Universal ethics

[Rodion Romanovich]

Do you believe a universal ethics is possible to find or not? Seeing as how we're constantly killing each others over having different ethical views, would it be possible to form an ethics system that everybody could accept? If so, what would the basis of it be?

One example I find of universal ethics would be humanism, with the following axioms (at least according to my own interpretation):
- the ethics should be consequence ethics - the consequences of actions are what matters
- however, consequence ethics can't be used in a practical everyday situation. Therefore, on a regular basis, ethical rules are formed that will come as close as possible to consequence ethics without being too difficult to handle, and where the possible exploits are minimized. In practical situations the rules are used, and must have been unambigiously defined.
- in these ethics, the consequence we're trying to achieve is to minimize suffering, and minimize real threats. Real threats are strongly correlated to suffering, but not fully correlated - you can survive a difficult life and be happy, while others can have unlimited money and be unhappy, for example. Therefore, it must be decided whether the system should be centered on the emotional measurement (minimizing amount of suffering), or the threat based measurement, or a measurement based on a form of minimizing the average of the two (thus taking both into account).
- the central axiom is that in a case where the lives of different people are at stage, all people are of equal value, and the option that causes least death and/or real threats and/or suffering is to be chosen. However if possible choices should be made so that no such dilemmas ever exist.

And now to my own possibly more controversial extensions:
- a long term reasoning should be applied. Avoiding short term suffering should not be done at the expense of greater long term suffering
- most ethical systems are made so that if not all within the society accept them, those who do accept it will be at a disadvantage compared to those who don't follow it. As a result, many ideologies are driven to the extreme in a way such that people are being killed, forcedly converted or similar, so as to ensure that all follow the ideology so it can be followed by it's founders without putting them at a disadvantage. I'd claim that this applies both to religions and political ideologies that we've seen so far. So: the system should be made so that those who follow the ethical rules will have an advantage over, or have exactly as good life as those who don't follow the ethical rules. Not following the rules shouldn't pay off compared to following them, unless the rules are broken in a way such that suffering is minimized better than it would be if the ideology would have been followed. Thus no controversiality of forced conversion is necessary for the ideology, neither would the ideology prevent a better ideology from being used
- the ideology must be fair in a sense acceptable to all. A possible goal could be to maximize the possibilities of the human species to survive, because it's something that everybody benefits from achieving. As such, the fairness is based on a foundation that nobody has much reason to oppose. However, according to the point above the ideology shouldn't need forced conversions, so nobody who follows the ideology would care if somebody decides not to follow it. Since we're talking about consequence ethics (as opposed to rule ethics) as the basis, it would be scientifically possible to - with absolute exactness (provided our models of reality become accurate enough and are good and predicting the future) - determine which action would be ethically correct and which action wouldn't be so. The suggested fairness requirement would thus eliminate the conflicts, because the correct action to perform could be determined unambigiously.
- the downside of the above point might be that people would dislike to have a world where the correct action would be determined unambigiously, but this is already taken into account in the points above - boredom is a form of suffering and as such it wouldn't be benefitial. Boredom also isn't just suffering but also a real threat, because boredom damages the brain in different ways etc. So no matter whether the suffering or threat based consequence ethics is chosen, it'll yield a result where boredom isn't common, and where freedom of action would be preserved to a very great extent.
- the final point being that even a universal ethics system slightly dislikeable would be benefitial to accept due to the damages that war etc. do. So if something reasonably acceptable could be agreed upon, it would be better than current status. The reasons why people go to war are complex and just trying to stop the war by talking to the parts of course won't change anything. So it's already included in the above definition that the consequences of just talking won't be peace, as long as the reasons for the war remains, so whatever method is used for avoiding war according to this ethics system must remove the reasons behind it as well, and thus it should also remove the desire for any part to wage war. Thus nobody would be unhappy about the ethics system because it would prevent them from fighting a war they would find it necessary to fight. However if war is truly unavoidable, the system, trying to be the optimal system in minimizing suffering and/or real threats, would thus also accept war, but make sure the war gets conclusive ideologically so it won't need to be refought, that the peace treaty is acceptable to both parts so as to avoid revenge wars, and also so that the actual war is fought with minimized damage caused.

So what do you think? Is it possible to find universal ethics or are people too instinct-driven and desiring short term pleasures too much to care about long term consequences in any matter? Do you think people prefer risking death, torture, rape and other hideous treatment for themselves and their children and grandchildren to get the chance (even if it's only a 5% chance) of getting slightly richer than they could be in the suggested system, or a system where almost everyone (maybe up to 99%) would have nearly that richess with limited burden of work?

Of course the above ethics system suggestion is still very theoretical and assumes very exact knowledge and very accurate models of measurement etc. is available. Also the exact consequences of applying approximate and non-exact models of reality with this system must be explored further before it should be implemented.

[Papewaio]

Do you believe a universal ethics is possible to find or not?

Only if you kill me first. :laugh4: Seriously bondage of the mind and soul are the worst kind of slavery. Ethics are rules, the more specific the rules the more narrow the situation it can be applied to. Life is a fairly broad domain so the rules to cover every situation would have to be immense. To the point that one would have to spend a lifetime to understand all the rules before proceeding with ones life.



Seeing as how we're constantly killing each others over having different ethical views, would it be possible to form an ethics system that everybody could accept?

First you would have to prove that constantly killing each other is worse then giving over free will.



One example I find of universal ethics would be humanism, with the following axioms (at least according to my own interpretation):
- the ethics should be consequence ethics - the consequences of actions are what matters


Intention is a vital part. If it is purely consequence driven then a doctor whose patient dies on the operating table will be treated like a terrorist shooting the same man in a cafe.



- in these ethics, the consequence we're trying to achieve is to minimize suffering, and minimize real threats. Real threats are strongly correlated to suffering, but not fully correlated - you can survive a difficult life and be happy, while others can have unlimited money and be unhappy, for example. Therefore, it must be decided whether the system should be centered on the emotional measurement (minimizing amount of suffering), or the threat based measurement, or a measurement based on a form of minimizing the average of the two (thus taking both into account).


Plenty of couch potatoes lend a 'life' of minimal suffering. I wouldn't measure how valuse a life is by pain avoidance or minimising threats. There would be no births, no gym work outs, no contact sports, no defeats and no victories either



- the central axiom is that in a case where the lives of different people are at stage, all people are of equal value, and the option that causes least death and/or real threats and/or suffering is to be chosen. However if possible choices should be made so that no such dilemmas ever exist.


Fatal flaw, we aren't all equal. Nor would I give everyone equal rating on deaths... if a nursing home of 100 year olds blew up it would be a sad day and the memorials would come in, if a maternity ward blew up it would be an utter tragedy. People like cars have a mileage, new ones are worth more.

[GoreBag]

No.

[Quietus]

Do you believe a universal ethics is possible to find or not? 'Universal ethics' will be always be based on Survival and Reproduction, no matter how anyone cuts it.

For example, even if all those 500 suicide bombers the Taliban's been bragging about blow themselves up, that doesn't mean the rest of humanity will follow suit.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Seriously bondage of the mind and soul are the worst kind of slavery.

But if it's a bad kind of slavery, it wouldn't be good according to the ethics system I suggested above, and thus there wouldn't be any bondage of mind in the system I suggested, according to one of the axioms of it.



Life is a fairly broad domain so the rules to cover every situation would have to be immense. To the point that one would have to spend a lifetime to understand all the rules before proceeding with ones life.

That's why generalizing different scenarios in order to be able to phrase simple to learn and understand rules was a part of the system I suggested. For practical use, people with regular intervals derive a simplified rule based system from the more complex model. At regular intervals, as society changes, it becomes necessary to derive new rules from this main model.



First you would have to prove that constantly killing each other is worse then giving over free will.

No, the free will wouldn't be given up in the system, that was the entire point. If lack of free will causes more suffering than killing, then killing would be preferred by the model. Also you must realize that due to evolution, our perception of what is bad for us (painful or fear-causing) strives to come as close as possible to what is a real threat to us. Unfortunately the causality isn't total and since we've changed evolution we can't guarantee that the two concepts will always overlap. In the natural setting (or any other society form in which we've lived long enough without changing the system) the overlap is greater than in the current ever-changing societies. So, in an ever-changing society where our instincts and perceptions of what is good for us in the long term (minimizing real threats against the survival of the species) distance themselves from what is truly the best things for us, the difficult ethical question becomes - should we use instinct-based rule ethics or instinct-based consequence ethics (i.e. minimize suffering), or should we use consequence ethics based on minimizing real threats? The third alternative is to try and seek a society form where our instincts (which most people no matter how civilized and rational they pretend to be seem to be very fond of and seem to put above rationality and minimization of threats) would overlap say 99%-100% to what is best for us to do.



Intention is a vital part. If it is purely consequence driven then a doctor whose patient dies on the operating table will be treated like a terrorist shooting the same man in a cafe.

First of all the determining of whether an act is bad or good isn't to be used for judgement afterwards, but be used as a method of finding out whether a certain action should be carried out or not. Now after these two incidents have happened, you thus reason: should I inprison the terrorist? If I do, he's kept safe and unable to hurt any more innocent people. Should I inprison the doctor? No, because there's a shortage of doctors and it was an accident - inprisoning people for accidents would increase the pressure on all other doctors, and make them do a worse job, with the consequence being things becoming significantly worse for many people. Punishment and judgement are both based on consequence ethics reasoning, even if it's instincts and emotions that lie behind our desire to judge and punish. Intention already fits into my model, the difficulty is the practical application of actually finding out with certainty what intent was behind an action. Because someone who intentionally hurts someone, is usually more dangerous for others than someone who hurts others by accident, because someone who intentionally hurts someone else is (with a quite high correlation) often someone who will hurt more people. If there would be no greater danger with having people committing crimes with the intention of doing so over people who cause damage by accident, then intent wouldn't matter. That judgement is already included in my suggested ethics system.



Plenty of couch potatoes lend a 'life' of minimal suffering. I wouldn't measure how valuse a life is by pain avoidance or minimising threats. There would be no births, no gym work outs, no contact sports, no defeats and no victories either

Couch potatoes don't really minimize their suffering, many of them take overdoses deliberately to put an end to their suffering, for example. Going to the gym doesn't give suffering, you feel a lot better over all and have less pain in the middle ages and when you're old if you visit the gym. Painful excessive exercise gives injuries and pain, but a calm and regular exercise isn't exactly painful (especially not if it's regular, or combined with some game or sport). Also, maximizing happiness can only be done by suffering small defeats that drives you to fight harder, which then give you a victory which gives you a feeling of relief and happiness. Just lying still doesn't cause happiness or minimize suffering, rather it's been scientifically shown to be a good way of getting deppressions and similar.



Fatal flaw, we aren't all equal. Nor would I give everyone equal rating on deaths... if a nursing home of 100 year olds blew up it would be a sad day and the memorials would come in, if a maternity ward blew up it would be an utter tragedy. People like cars have a mileage, new ones are worth more.
No, here's the interesting thing (which I forgot to mention explicitly above, though it's already implicitly mentioned above) - if you start out from the hypothesis that everyone is equal, but then apply consequence ethics, you find that in a situation where different people's lives are at stage, you would still prioritize certain individuals over others. The mass murderer who has committed 20 murders and wishes to commit another 20 won't be saved, if you can instead save an innocent guy if you don't spare him. Working from the hypothesis that all human beings have the same value automatically reduces to valuing certain humans above others. However if you already start out with the hypothesis that certain people are worth more than others, these effects multiply through the system after you apply consequence ethics. Actually your hypothesis that younger people are worth more is your own approximation of using the same way of reasoning I'm using in the suggested ethical system above - you know that old people who have already had children and have helped their children with the most crucial parts of upbringing aren't as critical for the survival of species as young people can be, thus your reasoning is equivalent to starting with the hypothesis that all have the same value but then you apply your own approximate and highly personal models of reality and a consequence ethics reasoning, and you end up with the result you just presented. The only difference then between my system and your system is that I'm suggesting that everybody, including myself, should accept a more accurate model if it would be possible to find, rather than using a partly instinct-based model with low accuracy.

[yesdachi]

Would a countries constitution be considered their… Universal Ethics?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Would a countries constitution be considered their… Universal Ethics?

Yes, I believe it would - as long as it was as robust and tested as the US Constitution (rather than the ones that are regulalry ripped up or the product of corrupt committees).

And I would go so far as to say that the US Constitution largely provides a blueprint for Universal Ethics across the international board. Much of International Human Rights Legislation has been informed by it, for example (which is ironic, since many people in the US have a disdain for international human rights law...)

Without the USA, and seminal works such as Le Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen, the world would be a much poorer place in terms of ethical development linked to human rights.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Would a countries constitution be considered their… Universal Ethics?
It would be theoretically possible to have an ethics system only for the political level and skip the social level completely. If so, you could consider things such as very rough constitutions, international treaties and things such as the UN declarations of human rights to be attempts at universal ethics systems. So the answer is probably yes.

[Navaros]

Humans for the most part have no ethics.

Humanism definitely would never be "universal ethics" considering that humanism is itself devoid of any ethics.

Since man is evil naturally, universal ethics could only arise out of a government system where a few ethical rulers impose their ethics upon the evil population at large.

In other words, the current idea that "democracy is the best" is a fallacy that unless rejected will forever keep almost all ethics out of mankind's existence.

[Sir Moody]

Ah nav follows the "my way or the highway" view of ethics

but he is right the only way to have a universal ethic is if everyone is forced to believe the same way.

universal Ethics imo arnt such a good idea anway as it is the differences between the way people view the world that have spurred on numerous developemnts in human society - if we all see the world the same way how are we different from each other anymore?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Humans for the most part have no ethics.

Humanism definitely would never be "universal ethics" considering that humanism is itself devoid of any ethics.

Since man is evil naturally, universal ethics could only arise out of a government system where a few ethical rulers impose their ethics upon the evil population at large.



the current concept of humanistic "situational" ethics cannot hold itself up imo. the idea that things are right and wrong based on time, place and consequence is ludicrous if you want to have any codified or democratic process to law. every individual case would be have a unique outcome and people would spend their whole lives in court for simple transgressions such as leaving the cap off of the toothpaste, only to be acquitted.

unless the person using the toothpaste really hated it and so did the judge - in which case you would get life.. or death

[Claudius the God]

Humans for the most part have no ethics.

Humanism definitely would never be "universal ethics" considering that humanism is itself devoid of any ethics.

Since man is evil naturally, universal ethics could only arise out of a government system where a few ethical rulers impose their ethics upon the evil population at large.

In other words, the current idea that "democracy is the best" is a fallacy that unless rejected will forever keep almost all ethics out of mankind's existence.

ah yes, the arguments for fascism and absolute powers of church and monarchy...

Navaros is a Christian - apparently - so let's examine the sort of ethics that lead to Navaros' views on human nature:



Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

there is also plenty of ritual human sacrifice, child abuse, cruelty to animals, slavery, rape, murder, and genocide in the Bible as well... all done in the name of 'god' of course...

it is rubish like this that makes Christianity and several other religious faiths totally unappealing to me, and why I am proud to be a Humanist with a code of ethics for modern intelligent humanity to appreciate.

If one is going to describe Humanism as 'evil' then one better describe exactly how it is so based on Humanist ethics themselves rather than on fundamentalist Christian teachings...

[ajaxfetish]

I have a question in response to Papewaio's assertion that ethics are rules and that accepting a universal code of ethics is sacrificing free will.

Are ethics rules to dictate human action or values to be considered by an individual in choosing what action to take? I lean to the latter, which would not enforce bondage in my opinion.

Ajax

[AntiochusIII]

There's a reason Dadaism exists in this world. ~;)

Yes, I'm saying reason and Dada in one sentence.

[Papewaio]

Universal values are not individual choice...

[ajaxfetish]

Okay, so it's the universality that you saw as the problem! I think I misunderstood that earlier. That certainly is an issue. I guess I saw Legio's idea as an attempt at universality in the sense of not being tied to a specific religious or regional cultural foundation, and voluntary rather than mandatory.

Ajax

[Sjakihata]

If by universal you mean ethics which every human can agree and adhere to (all religions, race, sex etc) - then no.

If you mean universal metaphysical ethics, then yes.

[Claudius the God]

Do you believe a universal ethics is possible to find or not? Seeing as how we're constantly killing each others over having different ethical views, would it be possible to form an ethics system that everybody could accept? If so, what would the basis of it be?

One example I find of universal ethics would be humanism,

as a Humanist I wouldn't describe Humanism as 'universal ethics' because it is quite notably opposed to dogmatic forms of ethics, that makes it secular, but not really universal.

I think universal ethics would either be too vague to be of any use, or impossible to construct in the first place. a system of ethics can only accomodate as many people as possible, but probably not everyone/everything on the planet...

further, "universal ethics" sound like something to impose universally, and Humanism and all of its variants, have no desire to impose something on people autocratically (we encourage people to learn and think for themselves, if they choose to be a Humanist, Great!, but if not, that's fine, as long as we respect each other's views). Humanism is democratic in nature and encourages debate and the constructive development of ideas. if people want to learn about Humanism, then that's nice, but we don't impose our ethics/morals on anyone.


the one thing that should be universal is education about the various religious and non-religious views of the world, even the smaller views... ignorance and fear is what drives much of the conflict between ideologies of all kinds.

some people may not like education about the alternatives to 'popular' world views, but I think that something like this is quite important.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think its totally impossible. The current trend for Sophistic relativistic ethics, where if it works for your community its right, is totally unworkable. Not least because it forever changes and more importantly because it denies an inherent ethical standard.

Then we have different but equally valid forms of ethics. Legio clearly favours an all-encompassing form of ethics.

Personnally I think it can be boiled down to a very few rules.

Be honest and honourable.

Act in Good faith.

Treat others and you would wish yourself to be treated.

Do not make excuses or try to justify your moral failings.

[AntiochusIII]

Personnally I think it can be boiled down to a very few rules.

Be honest and honourable.

Act in Good faith.

Treat others and you would wish yourself to be treated.

Do not make excuses or try to justify your moral failings.Dada? ~;)

Define honor. What of cases of ruinous honesty, careless honesty, insensitive honesty, prejudiced honesty?

Faith? What?

Treat others like how you wish to be treated...not really. When one pats a child nicely on the head, does he want to be patted back by another person, always, universally, absolutely?

What moral failings? What is immoral?

Universal = no thanks.