I would like to provide some more examples in reference to the OP, as it seems a difficult question in general just on face value.

My assumption is that with ethical theories like deontological or consequentialist ethical theories, we have a conceptual framework to go about here that guarantees us some methodology to go about by in addressing choices or decisions to make in response to certain situations. With these conceptual frameworks, we rely on the prescriptive ethical theory to determine our behavior. Our behavior is seen in terms of what is appropriate to act on in terms of the most ethical decision at our disposal at the moment. Dispositions and preferences aside, as they are biases that affect our decision making, I believe that one is compelled to address these situations as best we can with the information we have at hand, again referring to the prescriptive ethical framework we have at our disposal (or what we choose to believe in).

The question of this thread is that if we don't live with a rationale or volition to do good, then how does ethical behavior arise in our lives? — Shawn

Habit. Substitute maintain homeostasis for "do good" and healthy for "ethical" and the question need not be asked.

Is it necessary to have a prescriptive ethical doctrine in place to behave or have ethical behavior emerge from ones thinking process?

Of course not. Consider fairness and caretaking in nonhuman animals or human toddlers ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/699762

Substitute maintain homeostasis for "do good" and healthy for "ethical" and the question need not be asked. — 180 Proof

So, you're assuming that we are by nature ethical. I find this argument in lacking in the real world.

You mention habit, which I'm in agreement with; but, in the context of the question am not quite sure if it is already equipped in our natural homeostasis function.

So, you're assuming that we are by nature ethical. I find this argument in lacking in the real world. — Shawn

You must believe we are not an eusocial species and that antisocial sociopathy is the norm rather than a pathology afflicting less than a twentieth of the general popularion.

You also must believe that decades of scientific studies which demonstrate empathy and fairness in pre-socialized human toddlers and nonhuman primates elephants & cetaceans are "fake news" or "alternative facts".

Or maybe you just didn't bother to check out the links in the linked post above?

Tell me, Shawn, where does the predominance of (some) moral behavior come from "in the real world" if moral behavior is not a feature, or function, of our mammalian nature. :chin:

It may be true that what your saying is true; but what it seems to amount to in my mind is that we know what's ethical but don't necessarily act on those impulses or aspirations. We normally default on rational self interest as a calculus to govern our behavior, no?

Yes. Aristotle's term for this (human, all too human) moral failing is akrasia. My own (extended) term is foolery.

@Shawn

Surveys, we need surveys i.e. data is a sine qua non if we 're to make inferences. 180 Proof has evidence that supports the existence of some kinda moral instinct in both nonhumans and humans. We might wanna review biological theories, specifically evolution and also, guys, let's face the facts - we're at the top of the food chain.

... let's face the facts - we're at the top of the food chain — Agent Smith

... and therefore we're on an extinction path as we destroy more and more of the base of the food chain. Maybe we'll develop AGI before we're done. Maybe viable space habitats (for genemodded exo-humans). But probably not.

:up:

To see from where an ethical behavior arises we can just follow it backwards to its beginning. Much of it is visceral, I believe, biological. After all, every human action begins and ends there. In this case the conscience, born latent but forever developed, has the final word.

In this way the history of ethics is about recording the pangs and stresses of human interaction and prescribing a means to soothe them. For reasons of health a man must account for his passions as he navigates his inevitable and awkward proximity to others. How do I justify sentencing to death one man in order to save five men? The right behavior is that which invariably allows him to live with himself.

the history of ethics is about recording the pangs and stresses of human interaction and prescribing a means to soothe them. For reasons of health a man must account for his passions as he navigates his inevitable and awkward proximity to others. — NOS4A2

I believe that this doesn't follow. I mean, homo sapiens has done well even without conceptual frameworks allowing a person to make decisions based off of the ethical framework. Yet, modern day man finds it easier to function with a set determinate way of behaving according to law and order. Just my two cents.

homo sapiens has done well even without conceptual frameworks allowing a person to make decisions based off of the ethical framework. Yet, modern day man finds it easier to function with a set determinate way of behaving according to law and order. Just my two cents. — Shawn

Easier? You mean without engaging their own intellect?

@180 Proof kinda explained it. But, yes, we're all taxed on what's the most efficient outcome and seem to believe that rational self interest is possibly representative of our true selves.

180 Proof kinda explained it. But, yes, we're all taxed on what's the most efficient outcome and seem to believe that rational self interest is possibly representative of our true selves. — Shawn

True self - as in essence - is a reductionist methodology. Any statement about who we are is inaccurate from the moment it is made. It immediately becomes past tense. To be human is to continually progress beyond who we are at any point in time.

That’s not to say that recognising or determining who we are is pointless - it’s necessary to at least some extent in order for us to act, to be. But when we outsource reasoning - when we function with a set determinate way of behaving according to law and order - then we fail to be our ‘true selves’ and are instead being according to a ‘rational’ common denominator, whether self or societal interest.

The ‘most efficient outcome’ from what perspective?

The ‘most efficient outcome’ from what perspective? — Possibility

I think efficiency in decision making is called utility or intelligence.

It's hard to classify someone as intelligent nowadays without metrics swarming around you with advertisements and pixel tracking on a phone. Does that make sense?

Otherwise the previous comment was with regard to designating who you are as a unit in our social sphere that is the Internet or socio-economic reality.

Pre-language children (under a year old) react to inanimate objects appearing to ‘attack’ each other.

I am sure you would agree that base emotions are innate and if that is the case, being social creatures too, how can we not come develop ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ due to mirror neurons assisting in helping us ‘feel’/‘understand the pain of others.

In general I do find the generall view of ‘ethics’ to be garbage. I am more about meta ethics as there is undeniably (as far as I can see?) a pretty strong case to state that ‘ethics’ is more of a political tool than a real investigation into the human conidition.

In general I do find the generall view of ‘ethics’ to be garbage. I am more about meta ethics as there is undeniably (as far as I can see?) a pretty strong case to state that ‘ethics’ is more of a political tool than a real investigation into the human conidition. — I like sushi

I don't think the field of ethics is, to say, exploited; but it certainly can be as in the case of virtue signaling in consumer behavior. All these advertising companies are always seeking to change or even modify consumer behavior in small amount, which over time can become quite profound on socioeconomics in any capitalist system. Does that sound like something you were alluding to?

The ‘most efficient outcome’ from what perspective?
— Possibility

I think efficiency in decision making is called utility or intelligence.

It's hard to classify someone as intelligent nowadays without metrics swarming around you with advertisements and pixel tracking on a phone. Does that make sense? — Shawn

I wasn’t really asking for clarification on what you meant - it was a comment on the ambiguity of the term. We use it as if it means something specific on its own, but utility is very different to intelligence.

As you point out, utility can be reductively determined (albeit narrowly and after the fact), whereas intelligence refers to a perceived capacity for reasoning, incorporating rational as well as emotional and social intelligence, much of which remains largely unquantifiable (or at least dimensionally complex and variable).

I think that isolating utility from conceptual perspective or interoception of affect leads to impaired and distorted moral judgement. Statements of law and order alone cannot accurately determine ethical ways of behaving without reducing our perception of human capacity, and yet we continue to reformulate and enforce them as if they could. And in doing so, we judge others’ utility by their disobedience rather than their diverse situational capacities for reasoning. Because it’s easier.

Just a thought: what if we strived for ‘efficiency’ in terms of ‘more accurate’ instead of ‘easier’?

Statements of law and order alone cannot accurately determine ethical ways of behaving without reducing our perception of human capacity, and yet we continue to reformulate and enforce them as if they could. — Possibility

It rare for me to do this but I hope in faith that @Hanover would like to address this. What I would say from my side would be something like, we work with an imperfect model and we do the best we can with it. It sounds pragmatic, to say so, but we aren't all behind a veil of ignorance to asses these issues, only judges are.

And in doing so, we judge others’ utility by their disobedience rather than their diverse situational capacities for reasoning. Because it’s easier. — Possibility

Well, are you talking about society or the application of law itself? Please clarify.

Just a thought: what if we strived for ‘efficiency’ in terms of ‘more accurate’ instead of ‘easier’? — Possibility

It seems that pragmatically we address the issue in terms of the benefit conferred to the total, that is society. We can only be as intelligent as the conduct that is expected of us.

So, you can see utility cropping up again in how I phrase the issue.

It literally has to be as we are social creatures prone to self-deception and continually checking our own behaviour in various situations. Self-preservation most often trumps everything else.

If you have a discussion around women about women, then if you are a woman you would speak more freely as a woman, but around men or if you were a man the dynamic changes.

No matter how we sit in a social context there is fluctuations between individual and group ‘good’ ALL of which is mixed up in ignorances, different perspectives and various levels of ‘judgement’.

When it comes to ethical debate the real work is internal and excruciating… we are never willing to truly expose ourselves to ourselves let alone anyone else. Ergo, ‘ethical’ claims are far beyond the reality of the individual.

Meta ethics approaches these problems where ethics does nothing as it is never under investigation of itself as a concept.

When it comes to ethical debate the real work is internal and excruciating… we are never willing to truly expose ourselves to ourselves let alone anyone else. Ergo, ‘ethical’ claims are far beyond the reality of the individual. — I like sushi

In other words the immediacy of ethics in every day is what is burdensome on making these decisions and freely talking about it? I think, I would tend to agree.

Meta ethics approaches these problems where ethics does nothing as it is never under investigation of itself as a concept. — I like sushi

I see your point, but what can be said about meta-ethics other than analyzing the differing methodologies. In my opinion utilitarianism has triumphed over other methods of assessing cogent and rational behavior. But, that's just how socio-,economics seems to have played out.

:up:
I would answer that question put to Bertrand Russell more or less the same way he does but with slight variations: (1) intellectually trust nothing but publicly accessible evidence and sound reasoning; (2) morally practice Hillel the Elder's principle: "What you find hateful (or harmful), do not do to anyone."

I would answer that question put to Bertrand Russell more or less the same way he does but with slight variations: (1) intellectually trust nothing but publicly accessible evidence and sound reasoning; (2) morally practice Hillel the Elder's principle: "What you find hateful (or harmful), do not do to anyone." — 180 Proof

We should put the above short, sweet, & pithy paragraph in a time capsule - a message for our children on what's important in life (how to "live together and not die together" ~ Bertrand Russell)

would answer that question put to Bertrand Russell more or less the same way he does but with slight variations: (1) intellectually trust nothing but publicly accessible evidence and sound reasoning; (2) morally practice Hillel the Elder's principle: "What you find hateful (or harmful), do not do to anyone." — 180 Proof

I hate to say it, but it might be better if some people (me included) never read philosophy and theory, and just applied this and got on with fucking living - choosing, doing and staying silent. :razz:

:smirk:

What is meant by ‘good’ and ‘ethics’ are questions meta ethics deals with. It is not a means of prescribing or judging one view or another, just asking why we bother to make up different schemes of ‘value’ what we ‘value’ and what ‘value’ means too.

For me the point is more or less about what I state publicly being just a public statement. We all fall prey to ‘looking’ good to help ourselves. The real issue for me is to not waste time saying this or that to you or anyone else, but to shut my mouth and be brutally honest with myself and do my nest not to ‘pretend’ I am something I merely wish to be.

This is not something I would prescribe to anyone though. All I say is I strongly believe it is a waste of time debating ‘ethics’ because to debate you are already playing a social game rather than exploring your own take on the world regardless of whether others agree or not … it is important what others think because we are social but I do not see it as being the main reason I should act one way rather than another.

It would be easy to frame me as a ‘moral relativist’ and you can do so if you wish. I would not say that about myself though. I find ‘ethics’ to be unethical and ‘morals’ to be immoral.

It rare for me to do this but I hope in faith that Hanover would like to address this. What I would say from my side would be something like, we work with an imperfect model and we do the best we can with it. It sounds pragmatic, to say so, but we aren't all behind a veil of ignorance to asses these issues, only judges are. — Shawn

Well, I’m not sure that we always do the best we can with it. We often do what best suits us at the time. Recognising the fallibility of the model, and the resulting uncertainty in our judgements, should give us pause. Yet it rarely does - and we invariably cite/blame the model, even though we always knew it would be inaccurate. There are repeated calls for an overhaul of these statements of law and order, even though no amount of rewrite will render them sufficiently accurate to stand alone in determining ethical ways of behaving.

Well, are you talking about society or the application of law itself? Please clarify. — Shawn

I’m talking about society, although the application of law is susceptible. Hence the level of intelligence (rational, social and emotional) required to practice it with any competence.

It seems that pragmatically we address the issue in terms of the benefit conferred to the total, that is society. We can only be as intelligent as the conduct that is expected of us. — Shawn

We can be more intelligent than what is expected of us, there’s just no individual incentive/benefit to do so. And so this claim that pragmatism confers benefit to the total is not entirely accurate, is it? Pragmatism confers the minimum expected benefit to society.

You probably noticed by now that I don’t subscribe to pragmatism or utilitarianism in ethics. I do get the attraction, however. It does seem easier. But I don’t think it can achieve anything more than assessing or justifying the rationality of behaviour AFTER the fact.

Human behaviour is by definition a manifestation of an ethic, which is a specific instantiation of ethics. In other words, all behaviour is ethical (or unethical) as the case may be; all behaviour is interpretable in ethical terms. Isn't it?