What is "Ethical"?

[Elizabeth (imported)]

2200]
I see your problem with defining eth

ics.(I have highlighted the part of your quote I think best demonstrates your problem.) You seem to think ethics is a single answer for ALL people. As I have repeatedly stated, ethics is different for each person. It is different from each point of view, and different from situation to situation. If you are trying to use ethics to say there is one single correct answer in all situations, you are not understanding how ethics work. In the ethical decision making process, it is important to understand your sample size. Who is deciding, who is affected, what each person views as correct, and views as incorrect. You cannot reject compromise as incompatible with the ethical process, when it is paramount.

There is no one size fits all answer in the process of ethical decision making. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process of ethical decision making involves.

It sounds to me you are trying to think of answers that satisfy solely yourself. If that is the case, we can have no discussion of ethics. Your view will be completely one sided. Only your opinion counts. Viewing things from only a single side, or point of view, is not the ethical decision making process. Nor can any real understanding of the process happen when you reject an ethical decision, simply because one possible outcome might be considered bad.

If you continue to decide to pick and choose what parts of the dialog to pay attention to, and which to ignore, then you reject the completeness of a point of view. A dialog becomes impossible. Reaching an ethical compromise becomes impossible.

You said, "Ethics are selfish." You are coming closer to understanding. The ethical process tries not to be selfish, by trying to involve the most complete picture of those affected. Ethics fails when that picture is incomplete, as it must be, by its very function, and limitations on being human. We can't know every outcome. Someone will always be overlooked. We are not omnipotent. Given two terrible options, the ethical process can only strive to choose the least terrible of the two.

In the simplest and least complete of explanations, the process of ethical decision making is weighing possible outcomes
[/quote]

6000]
, and choosing the one that has the least

bad in it.

* * * * *

I must say, looking back at your original post, I have misunderstood you. You asked for a definition of ethics.

Here is a definition for you: Ethics is the process by which people attempt to understand the difference between right and wrong, and to decide which path to take, or outcome to choose, based upon the findings of that process.

I realize belatedly that you did not want to have a dialog about how that process works. I apologize. I attempted to define that process. It is complex and involves many intricate parts that only work in conjunction with one another. It is not a process that you can select only one or two defining sentences from, and expect to have understanding. With a subject as complex as ethics, this is impossible, and any single process, stripped of the others becomes meaningless, and easily dismissed.

Here are just some of the pieces of that process, stripped of definition,

Observation

Timeline past

Timeline future

Known outcomes

Unknown outcomes

Sample size (deciding)

Sample size (affected)

Societal expectation

Known precedents

Known variables

Unknown variables

Harm spiritual

Harm mental

Harm physical

Harm subjective

Benefit analysis

Risk analysis

Comparative logic

Compromise

Follow-up

Re-visitation

The two points most often missed by people who do not understand the process, are "Follow-up" and "Re-visitation". I won't bother to explain that here and now. We'd have to understand each other a little better for it to make sense.

In my previous posts I have tried to simplify the process for this forum, when in reality it can take years of university classes on the subject, before being able to properly put the process into conscious effect. As you reject any one part of the process because it does not fit with your pre-decided definition of "good and bad", a meaningful dialog becomes pointless.

Perhaps if you do wish to have a dialog about how the process of ethical decision making works, it would be best to start from a baseline, and have you explain what that process means to you.

Elizabeth,

Please tell us how you define the process of ethical decision making. Having this as a baseline will better help me explain concepts, and point out parts of the process you may be missing, or not understanding.
[/quote]
It may also be the beginning of a real dialog between us.

Hi Cainanite,

I believe you are confusing my arguments with my beliefs. When I use a phrase like "I can not accept", or "is not valid" does not mean I hold the opposite views. I am merely playing "devil's advocate". For premise to be true, all parts of the premise must be true. I need not tear down every part of the argument, only one. And tearing down that argument does not mean I have the answers. It simply means I am not swayed by the argument posed to thread.

You have made a lot of statements as if they were facts, with no supporting evidence. I don't have a problem with that, since after all this is basically a philosophy drill. You speak as if I don't understand ethics, which I admit. That is why I started this thread. But having said that, I am not sure anyone else understands it either. If you wish to convince me about your points, you are going to need to cite examples that I can not submit counter-examples of.

I don't claim to have the answers and I am certainly not saying anyone is wrong in what they believe. I am simply giving my reasons why I am unconvinced. When I said "ethics are selfish", I meant that everyone fits ethics into what they already believe. If their actions differ from their beliefs, they will change their belief's to avoid contradictory belief's. It's called cognitive dissonance.

So be patient and don't assume that because I argue against some particular point of view, it means that I believe I have the answers. I make no such claim.

Elizabeth

[Elizabeth (imported)]

I understand your definition. I was using janekane's definition; That a mistake is something that was avoidable, not just an unexpected outcome or unintended consequence. If I define unexpected outcomes and unintended consequences as mistakes, then my entire life is a mistake. I certainly can't predict the future. I don't know anyone who can. No one can know all the consequences of their actions, or all the outcomes of any decision. I would venture, that when you put a coin into a gumball machine, you can reasonably expect to get gum out. You cannot know what color gumball you will get, or what it will taste like. Just because the gum you get does not meet with your expectations does not necessarily mean it was a mistake to put your quarter in the machine.

If I have a bad day tomorrow, does that mean my entire life was a mistake up to that point? My bad day is the unintended consequence of my life to that point after all.

No. I just had a bad day. It is my perceptions of those outcomes that define my idea of whether my day is good or bad. I do have the option of altering my perceptions though. If I view learning experiences as good things, then my bad day might be a learning experience, and it is really a good day for me after all.

I prefer to talk about harm, because though harm is subjective, it can be more easily quantified than the terms "good", "bad", or "mistake".

After having thought on the subject, having read on the subject, and having spoken to janekane about the subject, I find I agree with his supposition. The concept of the mistake is a logical fallacy.

As no outcome is a mistake, one is free to learn from what has happened in the past, and choose to avoid less harmful outcomes in the future. Only people who are alive, and capable of thought can do this. If your actions cause your death, or cause your inability to make decisions in the future (ie. alive but brain-dead) then you are removed from the learning equations, and instead become a part of the lesson.

The only life we have is what we remember of the past. Everything you have ever done, or ever thought, or ever read, or ever learned, was in the past. Every action you have ever taken was in the past. Our gift as living conscious humans, is that we can take what we have learned, and the information in our minds to imagine the future. We'll be wrong, but we can make educated guessed based on what we know from our past, and with each new piece of information, our guesses become closer to the truth. The avoidance of harm becomes increasingly more probable.

If we view a "mistake" as a learning experience, then the "mistake" has value to our decision making capabilities in the present. A "mistake" then becomes something positive for our present self. Something of a positive outcome cannot be viewed as a "mistake".

* * * * *

On a side note: I am becoming increasingly dismayed by your ability to dismiss anyone's opinions on this forum, other than your own, of course, as "invalid". This is exceedingly rude and dismissive, and isn't the type of attitude we should be showing to each other here.

Feel free to tell me where I am wrong. Show me your opposing opinion. Disagree with me. Do not tell me what I think, or who I am, is invalid.

In my thinking a mistake is a choice made where the outcome was either not the outcome expected or had other unintended consequences that were not foreseen, when another choice was available that would have created either the expected outcome or not created the unintended consequences of the choice that was made. Of course I am interested in the explanation of mistakes being a logical fallacy, but as of this minute, I am not a believer. And lastly, if my wording in anyway conveyed that I wish to tell you what to think or that you personally are invalid, It was certainly not my intention. I only meant your views are not valid to me with the evidence that was pr

offered.

I seek only understanding

and exchange of views. I don't claim to have the answers, only to say what does and does not convince me. I am only saying my mind is not changed. I am glad to have it changed and I think it privilege to have those who have been at University to share their knowledge with me. But having said that, I must be convinced. It is not enough for one to simply say "I have been to University and therefore I know more than you". I don't need to be right or wrong, I seek knowledge.

Elizabeth

[Elizabeth (imported)]

My personal definition of "mistake" (which definition I used in my dissertation) is an operational definition:

A mistake occurs when someone does something and what happens as a result is not exactly, in every detail, precisely what was anticipated.

My personal definition of "learning" (which definition I used in my dissertation) is an operational definition:

Learning occurs when someone does something and what happens as a result is not exactly, in every detail, precisely what was anticipated.

The only distinction I can find between learning and making a mistake is whether whosoever is deciding what happened when someone did something was desirable or undesirable. The brain process of learning and of making a mistake appear to me to be perfectly indistinguishable, except for whether what results is labeled desirable or undesirable.

However, I also find that it is desirable to learn what is undesirable and it is desirable to learn how to avoid what is undesirable, and I further find that the only practicable way to so learn is through doing what is undesirable enough times and in enough ways as allows usefully learning the pattern of actually being able to avoid doing what is undesirable.

Therefore, my resolution of the moral dilemma enigma is simple. It is right to do such wrong as is necessary for learning what is wrong and how to avoid it.

My resolution of the ethical dilemma enigma is similarly simple. The wrong which occurs is exactly the wrong needed for learning what is wrong and how to avoid it, and such learning is inextricably ethical.

Only unavoidable mistakes happen, and we know they were unavoidable because they were not avoided. Avoidable mistakes are invariably avoided, and we know they were avoidable because they were avoided; alas, because avoidable mistakes are always avoided, we never get to learn what they were because they weren't.

It has saddened me at times when I find how much fur has flown because of not understanding the unqualified necessity of each and every mistake ever made.

Hi JaneKane,

I really like and mostly agree with this post.

Elizabeth

[Cainanite (imported)]

Hi Cainanite,

I believe you are confusing my arguments with my beliefs. When I use a phrase like "I can not accept", or "is not valid" does not mean I hold the opposite views. I am merely playing "devil's advocate". For premise to be true, all parts of the premise must be true. I need not tear down every part of the argument, only one. And tearing down that argument does not mean I have the answers. It simply means I am not swayed by the argument posed to thread.

You have made a lot of statements as if they were facts, with no supporting evidence. I don't have a problem with that, since after all this is basically a philosophy drill. You speak as if I don't understand ethics, which I admit. That is why I started this thread. But having said that, I am not sure anyone else understands it either. If you wish to convince me about your points, you are going to need to cite exa

mples that I can not submit counter-

examples of.

I don't claim to have the answers and I am certainly not saying anyone is wrong in what they believe. I am simply giving my reasons why I am unconvinced. When I said "ethics are selfish", I meant that everyone fits ethics into what they already believe. If their actions differ from their beliefs, they will change their belief's to avoid contradictory belief's. It's called cognitive dissonance.

So be patient and don't assume that because I argue against some particular point of view, it means that I believe I have the answers. I make no such claim.

Elizabeth

That is wonderful Elizabeth. I think if you look back at my statements, I haven't suggested anything as a "fact." If anything, I have avoided that logical fallacy completely.

I have proposed, I think quite persuasively, that ethics cannot be facts at all, merely the best perceived decision, in pursuit of the best perceived outcome.

You are absolutely free to reject and counter propose as you see fit any part that does not fit with your pre-defined beliefs. All that you do with that exercise is re-define where you put the most value, on any possible outcome. As placing value is part of the process, but not all of it, you only blind yourself to how a complex idea works.

By rejecting something because it goes against what you believe, means we can't engage in the process of ethical evaluation. It simple means a dialog between us becomes impossible.

If you wish to truly learn from another person how a complex subject like ethics is dealt with, then you need to stop rejecting concepts out of hand.

Try this method instead. Ask a person to clarify their answer. When we were talking about the executioner and how he determines the least perceived harm in doing his job, you might have asked simply, "How do you allow that he might execute an innocent man?" or "How do you reconcile that the prisoner might have more value to society as more than just an example and warning to others."

You started to do this, but then followed up with;

That's the problem, defining what harm is and who is harmed. I don't accept that people are hurt if the executioner fails to perform his duty.

Using words like "I don't accept" shows contempt for an idea, as I read it. It also restates the idea, in a way I never suggested or intended. I had tried to explain that it is people's perception of harm that matters. You are on the side that does not see harm, Many others are on the side, that if the prisoner kills again, then that would be harmful to society. You perceive there is no harm, others perceive there is harm. This is why it is so important to know who is involved with the decision and what views they have on the situation. No one person is GOD. No one person can know everything, all we can do is collect the most data we can, and try to make decisions that have the least harmful outcome.

Let me try to ask you to clarify your beliefs about that prisoner due to be executed. What were the prisoner's crimes? What has the prisoner's behavior been like since entering the prison? What guarantees do we have the prisoner will not repeat the crime, if released? What kind of precedents do we have for releasing a prisoner from death row? How will that prisoner go about saving countless lives if released? How do we know this? What efforts to rehabilitate the prisoner have been tried? What do the people who condemned the prisoner to death view as ethical? Why did they decide execution was the only way to handle this prisoner?

That you have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong is clear. How you make those distinctions is not clear.

I've proposed what I believe to be a working method to show how to best determine an optimal path for the dilemmas at hand. If you don't agree with it, and you see one aspect as problematic, then start asking questions about it. You may see an idea becomes harder to reject out of hand when you learn something new. If you reject learning something new, even before I have a chance to answer you, then what do we have to talk about?

[Elizabeth (imported)]

Hi everyone,

Great discussion!!!

I just wanted to add a few things that might help those who are posting to understand me better and perhaps get a feel for my point of view.

First, I do not accept that there is an objective reality. Not saying there isn't one, but from my point of view the entire universe only happens in my head. As I sit here in my living room watching Monday Night Football, I can not be certain that anything outside this room even exists, except when I go and observe it. So, as far as I know and can prove to myself, I am the only sentient being and everything comes from that. The world as I see it and experience it with the senses available to me is only a perception created in my head. In fact we know that particles are mostly empty space. We only see a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Why? And of course the color magenta does not have a frequency associated with it, as it is simply a creation of my brain.

So I am certain you can see my dilemma. If there is not even an objective reality that I can prove, how can I have any ethics based on it? And in the end, whatever I decide, it will be the only decision I could have made. So if all that is correct, or even if it isn't, what is my baseline for ethics? There can be no ethics if we do not really have any choices. So from my point of view, ethics are nothing more than the rationalization of cognitive dissonance.

In the end, if I have no choices, ethics are just another illusion created by my brain.

Elizabeth

[Elizabeth (imported)]

That is wonderful Elizabeth. I think if you look back at my statements, I haven't suggested anything as a "fact." If anything, I have avoided that logical fallacy completely.

I have proposed, I think quite persuasively, that ethics cannot be facts at all, merely the best perceived decision, in pursuit of the best perceived outcome.

You are absolutely free to reject and counter propose as you see fit any part that does not fit with your pre-defined beliefs. All that you do with that exercise is re-define where you put the most value, on any possible outcome. As placing value is part of the process, but not all of it, you only blind yourself to how a complex idea works.

By rejecting something because it goes against what you believe, means we can't engage in the process of ethical evaluation. It simple means a dialog between us becomes impossible.

If you wish to truly learn from another person how a complex subject like ethics is dealt with, then you need to stop rejecting concepts out of hand.

Try this method instead. Ask a person to clarify their answer. When we were talking about the executioner and how he determines the least perceived harm in doing his job, you might have asked simply, "How do you allow that he might execute an innocent man?" or "How do you reconcile that the prisoner might have more value to society as more than just an example and warning to others."

You started to do this, but then followed up with;

Using words like "I don't accept" shows contempt for an idea, as I read it. It also restates the idea, in a way I never suggested or intended. I had tried to explain that it is people's perception of harm that matters. You are on the side that does not see harm, Many others are on the side, that if the prisoner kills again, then that would be harmful to society. You perceive there is no harm, others perceive there is harm. This is why it is so important to know who is involved with the decision and what views they have on the situation. No one person is GOD. No one person can know everything, all we can do is collect the most data we can, and try to make decisions that have the least harmful outcome.

Let me try to ask you to clarify your beliefs about that prisoner due to be executed. What were the prisoner's crimes? What has the prisoner's behavior been like since entering the prison? What guarantees do we have the prisoner will not repeat the crime, if released? What kind of precedents do we have for releasing a prisoner from death row? How will that prisoner go about saving countless lives if released? How do we know this? What efforts to rehabilitate the prisoner have been tried? What do the people who condemned the prisoner to death view as ethical? Why did they decide execution was the only way to handle this prisoner?

That you have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong is clear. How you make those distinctions is not clear.

I've proposed what I believe to be a working method to show how to best determine an optimal path for the dilemmas at hand. If you don't agree with it, and you see one aspect as problematic, then start asking questions about it. You may see an idea becomes harder to reject out of hand when you learn something new. If you reject learning something new, even before I have a chance to answer you, then what do we have to talk about?

Just wanted to say that when I say "I don't accept", I do that to recognize that even though I don't accept it, others may. It is not to show contempt for the idea but to recognize that others either do or are likely to accept it. As opposed to saying "That's unacceptable". Hope that clears that up.

Elizabeth

[justjustin (imported)]

You don't need to believe in Jesus. I don't myslef. It is the principle I speak of. Any religion or none at all, say something like it.

[Cainanite (imported)]

Hi everyone,

Great discussion!!!

I just wanted to add a few things that might help those who are posting to understand me better and perhaps get a feel for my point of view.

First, I do not accept that there is an objective reality. Not saying there isn't one, but from my point of view the entire universe only happens in my head. As I sit here in my living room watching Monday Night Football, I can not be certain that anything outside this room even exists, except when I go and observe it. So, as far as I know and can prove to myself, I am the only sentient being and everything comes from that. The world as I see it and experience it with the senses available to me is only a perception created in my head. In fact we know that particles are mostly empty space. We only see a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Why? And of course the color magenta does not have a frequency associated with it, as it is simply a creation of my brain.

So I am certain you can see my dilemma. If there is not even an objective reality that I can prove, how can I have any ethics based on it? And in the end, whatever I decide, it will be the only decision I could have made. So if all that is correct, or even if it isn't, what is my baseline for ethics? There can be no ethics if we do not really have any choices. So from my point of view, ethics are nothing more than the rationalization of cognitive dissonance.

In the end, if I have no choices, ethics are just another illusion created by my brain.

Elizabeth

As the entire universe happens only in your own head, who are you talking to right now?

If everything is just a creation of your own brain, then why are you even trying to understand ethics? Why would trying to distinguish the difference "right" and "wrong" even matter? If this were true, why wouldn't you just do whatever you want whenever you want? If no-one else exists outside your brain, then why do you even care what happens to anyone else?

You seem to be describing that you are the God of your own universe. Do I have that right?

What exactly do you mean by 'cognitive dissonance'? I think we may have very different definitions of that concept.

I guess I differ from you in a couple key and non-traversable differences.

I must accept that I do exist, as I have no evidence I don't. I must also accept that you exist, otherwise I am insane, and just talking to myself. The world I find myself in is measurable, finite, and appears to function by set rules, whether I like it or not. I adapt to the world and its rules, not the other way around. Therefore the world and by extension, the universe around it exists. Thinking other than that, has not helped me, and I have not discovered an alternative that negates that theory.

Secondly I believe choices are the only way in which we prove we exist. Choices are really the only thing we have, the only tools we can exercise to adapt to the world around us.

If you have no world other than what you see and hear, and touch, and no choice matters at all for you, or you simply have no choices, then we are living in very different functional realities.

I can't see how you would even desire to learn a single new thing from a figment of your imagination like me. Why would you torture yourself conversing with me, when you admit, I don't actually exist. Seems like you are wasting a lot of effort for no good reason.

I guess I'm asking, why do you bother?

Why would a person with no reality, and no choices even bother with the concept of an ethical choice? For you it simply is what it is, until you don't want it to be anymore. If the universe exists solely for your benefit, then just decide what is ethical, and be done with it. Why have a dialog in the first place?

[Elizabeth (imported)]

As the entire universe happens only in your own head, who are you talking to right now?

If everything is just a creation of your own brain, then why are you even trying to understand ethics? Why would trying to distinguish the difference "right" and "wrong" even matter? If this were true, why wouldn't you just do whatever you want whenever you want? If no-one else exists outside your brain, then why do you even care what happens to anyone else?

You seem to be describing that you are the God of your own universe. Do I have that right?

What exactly do you mean by 'cognitive dissonance'? I think we may have very different definitions of that concept.

I guess I differ from you in a couple key and non-traversable differences.

I must accept that I do exist, as I have no evidence I don't. I must also accept that you exist, otherwise I am insane, and just talking to myself. The world I find myself in is measurable, finite, and appears to function by set rules, whether I like it or not. I adapt to the world and its rules, not the other way around. Therefore the world and by extension, the universe around it exists. Thinking other than that, has not helped me, and I have not discovered an alternative that negates that theory.

Secondly I believe choices are the only way in which we prove we exist. Choices are really the only thing we have, the only tools we can exercise to adapt to the world around us.

If you have no world other than what you see and hear, and touch, and no choice matters at all for you, or you simply have no choices, then we are living in very different functional realities.

I can't see how you would even desire to learn a single new thing from a figment of your imagination like me. Why would you torture yourself conversing with me, when you admit, I don't actually exist. Seems like you are wasting a lot of effort for no good reason.

I guess I'm asking, why do you bother?

Why would a person with no reality, and no choices even bother with the concept of an ethical choice? For you it simply is what it is, until you don't want it to be anymore. If the universe exists solely for your benefit, then just decide what is ethical, and be done with it. Why have a dialog in the first place?

First let me say again, thank you for posting, and everyone else as well. My suggestion that there is no objective reality is not my own and I am certainly not the first person to come up with this idea. In fact there have been several experiments that have been done that suggest there is no local reality. Our brain receives signals it assumes is from our body, but we have no proof of that. In fact there is substantial research to suggest that inputs to the brain could be intercepted and changed making the person believe there is a reality, that in fact does not exist. Think "Matrix". There is other evidence that suggests all of us may be holographic projections. Like the Doctor in Star Trek Voyager, we are just receiving inputs that make us believe we exist, when in fact we do not. And what we perceive as choices are not choices at all.

If we are not what we seem, then ethics or what is ethical does not exist, except as a construction of my or perhaps your reality. Perhaps I am nothing more than a character in your dream world, but I am just as real as anyone else. So whenever I try to think about ethics or what is ethical it seems really ridiculous, although believing I am a human in a real universe, I am compelled to try to understand what ethics might mean to me, if in fact it turns out that there is an objective reality and I am in fact in it. Both of which there is no guarantee.

I am not saying with any degree of certainty that the universe is only in my head, I am saying from what I can be sure of, it is only in my head. There seems to be no proof that there is an objective reality, meaning there can not be any universal truths, meaning ethics are meaningless.

Hope that helps you to see where I am coming from. It's not just how ethics are arrived at that interest me. It's also the why? I make an attempt in my universe to be as ethical as my culture permits, just in case it turns out that my reality is not the only reality. But as we have seen boiled down in this thread, there are no absolutes. So if ethics is on an individual case basis, which it appears it must be, as we have discussed it, than it almost certainly can not contain any universal truths.

So that is what led me here. It seems ethics is a way to justify ones behavior, much more than it is to create a certain outcome. Because of course outcomes can not be effectively predicted in all cases. And if one wants to talk QM, than we can only talk about events as a probability. Again, no certainties, no universal truths, and no ethics, which of course require universal truths.

Elizabeth

[Cainanite (imported)]

First let me say again, thank you for posting, and everyone else as well. My suggestion that there is no objective reality is not my own and I am certainly not the first person to come up with this idea. In fact there have been several experiments that have been done that suggest there is no local reality. Our brain receives signals it assumes is from our body, but we have no proof of that. In fact there is substantial research to suggest that inputs to the brain could be intercepted and changed making the person believe there is a reality, that in fact does not exist. Think "Matrix". There is other evidence that suggests all of us may be holographic projections. Like the Doctor in Star Trek Voyager, we are just receiving inputs that make us believe we exist, when in fact we do not. And what we perceive as choices are not choices at all.

If we are not what we seem, then ethics or what is ethical does not exist, except as a construction of my or perhaps your reality. Perhaps I am nothing more than a character in your dream world, but I am just as real as anyone else. So whenever I try to think about ethics or what is ethical it seems really ridiculous, although believing I am a human in a real universe, I am compelled to try to understand what ethics might mean to me, if in fact it turns out that there is an objective reality and I am in fact in it. Both of which there is no guarantee.

I am not saying with any degree of certainty that the universe is only in my head, I am saying from what I can be sure of, it is only in my head. There seems to be no proof that there is an objective reality, meaning there can not be any universal truths, meaning ethics are meaningless.

Hope that helps you to see where I am coming from. It's not just how ethics are arrived at that interest me. It's also the why? I make an attempt in my universe to be as ethical as my culture permits, just in case it turns out that my reality is not the only reality. But as we have seen boiled down in this thread, there are no absolutes. So if ethics is on an individual case basis, which it appears it must be, as we have discussed it, than it almost certainly can not contain any universal truths.

So that is what led me here. It seems ethics is a way to justify ones behavior, much more than it is to create a certain outcome. Because of course outcomes can not be effectively predicted in all cases. And if one wants to talk QM, than we can only talk about events as a probability. Again, no certainties, no universal truths, and no ethics, which of course require universal truths.

Elizabeth

Let me say first, I am enjoying the exchange.

It seems we are pretty much close to being on the same page here. You are of course correct in saying that it might all be in our minds, however like you said, "What if it isn't?" Does it do us any good, or provide us any benefit to act as though our reality does not exist? Is there anything we can do about it if it is all just a simulation we are being forced to partake in? I don't see how it can do us any good thinking that.

All we can do is act on the information we receive. Whether our universe is real or not, there are laws of nature that are consistent for us. These laws remain consistent. Gravity remains gravity, something that is solid remains solid. No matter how much I wish to pass through that solid wall as if it does not exist, I can't. There are rules, and I don't get to decide what they are. All I can do is try to find a way to exist within those rules, and function with the repeatable, observable reality to which I am exposed. Even if I somehow forgot you existed, it wouldn't cause you to stop existing. You'd just show up again, and remind me you exist. I can imagine I live in a dream world, but it grants me no benefit to do so. I have to function like the world I live in is real, because I'm left with no acceptable alternative.

I feel that to accept otherwise is to embrace madness. Like you said, there is no guarantee of either outcome. We can only work with the tools that we have.

You said;

I make an attempt in my universe to be as ethical as my culture permits, just in case it turns out that my reality is not the only reality. But as we have seen boiled down in this thread, there are no absolutes. So if ethics is on an individual case basis, which it appears it must be, as we have discussed it, than it almost certainly can not contain any universal truths.

So that is what led me here. It seems ethics is a way to justify ones behavior, much more than it is to create a certain outcome. Because of course outcomes can not be effectively predicted in all cases.

I think we both have the same understanding of reality. We have to function like the reality we have is shared, because we don't have evidence to prove if it is all a simulation or not. Even if it is a simulation, we still have no evidence, the universe isn't real. We have to act like the universe is real, so why not just admit the universe is real? Nothing we can do can change that fact either way.

I totally agree with your analysis. Ethics cannot contain any universal truths. It is an individual basis. It IS justification for action. If everyone agrees an action is justified, then it becomes an ethical decision. No matter what ethical conundrum you come up with, there will always be another side. Ethics ain't truths.

I think the only real place we differ on this subject is the final definition of the word ethics.

I see ethics as a process... a journey, not a destination.

In the final sentence of your quote you seem to equate the word ethics with universal truth and certainty. I interpret that to mean you think ethics is an end, or a goal. Something you can point to and say, "This is correct."

I don't see it like that.

You said you are more interested in the 'why' of ethics, than the 'how'. I think the why is pretty simple. I think when we operate like the rest of the world exists, then we have to accept, that what happens to the world, and the people around us is real. What happens to our group also affects us. What is good for my society, is good for me. It is a selfish endeavor, in which helping others, benefits me too.

I think some of the greatest harm has come from people using ethics to try and prove something right and something else wrong. At the time of its creation Eugenics was considered an ethical endeavor. How many people suffered from that kind of thinking? If you follow that thinking across the Atlantic and into Germany, it helped justify WWII. We know better now, I'd hope.

For something to be ethical (my definition here) you can never claim to have the right answer, just the best answer for the information you've been able to gather. To be ethical you have to admit, it is only the best option you've found, until a better option comes around.