I would say, not quite accurate. You have put forward a particular ethical theory. Ethics in philosophy is the study of such theories and there are many types. So when you look at your own theory and then list its advantages and disadvantages and the challenges that it might encounter, then you are studying ethics. Whether or not you choose to study ethics is entirely separate from the question whether you are 'ethical' in the sense of being a good person.

I would say, not quite accurate. You have put forward a particular ethical theory. Ethics in philosophy is the study of such theories and there are many types. So when you look at your own theory and then list its advantages and disadvantages and the challenges that it might encounter, then you are studying ethics. Whether or not you choose to study ethics is entirely separate from the question whether you are 'ethical' in the sense of being a good person. — Cuthbert

So ethics is not defined by the majorities common interests?

Or is it? And you must theorize and or prove what that common intetest is, or present something that you theorize or prove most closely meets that common interest?

I feel I understand exactly how to go about being ethical. Its a rather simple formula: do nothing to sabotage that which is preceived as the highest common interest of all sentient beings. — XanderTheGrey

Whether or not you choose to study ethics is entirely separate from the question whether you are 'ethical' in the sense of being a good person. — Cuthbert

I don't see acting ethically, if that's the right word for what I try to do, as the supporting "the highest common interest of all sentient beings." To me it's much more personal. I like people in general and individually. I think that's hardwired into all of us. I haven't met many people I don't like, or at least recognize. I try to see them as they are and I try to treat them with good will and compassion. I often fail.

Cuthbert is right. That's different from studying ethics. I don't get the point of that, or if I do, I think everything that needs to be said about it can be summarized as "Try to see people as they are and try to treat them with good will and compassion."

"Try to see people as they are and try to treat them with good will and compassion." — T Clark

Thats entirely to vague for me, even if its merely a suggestion, and not an attempt to define ethics.

I insist that killing can be as much of an act of compassion as keeping someone alive can be. It all depends on how much they suffer, what they would rather suffer, ect. Others will insist otherwise.

Good will can be defined as leaving someone in a difficult situation so that they can gain more from the trail and error proccess than they would from your assistance. Others will disagree.

All of those things are better off left self defined, but the common interest of humanity could be established with enough communication. It's likely that we all wan't the option of life or death, misery or happiness, pain or suffering.

This is actually embarrassing to ask because I feel I understand exactly how to go about being ethical. Its a rather simple formula: do nothing to sabotage that which is preceived as the highest common interest of all sentient beings. — XanderTheGrey

Perhaps, but now you have identified the "good" with "highest common interest of all sentient beings". And like Moore, we can ask, is this really good? In the sense that:

"The highest common interest of all sentient beings is good"

is equivalent to

"The highest common interest of all sentient beings is the highest common interest of all sentient beings."

The latter is a tautology, but the former seems like a synthetic statement. They don't seem to be equivalent.

There isn't one single definition of "ethics", just as there isn't a single definition of "good". Roughly, I would say that ethics is the study of how we ought to act, which includes what things are good, what determines right/obligatory/permissible/wrong acts to be this way, as well as related issues about ethics (meta-ethics).

In a nutshell, then, the goal of ethics is to ascertain how we ought to live. Life throws us into ambiguous situations in which the course of action is not clearly defined, and we need advice for what to do in these situations. Life is also a continual process of growth and decay, and those interested in ethics want to know what makes this process go best, i.e. what it takes to be a good person and to lead a good life.

Thats entirely to vague for me, even if its merely a suggestion, and not an attempt to define ethics. — XanderTheGrey

I don't think it's vague at all. As I said in my post, it is completely personal - it's based on what I personally mean by "Try to see people as they are and try to treat them with good will and compassion." At the same time, I propose it as universal - Everyone should try to see people as they are and try to treat them with good will and compassion - using their own standards to determine what that means.

Can you define it for yourself? If so, no problem. If not, I think your goal should be to learn how to define how to, rather than come up with some formal system.

Perhaps, but now you have identified the "good" with "highest common interest of all sentient beings". And like Moore, we can ask, is this really good? In the sense that:

"The highest common interest of all sentient beings is good"

is equivalent to

"The highest common interest of all sentient beings is the highest common interest of all sentient beings."

The latter is a tautology, but the former seems like a synthetic statement. They don't seem to be equivalent. — darthbarracuda

I'm not concerned with whats good or bad, I'm concerned with desire. Also allow me to correct that part if my passage; the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings"

And I haven't defined the "good" with that statement, I have defined the "desired".(hypothetically)

the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings" — XanderTheGrey

That could be used to justify slavery. I think my standard is much less vague than yours is.

By what standard? The greatest good for the greatest number? That could be used to justify slavery. I think my standard is much less vague than yours is. — T Clark

The greatest precived number, forget good or bad, I'm not trying to find good or bad, I'm trying to "identify" the "desire".

So the greatest desire then? Well, that dosen't matter to me, only my desire matters to me. My hypothesis is that my desire is in line with the majority of humanities; which gives me a chance to make the world the way I "prefer" it to be vs. the way it is now. Taking into account the fact that we must think in order to determine our greatest personal desire.

So the greatest desire then? Well, that dosen't matter to me, only my desire matters to me. My hypothesis is that my desire is in line with the majority of humanities; taking into account the fact that we must think in order to determine our greatest personal desire. — XanderTheGrey

Both our approaches use the same method to determine whether an ethical goal has been met - an appeal to personal preference. The difference is in the goals.

the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings — XanderTheGrey

As I said previously, this can be used to justify slavery. You say "forget good or bad." So, ethical behavior can be morally wrong? I've heard people say that before. I don't understand how that could be.

Can you define it for yourself? If so, no problem. If not, I think your goal should be to learn how to define how to, rather than come up with some formal system. — T Clark

Define what exactly for myself?

I've made an attempt to define ethics, and "identify" my "desire" in comparison with "the greastest common interest of the precived majority of humanity" but defining "good" is pointless, there is no such thing, there is only desire.

So what I'd like to see in the worlds modern day community is an attempt to establish "an agreed apon greatest common interest of the precived majority of humanity "by" the precived majority of humanity(not just me)" and then see if it is inline with mine, if so, I will know wether or not its worth it for me to be focused and involved with the changing of the future.

As I said previously, this can be used to justify slavery. You say "forget good or bad." So, ethical behavior can be morally wrong? I've heard people say that before. I don't understand how that could be. — T Clark

Depending on what you hold as your morals yes.

Slavery cannot exactly be identified. It cannot be delineated at least, how do you delineate slavery from freedom, we could all be slaves to a higher power and or grater intellegnce and we wouldn't even know it. What I am confident that I can identify, is my desire.

I have seen desire fufilled more in precived slavery than in precived freedom. Just as I much more often see it the other way around in others.

I understand that I am very undereducated and not well versed in philosophy, and that this can likely be chalked up and identified into and with a number of terms and pre-established areas of philosophy; so I appreciate the willingness of so many on this site to countinue obliging me in such discussions.

What I am confident that I can identify, is my desire. — XanderTheGrey

I think we agree on this part.

I have seen desire fufilled more in precived slavery than in precived freedom. Just as I more often see it the other way arround. — XanderTheGrey

I don't think that's a good argument, but let's change slavery to genocide.

Define what exactly for myself?

I've made an attempt to define ethics, and "identify" my "desire" in comparison with "the greastest common interest of the precived majority of humanity" but defining "good" is pointless, there is no such thing, there is only desire. — XanderTheGrey

Why is defining "ethical" ok, but defining "moral" is pointless? It strikes me that they are at the same level of abstraction and deal with similar issues.

I don't think that's a good argument, but let's change slavery to genocide. — T Clark

Very well, genocide is something I have yet to see anyone from the inside be amused with, or have a desire for ever again, and this includes those that reported 80-90% fulfillment of their desires in a rather authentic form of slavery, compared to 1-10% fulfillment in todays common preception of freedom.

the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings" — XanderTheGrey

So could this attepmt of mine to define ethics as shown above; justify genocide? Ofcourse it could, poor little Saloth Sar, such a failure, but I admire what Pol Pot was trying to do, regardless of the fact that he failed, and that it was impractical.

Genocide would be a last resort I think, further reaserch is needed, it all depends how effective it can be in comparison with other methods of approach.

So could this attepmt of mine to define ethics as shown above; justify genocide? Ofcourse it could.... — XanderTheGrey

I agree, it could.

As I said in a previous post:

You say "forget good or bad." So, ethical behavior can be morally wrong? I've heard people say that before. I don't understand how that could be. — T Clark

If, as you say, it could be ethical to kill millions of innocent people, I don't think we have enough commonality to even discuss the issue.

Why is defining "ethical" ok, but defining "moral" is pointless? It strikes me that they are at the same level of abstraction and deal with similar issues. — T Clark

Excellent question, I'm operating under the assumption that ethics and morals are not quite the same thing. With what's "ethical" being defined by the majority, with common values, and with what's "moral" being defined by each individual, with their personal values.

If they are the same thing, or I have failed to define ethics, then my only concern remains wether or not "the highest agreed upon common interest of the perceived majority of human beings, by the perceived majority of human beings" is in line with my highest interest for the fate of the world. I just didn't want to leave nearly a paragraph where a word could suffice.

If, as you say, it could be ethical to kill millions of innocent people, I don't think we have enough commonality to even discuss the issue. — T Clark

Maybe not ethical, given that I am failing to or even incapable of deteriming what ethics are; but as I said I am primarily only concerned with determining what the most desirable resulting future of the majority of humanity is.

What does the pecived majority of humanity desire? And how does that compare with what I desire for our fate, is it common enough with my vision for me to bother participating? Or should I simply focus on what I wan't for my own life(given that the majority would win out against my efforts). What would you call that specific area of study? Am I on the verge of needing to coin my own term?

And we should discuss what each of our visions for humanity are, and determine any form of commonality or differentiation between those, before hunting for commonality or differentiation between eachothers methods. For if our vision for the worlds future is different to beging with, why would it matter what our methods are?

If they are the same thing, or I have failed to define ethics, — XanderTheGrey

I'm not sure what it means either. As I said in one of my posts, I've been told that something can be ethical and still wrong. The example used was that if it is common to cheat people in business, it may be wrong and it may be illegal, but it is ethical.

And we should discuss what each of our visions for humanity are, and determine any form of commonality or differentiation between those, before hunting for commonality or differentiation between eachothers methods. — XanderTheGrey

My vision for humanity - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

My vision for humanity - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — T Clark

Definitely does not mean "the pursuit of happiness through any methods yes?" Ofcourse not. The majority of human beings do not wan't sadists on the loose I think. I'll write about my prefered vision for humanities future later, time for me to move out for now.

I'm not concerned with whats good or bad, I'm concerned with desire. Also allow me to correct that part if my passage; the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings"

And I haven't defined the "good" with that statement, I have defined the "desired".(hypothetically) — XanderTheGrey

But then what relation does this have to ethics?

But then what relation does this have to ethics? — darthbarracuda

None perhaps, but that wasn't my initial impression, and as T Clark explained, "it is said that whats ethical can sometimes be morally wrong"

Is there a specific dictionary thats used to authoritize any of these definitions?

I don't know of any distinction between what is moral and what is ethical. The two are commonly used interchangeably.

Is there a specific dictionary thats used to authoritize any of these definitions? — XanderTheGrey

I went on the web and here are some ideas about the difference:

• morals are how you treat people you know. Ethics are how you treat people you don’t know.
• ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.
• Generally, the terms ethics and morality are used interchangeably, although a few different communities (academic, legal, or religious, for example) will occasionally make a distinction.
• Ethics is the science of morals.
• morals are concerned with principles of right and wrong, ethics are related to right and wrong conduct of an individual in a particular situation.
• Ethics represents innate knowledge of right/wrong distinctions. Ethics transcends culture, religion, and time. Morals are culturally and religiously based distinctions of right/wrong.

Not very helpful. Some seem to contradict others

My vision for humanity - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — T Clark

Regarding my vision for humanity -
I wanted to think this over a bit before offering it up, only to offer up origonal aspects, turns out that I have nothing at all to add to whats already been propoused. This being said I belive in the transition to an advaced resource based economy. This is done by creating and shaping a new world culture.



Jacque Fresco has been dead for months, but the project moves on.

Regarding my vision for humanity -
I wanted to think this over a bit before offering it up, only to offer up origonal aspects, turns out that I have nothing at all to add to whats already been propoused. This being said I belive in the transition to an advaced resource based economy. This is done by creating and shaping a new world culture.

Jacque Fresco has been dead for months, but the project moves on. — XanderTheGrey

I watched the first few minutes of the video and went on the web to look up Fresco. My first thought was 'Hey, XtG, do you know about 'The Whole Earth Catalogue', 'Mother Earth News?" If not, go take a look.

Maybe starting a new civilization is possible. If it is, I don't think it will come from government and it will have to be profit making. Think Elon Musk or Richard Branson.

Try to see people as they are — T Clark

Clark,
I liked this a lot. It's very Taoist sage of you. I think most moral/ethical programs miss this first step of observation and understanding before acting. The Sage, in Taoism, realizes that often non-action is the best action. A good portion of the worlds problems are due to well intended meddling!!

Buddhism has two different models for ethics that I like. One is that we need to cultivate compassion and other virtues (becoming more our True Selves/our Buddha Nature) and moral action will occur naturally and spontaneously. I would translate that to saying that we need to seek God and His illumination and then He will instruct us and work thru us.

The second model is even better. Ahimsa or simply "Do no harm."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa
The argument is that it's great to try to do good, but we fail at that pretty often and we disagree on what "good" is. If we could just manage to do no harm we would end up being ethical and it would be a great start. This is hopefully something we can also agree on.

I liked this a lot. It's very Taoist sage of you. I think most moral/ethical programs miss this first step of observation and understanding before acting. The Sage, in Taoism, realizes that often non-action is the best action. A good portion of the worlds problems are due to well intended meddling!! — MysticMonist

Geez - I quote Lao Tzu a couple of times and now I'm Taoist sagey. Actually, I see it as a rejiggering of the Golden Rule

The argument is that it's great to try to do good, but we fail at that pretty often and we disagree on what "good" is. If we could just manage to do no harm we would end up being ethical and it would be a great start. This is hopefully something we can also agree on. — MysticMonist

I don't disagree, but treating someone with compassion and good will and seeing them as they are is never meddling. We shouldn't be afraid to act on that because we worry too much about doing harm. On the other hand, sometimes minding our own business is the best way to act.

So ethics is not defined by the majorities common interests? — XanderTheGrey

Some would say yes, others no. I align more with Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics. He basically says that ethics are driven by duty. You might be more utilitarian, which is Mill's theory.

you say duty drives the ethical. What drives the duty?

you say duty drives the ethical. What drives the duty? — bloodninja

Conscience. The still small voice in all is what reminds us of our social and ethical necessities. Whenever a person gets an intuitive sense that something is wrong their intuition ought to show them the way out of such and such a situation. The problem is not everyone can go on autopilot like that. For some people morality is a conscious decision. Which is just as good as intuition if not better.