Being ethical.

[Biseinen]

Are you ethical? Ethics come to everyone on a daily basis I find. Being ethical is something which is explained through the way you do things and the reason behind the actions you do.

For example, if you steal bread for your family to starve, is that ethical? Is that right? In a sense, yes, it is right, but then the ethical side, you're stealing which can take an un-ethical view approach to this.

Opinions?

[Casanova]

The loaf of bread was there as in fate, it was there from something other than just human life to preserve happyness, to help out that family.

I lead a life if ethics i guess, we all do.

[Biseinen]

But that brings it down to ethics again, was it right to steal that bread?

[benjamin]

ethics confuse me..

[Casanova]

It was right as it's for the best, he didn't steal that bread just to make an evil profit, he stole it to make sure his family survived. He stole it not out of choice, out of love?

[English]

It was right as it's for the best, he didn't steal that bread just to make an evil profit, he stole it to make sure his family survived. He stole it not out of choice, out of love?
You are looking at this scenario in a 'Utilitarianism' ethical point of view, looking at the consequences of the situation and not the actual thing he did.

I'm taking Ethics for A-Level and it's pretty good and the lesson has picked up since the teacher stopped using a poor method to teach us.

[Biseinen]

You are looking at this scenario in a 'Utilitarianism' ethical point of view, looking at the consequences of the situation and not the actual thing he did.

I'm taking Ethics for A-Level and it's pretty good and the lesson has picked up since the teacher stopped using a poor method to teach us.

I was going to take, Ethics, but I decided not too, I really wanted to though because the teacher was really intresting.

[Casanova]

Basically Karl, you fancied the teacher :P?
and urm, yeah it came under RE in 4th year and i was pretty good at RE, never picked it because i've always intended to leave at christmas.

And yes, not egoism.

[English]

I was going to take, Ethics, but I decided not too, I really wanted to though because the teacher was really intresting.
Well I wanted to take Philosophy and Ethics comes with it, so basically I'm getting 2 A-Levels for the price of one. Ethics is pretty interesting to read about the different concepts although alot of it comes down to pure opinions. However I prefer Philosophy myself and always have done before I took the subject because I like the stuff that is studied. You missed out cos Ethics isn't half bad:P

[Casanova]

it's one of those subjects that you could do in your sleep, because it involves something you do day-by-day sub-conciously. And i prefer philosophy too.

[Biseinen]

it's one of those subjects that you could do in your sleep, because it involves something you do day-by-day sub-conciously. And i prefer philosophy too.

Ethics is no brush over, there are so many sub-junctures to it its hard work if you actually have to absorb all that information in. The same with any subject I suppose.

And yeah, Craig, I probably did miss out, but ah well, I can always argue on here with you now! =P

[FlyingJesus]

I'm taking philosophy at AS level at the moment, been told that the AS for it is actually harder than the A2 which is strange, but it's fun all the same. With this loaf of bread scenario it really does depend on what moral theory you stand with. Some will say that the theft is intrinsically wrong and so no matter what the consequences you should not steal, whilst others (like utilitarianism) will say that if stealing the bread will save lives (and therefore cause more happiness than unhappiness) then it is in fact right.

[Mentor]

Are you ethical? Ethics come to everyone on a daily basis I find. Being ethical is something which is explained through the way you do things and the reason behind the actions you do.

For example, if you steal bread for your family to starve, is that ethical? Is that right? In a sense, yes, it is right, but then the ethical side, you're stealing which can take an un-ethical view approach to this.

Opinions?

I personly belive, ethics/morallity is somewhere imbetween the relative and subjective thearys, Since are own values an emotions are what define are moral choices, yet those values are founded by the society in which where brought up in, hence the ethics are reliave to both the society and envirment the live in.

I definilty do not belive in any form of absoulte ethical morals "/

(i dont belive are moral values are in any way inate but insted learned threw exspince)

[FlyingJesus]

Personally I agree with WD Ross' "prima facie (first face) duties" theory. The theory states that rather than a straight set of rules (as with a deontological theory), or no rules at all (like most consequentialist theories) there should instead be certain things which we should hope to achieve via our actions. The prima facie duties include, but are not limited to:
*Fidelity
*Reparation
*Gratitude
*Justice
*Beneficience
*Self-improvement
*Non-maleficience

Ross argues that these should all be taken into account when you face a moral dilemma, and that the prima facie duties should be used to determine your "actual" duty.

[Mentor]

Personally I agree with WD Ross' "prima facie (first face) duties" theory. The theory states that rather than a straight set of rules (as with a deontological theory), or no rules at all (like most consequentialist theories) there should instead be certain things which we should hope to achieve via our actions. The prima facie duties include, but are not limited to:
*Fidelity
*Reparation
*Gratitude
*Justice
*Beneficience
*Self-improvement
*Non-maleficience

Ross argues that these should all be taken into account when you face a moral dilemma, and that the prima facie duties should be used to determine your "actual" duty.
How can relative values be used to make an absoulte choice?
Here in the west canabalism is seen as a bad thing, non benifcal, unjust etc etc.
Go to a few boreder line island cultures, canbalism is on these seen as a good thing, Its a mark of respect to the deceased, it benifits the person in question, in accordance with the belifes.

So Relative values dont really effect whether the ethical choice is also relative in realtion to the culture in which the choice is taken "/

[FlyingJesus]

Relativity surely would take culture into account, as it's relative to the area, peoples and customs. Even if that's not the case, it simply means that different people will come up with different conclusions. Also, if you go to a place where cannibalism is accepted, that won't change your own view on the morality of such a thing, so it still all makes sense.

[sim]

Im more of an Emotivism person. My decisions are generally based on the BOOH HURRAH theory.

[Mentor]

Relativity surely would take culture into account, as it's relative to the area, peoples and customs. Even if that's not the case, it simply means that different people will come up with different conclusions. Also, if you go to a place where cannibalism is accepted, that won't change your own view on the morality of such a thing, so it still all makes sense.

o.0 Not if you were brought up in the area that did accept canablism, a persons morality is learnt dureing there upbringing from the society in which they live, people around them etc etc.

"prima facie duties" theary, goes along the lines of our morality is based on the fact we want to acheave certain aims via are actions.
In differnt societys, differnt actions would help us achaive are aims.

Now if we are introduced to a new society with differnt moral values, since are actions and moral decsions are based on the want of a certain result from them, would this not suggest that we would change our morallity to fit with the new culture?
(hasnt read a huge amount of "prima facie duties" theary)

[Rizla,]

"People are not born into this world, they are born into a place in this world, and it is their they learn the ethics, morals and values"

[FlyingJesus]

o.0 Not if you were brought up in the area that did accept canablism, a persons morality is learnt dureing there upbringing from the society in which they live, people around them etc etc.

"prima facie duties" theary, goes along the lines of our morality is based on the fact we want to acheave certain aims via are actions.
In differnt societys, differnt actions would help us achaive are aims.

Now if we are introduced to a new society with differnt moral values, since are actions and moral decsions are based on the want of a certain result from them, would this not suggest that we would change our morallity to fit with the new culture?
(hasnt read a huge amount of "prima facie duties" theary)

That's the beauty of Ross' theory, it allows for social and cultural change, based on the individual him/herself. This includes being "forced" to change due to change in where you live, laws or even just personality changes.

[Liriel]

Ah, ethics, the base law of all common actions that we do in life. Ethics is broken down into so many sub-catagorys, I can't really say yes to which ethical proportion you mean. If in a general sense, then yes, ethics, I do believe in.

[FlyingJesus]

Ah, ethics, the base law of all common actions that we do in life. Ethics is broken down into so many sub-catagorys, I can't really say yes to which ethical proportion you mean. If in a general sense, then yes, ethics, I do believe in.

Elaborate on which of the "sub-catagorys[sic]" and "ethical proportion"s you do agree with then, I do so enjoy conversations about such things.

[Mentor]

That's the beauty of Ross' theory, it allows for social and cultural change, based on the individual him/herself. This includes being "forced" to change due to change in where you live, laws or even just personality changes.

Which would kinda put the catagory in to the relems of being both relative and subjective, since the ethical values we hold are reliave to the society we grow up in, but are still subjective when are situation changes.

Aka we may belive stealing a loaf of bread is unethical as an abosulte value due to are ubringing, if by a turn of fate, you need to steal one so as not to survive are moral opinion then changes ( or is forced to change) becuse the ethical value was subjective, hence are situation changes the ethical values we follow "/ So i think i may have agreed with you all along, at least in genral terms, of how are ethical values and morality is formed, although most likly in less specific and detailed terms as those set out in the Ross' theory.

Ill have to read up on it some time "/

[Liriel]

Elaborate on which of the "sub-catagorys[sic]" and "ethical proportion"s you do agree with then, I do so enjoy conversations about such things.

Ah well, in psychology earlier last week, we were discussing ethical decisions in the health care about life and death decisions, abortions and so on. It's quite interesting to discuss this in a group of people actually willing to debate on it. We must of spent at least three hours going over ever validation of each point, then breaking down those points into right(s) and wrong(s).

We are, at this current time debating about applied ethics. War and Terrorism today. (Lucky me!) :p

[GJay]

I was going to take, Ethics, but I decided not too, I really wanted to though because the teacher was really intresting.

You mean you fancied them? lol. You never discussed Ethics with me..lol.
You could still take it up I suppose.