your statement:

Quote:
We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it!
Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.


......with Biblical teachings?

It's clearly not what the Bible says. The whole message of Jesus in the gospels is one of peaceful resistance - Love thy enemy, turn the other cheek.

Nowhere does it say to attack aggressors. In fact the parable of the tares makes exactly that point. I'll expand on that if you wish, but basically the message is that it is not our position to judge and take action - it will all be set right on the day of judgement.



muso,
It is a fair and good Q, to put to me!

Quote:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).

...Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

....When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult... (1 Peter 3:9).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. ... (1 John 2:9-10).




muso,
I do not consider myself to be special.
I recognise that i am a flawed person [and that i am far from perfect].

I pray it will not be the case, but maybe my God will reject me, as not coming up to his required standard.
And, i pray and ask God daily, to heal me, of my personal flaws.


Response...

MY POSITION on that whole issue of self defence....

We have to live in the world, but [imo] the whole point of us living in this world, is that our experience(s) teaches us to choose [between the good, and the evil].
IMO, our life in this world teaches us discernment, through being cognisant of the consequences of our past [wise and foolish] choices.

Whereas we have Jesus message, and scripture like Matthew 5:38-39!

Matthew 5:38
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

IMO, such a doctrine would teach us that any need for discernment between good and evil is superfluous, because, as Christians, Matthew 5:39 teaches us that we are not to take any action against evil!
Therefore, because we should take no action [against evil, when we see it], we would have no need to choose [in life].

Therefore, such a doctrine ['resist not evil'] would inevitably lead us into an abandonment of discernment between good and evil.
And in our embracing of such a doctrine, we would also have to embrace an abandonment of our [or any active] defence of what is good.

BUT contrawise,
#1;
When i read the words of Matthew 5:39, i think that perhaps we should throw open the doors and gates of all the prisons.
And then in the same next moment, i know that that, would be [morally] wrong.

#2;
When i read the words of Matthew 5:39, i come to the position, that any action in our self defence is unjustified and wrong [as judged by our God].
And then in the same next moment [in my flawed judgement], i know that that idea, would be wrong, mistaken.

Why do i come to that assessment???

CONTINUED, next post...
Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7
Send Topic Print