- Hong-Min Yoon
- Seoul Gangnam Gu
- South Korea
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is there an exact, definite criteria or standard on ethics?
Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and many other philosophers have spent their lifetimes trying to find ways to find the absolute answer to this question; "Is that right to do?" However, no one could come up with a perfect idea that everybody can agree to. I'm sure that our society can be improved if we find such answer, but does it even exist? Taking one step further, does ethics exist or is it something that human beings made in order to reform the society? (After all, I am just a curious 8th grader)
Topics:
ethics philosophy
JP Piert
Ask:
Is there more than the world view that ethics are your imagination,
or
are they in a harmony by a same Giver who gave the first string of energy before the electron existed?
Ask if morality and ethics are made-up , ultimately
or
passed on in revelation by a Revelator... scientifically observable by the receivers.
Ritchie Armer
JP Piert
Selflessness is learned by a Giver, not imagined by a therapist bias, although bridge-builders are better helpfully as therapists and priests and clergy and in-breathed from revelation knowledge. Leaving imagined ethics aside.
Barry Palmer 50+
Suppose we all just agree that ethics are a human invention. People develop systems of ethics, and these systems can compete.
This competition could be conducted as a large research project. Suppose we could get small communities willing to all live together by one of these systems of ethics, and see how it affects the community. Perhaps one such community will grow and grow, and the crime rate will be very low and the population will be happy. Universities and governments have funded some very weird research projects that had much less potential benefit than ethics research.
Imad Atwi 10+
Truth of the matter, ethics (amongst other issues) is quite complex, and you need to pick and choose your answer for each and every situation. No one ethical situation is similar to another.
The framework for ethics is highly loose, as it should be, and tightening it up would end in sub-optimal results.
Amanda Cherian
Barry Palmer 50+
Ethics becomes complex and difficult in some situations, particularly when deciding the better of two different goods or the least of two evils. But for the vast sweep of human interactions, the golden rule is adequate.
As long as we accept that ethics is complex and difficult we will never develop a system of ethics that is acceptable to large numbers of people.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
if there is no absolute truth, what about this statement itself? it is an absolute truth?
Hong-Min Yoon
1. The fact that I asked this statement is true.
2. I cannot say if the question itself is true or not.
Sorry if my answers are incomplete.
pat gilbert 50+
Hong-Min Yoon
pat gilbert 50+
Hong-Min Yoon
Shane Schuller
Are there disagreements? If there are, do we allow 'our' ethics to hold them in contempt. If it does, then we fail the very thing we try to define - ETHICS.
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
I believe a solution is to view ethics as a perceptual rather than a conceptual issue - how we see things versus how we think about them.
We make ethical decision to the extent that we perceive a situation through compassion, hope, personal responsibility and humility. To the extent that we perceive situations through the opposite perceptions of defensiveness, fear, blame and self-centeredness, we are more likely to act in ways that are unethical.
Ethics becomes clearer when we start from a sense of the interconnectedness of all human beings and all of nature. Seeing our world through eyes of compassion, hope, personal responsibility, and humility allows us to recognize that.
Ethics is simply a matter of seeing clearly.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Life and human behaviour and the situations we face are complex. Religious manuals try to be prescriptive and fail.
Even the great philiosophers struggle.
If you are looking for a simple objective list, we don't have it.
Also what societies have thought is okay in the past, such as slavery, which even the bible supported 2000 years ago, is not seen as acceptable in many cultures today.
I do however suggest we can look at what improves or detracts from the human condition, the human experience. What leads to suffering or to happiness. What are the consequences of actions.
Some things may be relatively simple. Life on the whole is preferred to death. A reasonable case can be made for not going around killing people. But then it might be okay in self defense. It might be preferred if the person is suffering a painful terminal disease and wants to end it. Not easy.
Our attempts to prescribe human rights is a good start. I think you will find the most complex ethical questions involve tensions between different rights or objectives. Should parents be able to genitally mutilate their children for religious reasons. Religious freedom on one side and the rights of the child on the other. Should parents indoctrinate their children in a particular religion. etc
I suggest if you start with some premises objectives etc, and work through issues, refine the premises and work through again via an iterative process assuming some options with give better outcomes then others you'll do better than not trying at all. Also we have the work of many philosophers to build on.
Ethics is not easy, but is worthwhile.
Debra Smith 200+
adapted from: Congress, E.P. (1996). Social Work Values and Ethics, Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
E - Examine personal, professional, client, agency, societal values
T - Think about the applicable ethical standards, laws and legal precedents that apply
H - Hypothesize different decisions, their outcomes and the impact on relevant systems
I - Identify who will benefit and who will be harmed by these specific decisions keeping in mind the professional values and mission
C -Consult
Debra Smith 200+
from Reamer, F.G. (1999). Social Work Values and Ethics (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press
• Rules against basic harm to an individuals survival take precedence over rules against harms such as lying or revealing confidential information or threats to additive goods;
• An individual's right to basic well-being takes precedence over another individual's right to self determination;
• An individual's right to self-determination takes precedence over his or her right to basic well-being;
• The obligation to obey laws, rules and regulations to which one has voluntarily and freely consented ordinarily overrides one's right to engage voluntarily and freely in a manner that conflicts with these;
• Individuals' rights to well-being may override laws, rules, regulations and arrangements of voluntary associations in cases of conflict;
• The obligation to prevent basic harms and to promote public goods such as housing, education and public assistance overrides the right to complete control over one's property.
Scott Armstrong 50+
individuals hold the absolute answer but it won't always agree with another person's absolute answer.
also, our own personal absolute answer changes as we experience life. if it doesn't change, then, i think, it indicates a closed mind..
personally, i'm glad we can't come up with 'truth', 'absolute answers' or 'unified field theory'. imagine how prescribed and pointless life would be if there were..
Fritzie Reisner 100+
If there isn't one that everyone could ever be convinced of, what do you think the next best thing would be?
For those of us who have not been in eighth grade for a very long time, it is interesting to hear sometimes what an eighth grader is thinking at the moment about this question.
Hong-Min Yoon
Ken brown 30+
elizabeth muncey 10+
Eric Grovum
Here is a link to his book. http://www.lulu.com/shop/alonzo-fyfe/a-better-place-essays-on-desire-utilitarianism/paperback/product-593684.html;jsessionid=03E1507581F86EDE309833D6BE5750F2
On his blog, he is going into great depth on countless ethical issues:http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/
Robert Winner 50+
If I use that defination and I accept that there are different cultures then there can be no exact, set or defined standard to ethics. Each culture has its taboos, rites, and religious guidance. These are often directly the opposite of other cultures.
Acts of honor, good faith, and respect are often accepted as goodwill and well intended.
All the best. Bob.
Debra Smith 200+
Should all doctors' first duty of ethics be to the surgeon who put me in a coma?
pat gilbert 50+
The definition of ethics that I use is that ethic is survival. This is not a yes or no question there are degrees of survival.
The greatest survival for the greatest number is he correct answer. This includes you, your family, your group, all of mankind, plants and animals, earth, matters that pertain to spirituality and god. What ever the question is can be answered by what is the greatest good for the greatest number.
Does that make sense?
The one that almost everyone agrees to is .treat others as you would want to be treated, this is known as the golden rule. And it works very well.
Hong-Min Yoon
pat gilbert 50+
Challenge my "opinion" , see how it applies and how it does not, see if it works or if it does not work, is it something that can be used or something that cannot be used.
Don't glibly say thank you for your opinion, that is something I would expect from an 8th grader.
Understanding and learning are verbs, challenge this chew on this, compare this to the other answers. This is the only answer that says yes it is easy.
Debra Smith 200+
Fletcher outlined his theory in ten principles, which he split into the four working principles and the six fundamental principles.
The four working principles
There are four presuppositions that Fletcher makes before setting out the situational ethics theory:
1.Pragmatism - This is that the course of action must be practical and work
2.Relativism - All situations are always relative; situational ethicists try to avoid such words as "never" and "always"
3.Positivism - The whole of situational ethics relies upon the fact that the person freely chooses to believe in agape love as described by Christianity.
4.Personalism - Whereas the legalist thinks people should work to laws, the situational ethicist believes that laws are for the benefit of the people.
[edit] The six fundamental principles (propositions)
First proposition Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all. Fletcher (1963, pg56) Second proposition The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else. Fletcher (1963, pg69) Third proposition Love and Justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else. Fletcher (1963, pg87) Justice is Christian love using its head, calculating its duties, obligations, opportunities, resources... Justice is love coping with situations where distribution is called for. Fletcher (1963, pg95) Fourth proposition Love wills the neighbour's good, whether we like him or not. Fletcher (1963, pg103) Fifth proposition Only the end justifies the means, nothing else. Actions only acquire moral status as a means to an end; for Fletcher, the end must be the most loving result. When measuring a situation, one must consider the desired end, the means available, the motive for acting and the foreseeable consequences. Fletcher (1963, pg120) Sixth proposition Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively. Fletcher (1963, pg134)
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Mark Kurtz 20+
Bad ethics upset people. An ethical person, understanding good behavior and desiring good relationships, does not need law to mitigate his behavior.
Who can come up with a standard built upon everyone's experiences. Seems impossible to me.
You want ethics? Then encourage people to love one another. People do not intentionally hurt people they love! What other "standard" is there?
Humbly,
MK
Debra Smith 200+
Medical Model Principles Hierarchy
from Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (1989). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press
• Respect for autonomy;
• Nonmaleficence - do no harm;
• Beneficence - actively pursue the welfare of others;
• Justice - allocation of resources, fairness, need
Debra Smith 200+
Loewenberg AND Dolgoff Ethical Principles
from Loewenberg, F.M. & Dolgoff, R. (2000). Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice (6th ed.).Itasca, Il.: FE Peacock
To be used when an applicable code of ethics does not provide specific rules
• Principle of the protection of life
• Principle of equality and inequality
• Principle of autonomy and freedom
• Principle of least harm
• Principle of quality of life
• Principle of privacy and confidentiality
• Principle of truthfulness and full disclosure