What is Ethics?

[Jennifer]

Okay, when I opened the topic discussing whether or not polygamy was ethical, some of you stated you did not like my definition of ethics.

To re-iterate, my definition of ethics is the Utilitarianism Theory which was developed by Mr. Jeremy Bentham and Mr. John Mills.

Which, in a nutshell, is the greatest good for the greatest number, or the greatest happiness for the greatest number.  The root of the utilitarianism theory is Utility, but that’s not how we use the word today.  Utility means a unit of happiness or goodness.  This theory basically is a consequentialist theory in that the consequence of your actions is what is important, not the intention you had when you performed the action.

Thus things like jumping on a grenade to save your squad’s lives would be ethical under utilitarianism.  (It is unethical under Egoism and may or may not be ethical under relativism.)  However, breaking into a home and stealing everything, while creating happiness for YOU, would cause pain/unhappiness for an entire family, maybe an extended family, as well as on the insurance company and the police, etc and thus would not be considered ethical behavior under utilitarianism.

This couples nicely with my impression of the world that people, in general, want to create happiness and pleasure for those around them.  That means I think the average person, who is not an egotistical maniac or a religious zealot or clinically insane, would rather create happiness in another person then pain.  And, since I view that as the natural order of the world, then it stands to reason that creating the greatest possible good or the greatest possible happiness, for the greatest number, is the definition of what is and is not ethical.

Note, sometimes the greatest good or happiness is only your personal good or happiness.  Sometimes it requires self sacrifice to create the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number.

Love to hear why you think that’s a bad definition, however, I am requesting you only post that it’s a bad definition if you have a BETTER definition (in your opinion) and that definition should be one that has been supported by theorists of the past few centuries.

I will, of course, ask you not to refer to Divine Command Theory.  The problem with this theory is that some religious commands are unethical to other religions, so how can we possibly determine what religion is the correct religion?  And you just assume YOUR religion is the correct one, then you are not really a Divine Command Theorists so much as a Relativist. (Relative to YOUR religion, this is ethical.  Etc.)

[Guest]

M36 is a poor white farm boy from south Florida, and does not fully comprehend your definition.  :oops:

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that the what is best for the majority is what is ethical?

Wouldn’t this make things such as the civil rights movement unethical? Since it upset the status quo which benefitted the majority?

[Guest]

intelligence is nice….but common sense is much much better!

[Jennifer]

No.  The Civil Rights movement was the greatest good for the greatest number because it did not do more harm to the majority then it created good for the minority.

Democracy, as interpreted by the United States of America, is based on this principle.  At least in my opinion.

For instance, let’s look at income tax.  The poor receive the benefits on income tax, correct?  It is considered a progressive tax (meaning it takes from the rich and helps the poor.)

The harm done to the rich is sizable.  Let’s not try to downplay that.  They can be losing about 50% of their income per annum!  However, the benefits to the poor (who pay no taxes) far exceeds the financial damage to the rich.  The benefits to the poor being funding for free medical clinics, soup kitchens, food stamps, police, fire, etc, etc, etc.  Thus, a utilitarianism follower would say this is ethical.

However, an egoist would say this is unethical. (So would a hedonist and many others.)  Because this is not the greatest good for him or herself. (The hedonist would say this brings pain, thus it is not pleasure and thus it is unethical.)

Also, we can look at federal aid to natural disasters.  Pulling money from 49 other states to give money to the 50th state hurts the majority of the states, but is brings the most pleasure over all.  After all, a few drops of blood from many is less damage then a few gallons of blood from one.

---

And for those of you looking for the cliff notes version:

No, this does not lead to the tyranny of the many over the one.  You have to measure the pleasure of the action against the pain of the action.  Whatever produces the most pleasure, or the least pain is ethical, according to Utilitarianism.

(Sometimes no action creates pleasure, in that case, you look for least pain.)

[Guest]

Ah, now I get it. So it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, so we should attempt to harm the least number while benefiting the greatest number.

[Jennifer]

Basically, yes.  Attempt to do no harm, attempt to do as much good for as many as possible.  It’s all one can realistically do.

It also handles the problem when an 18 year old private jumps on a grenade to save his squad’s lives.  From a hedonistic, egoist, divine commandist and relativist this is completely unethical.  From a utilitarianist’s view, this is one of the most ethical things you can do.  You save half a dozen lives at the cost of one. (I’m assuming the squad leader is smart enough not to put all 12 men in a 10 foot radius of each other, of course.)

[Smacktard]

there are some problems with Utilitarianism. Killing Bill Gates (painlessly) and distributing a million dollars to 34000 people would make a lot of people very happy. Mr. Gates family members would suffer, and he of course would be dead, but that bit of suffering would pale in comparison to the joy of making 34000 people millionars. do you want to say that we SHOULD do that?

Also, under utilitarianism, if you can kill a person and harvest their organs to save two or more lives, you should do so. Even as theyre begging you not to kill them, utilitarianism requires you must do so, to save the most lives.

And then there is the probelm of defning “happiness”. Lets take two possible worlds: World A’s population consists of just one “happy” family. Nice, normal content people. Not a huge amount of “happiness”.
World B has a billion sado-masochists with 24 hour access to nonstop torture porn.
Just by sheer numbers, the amount of “happiness” in World B would eclipse the amount in World A. If we had to choose which world to make real, utilitarianism tells us we should make world B the actual world.

because of some of these problems, utilitarianism has split into two camps: act and rule utiliatarianism. And theres also “consequentalism”, which doesnt focus on pleasure or happiness as much as the consequences of an act.

[Jennifer]

You did a very good job of describing Hedonism.  You need to go back and read up more on Utilitarianism however.

If you can avoid causing harm/pain, then that trumps any level of pleasure you give by your action.

Allowing two people to die by not killing a third is the more ethical argument under Utilitarianism.  Under Hedonism, however, you should murder to save 11 lives. (The average corpse has enough material to save 11 lives, at least that’s what I’ve been told.)

Remember, this is the GREATEST GOOD.  Not how much good can be done if we just allow ourselves to do harm.  The only time it is ethical to do harm is if, and only if, all choices result in harm and then it is ethical only to do those actions that cause the least amount of harm.

[Guest]

Trying to explain what common sense is, well that’s about as difficult as trying to describe what the color red looks like to a person who has been blind all their life. How do you go about that? This is all about common sense! I think you people are nuts!

[Jennifer]

@scardog:

Trying to explain what common sense is, well that’s about as difficult as trying to describe what the color red looks like to a person who has been blind all their life. How do you go about that? This is all about common sense! I think you people are nuts!

The funniest part of this statement is that my brother had that as a paper assignment in High School and did such a good job, he earned an award.

I wish I had his paper now, could post it in rebuttal.  Unfortunately, he is smarter then I am and I do not have his paper.

[Smacktard]

@Cmdr:

You did a very good job of describing Hedonism.  You need to go back and read up more on Utilitarianism however.

If you can avoid causing harm/pain, then that trumps any level of pleasure you give by your action.

Allowing two people to die by not killing a third is the more ethical argument under Utilitarianism.  Under Hedonism, however, you should murder to save 11 lives. (The average corpse has enough material to save 11 lives, at least that’s what I’ve been told.)

Remember, this is the GREATEST GOOD.  Not how much good can be done if we just allow ourselves to do harm.  The only time it is ethical to do harm is if, and only if, all choices result in harm and then it is ethical only to do those actions that cause the least amount of harm.

Hedonism and utiliarianism are very closely related because they both place “pleasure” as the end goal. Heodnism, though, is very self-centered. Under hedonism, I should kill Bill Gates and steal all his money, to bring about the most pleasure for myselkf.

Utilitairnism is doing the act that brings about the MOST pleasure. under utilitrianism, I should kill Bill Gates and distribute his money to as many people I can to bring about the most pleasure. A utilitarian would reprimand a hedonist who simply stole the money for their own benefit- thats not bringing about the most pleasure!

Also, a hedonist would kill someone and harvest their organs for their own beneift. A utilitarian would do so with no benefit at all to themselves, as long as the number of lives saved outnumbers the people killed.

Since we usually have qualms abot killing people for theior organs (even if more lives can be saved), utilitarisnism has some problems, which is why you see “rule” and “act” utilitarinsim.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/ruleutil.htm
http://www.utilitarianism.com/actutil.htm

http://www.utilitarianism.com/hedutil.htm

[Jennifer]

I believe you are confusing hedonism with egoism.  Egoism is when you do what is your own best interest.  Hedonism is when you do whatever concludes with the most happiness regardless of harm done (Ends justify the Means.)  Utilitarianism is when you do whatever is best for all concerned. (Ends and Means to the Ends must give the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number.)

[Smacktard]

Theyre so similar its splitting hairs.

Egoism is fascinting though. Is it possible to do a nonselfish act? Or is everything we do to gain pleasure/avoid pain? Even a mother sacrificing her life for her child could be viwed as a selfish act- deep down, maybe she knows she can’t live with the guilt of letting her child die. So even self-scarifice is guided by the pain/pleasure principle.

[Jennifer]

If you rationalize that the mother sacrificing herself for her progeny is doing so because the pain of losing that progeny would be so great as to make life bad for her, then yes, it can be argued as an egoist act.

Egoism is a theory that all of your actions are designed purely to give yourself the most happiness or avoid the most hardship for yourself.  We obey the law because we fear the pain associated with getting caught breaking it, etc.