What is Ethics?

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.

@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.

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.)

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.