Absolute Ethical/Moral Code?

[Durakken]

Every moral, legal, ethical ruling i can think of seems to follow these rules as to whether it is indeed ethical or not...

stage 1 - Harm: Does it do harm? (harm is subjective to some degree)

stage 2 - Consent: Are those that it does harm consenting to being harmed? (how does one show consent, how long it lasts, and can they give consent may be questioned)

stage 3 - Intent: What is the intent of the person doing the harm/being harmed? (it's important to ask both because if the the intent of the harmed to just experience being shot then if the one doing the harm shoots the person in the head...well there is a problem though there was "consent" the intent changes the understanding of what was consented to)

stage 4 - Defense: Was the harm done out of defense of life? (the biggest problem with this part is the word life. Just about ever "yea but..." moral situation can be included in this defense of life, if you manipulate the word life quite a bit)

Can someone find a problem with these? Logically or other wise? Or create a situation where one can't apply this?

And if we create a situation where this has a problem with is there any rule/stage that may be added that would fix that?


As a pre-argument...There is the situation of "if you have a train going down tracks that you can switch between, if there is X on track 1 and Y on track 2, what is the ethical decision to make" To this I would say that any action that IS right (i'm not saying which is right) is made in defense of life with no intent to harm...and obviously with some level of consent. The problem with this is that it is more mathematical than than an ethical rule. Life in this sense is a variable in an equation then. How to define that variable is a whole different subject and not an ethical issue imo. There is also the problem of if X and Y are equal is inaction ethical? Personally, I would say that it is another rule/stage, but i don't have enough data on that subject to put that in. Also I don't know quite how to word it...

So comments?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I just don't see how any of that gets you to an "absolute" anything. Everything you said is fine, but it is also very subjective.

 

[Durakken]

I just don't see how any of that gets you to an "absolute" anything. Everything you said is fine, but it is also very subjective.

the only 2 points that are possibly subjective is What is harm and defining life.

Life is more or less a short hand that is probably not the best wording. However nothing about that is subjective. It is a mathematical-esque variant which asks well does a group of 5 kids have a higher value than 5 adults? I think most people would say while there is more variables than just that there is a difference in value.

Harm is subjective in the sense that it alters by way of view point, but there is definitely some rules defining this hierarchy of that is objective which seems to me to be predicated on some sort of life/knowledge value.


This is not absolute in the sense that "Stealing is always wrong," but rather there is a set of rules and variables that if you plug in you will end with an absolute this is the right/ethical choice.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is not absolute in the sense that "Stealing is always wrong," but rather there is a set of rules and variables that if you plug in you will end with an absolute this is the right/ethical choice.

That would only work if each decision you make existed in a vacuum. Because every action has consequences, we are almost always required to weight relative benefits, and relative harms. So the entire thing is based on subjective weighting of the pros and cons of each action.

 

[Durakken]

If the government and all parties were following this there would be no consequences.

The consequences come from an imperfect absolute and not following this.

The law would support the ethical decision because it does take into account the subjectivity and relativity.

If I stole say an antidote for a poison i could never afford the court would rules as justified and not only would the person i stole from see that as justified they would have to also view it as ethical to follow the ruling of the court. And further still the person stolen from given the chance if they acted ethically would not have been stolen from in that situation so by default they are in essence giving a form of non-verbal consent.

One could argue "what if the antidote was one of a kind and there were many people dieing of this poison?" Well the defense part handles that because the life value would be different.


The rules work in an absolute way. However, as i said there are variables i haven't figured out (like the life value and hierarchy of harm order) and not everyone is ethical nor is everyone sane.

I think that an absolute moral code is one that if everyone follows it, and are sane, there are no conclusions about the ethical nature of any action that is taken while following that code. One that creates no logical inconsistencies no matter what hoops one goes through while guiding a logical person to be ethical.

In other words. The conclusion I draw from any action that i can justify with this i already feel is ethical/unethical and this is more the descriptor of why it is I and everyone logical would think that an action is ethical/unethical.

or in still other words, the rules for what is ethical are inherent. I'm merely pointing them out.



Edit: also after thinking about it... i think there is more as this is clearly about what is unethical and not what is ethical... There is probably a few further phases that go beyond that because i don't think that f something is unethical that it automatically makes it ethical...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If the government and all parties were following this there would be no consequences.

The consequences come from an imperfect absolute and not following this.

The law would support the ethical decision because it does take into account the subjectivity and relativity.

If I stole say an antidote for a poison i could never afford the court would rules as justified and not only would the person i stole from see that as justified they would have to also view it as ethical to follow the ruling of the court. And further still the person stolen from given the chance if they acted ethically would not have been stolen from in that situation so by default they are in essence giving a form of non-verbal consent.

One could argue "what if the antidote was one of a kind and there were many people dieing of this poison?" Well the defense part handles that because the life value would be different.


The rules work in an absolute way. However, as i said there are variables i haven't figured out (like the life value and hierarchy of harm order) and not everyone is ethical nor is everyone sane.

I think that an absolute moral code is one that if everyone follows it, and are sane, there are no conclusions about the ethical nature of any action that is taken while following that code. One that creates no logical inconsistencies no matter what hoops one goes through while guiding a logical person to be ethical.

In other words. The conclusion I draw from any action that i can justify with this i already feel is ethical/unethical and this is more the descriptor of why it is I and everyone logical would think that an action is ethical/unethical.

or in still other words, the rules for what is ethical are inherent. I'm merely pointing them out.



Edit: also after thinking about it... i think there is more as this is clearly about what is unethical and not what is ethical... There is probably a few further phases that go beyond that because i don't think that f something is unethical that it automatically makes it ethical...

You're still missing the point. If the government followed it, it would still be subjective. The rules DON'T work in an absolute way. The only thing "absolute" here is how wrong you are on that score... watch yourself step on a landmine here so I can laugh.

 

[Durakken]

You're still missing the point. If the government followed it, it would still be subjective. The rules DON'T work in an absolute way. The only thing "absolute" here is how wrong you are on that score... watch yourself step on a landmine here so I can laugh.

Going by what dictionary.com says and what you have said.

"viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge"

All the other definitions do not fit also so this must be what you are talking about.

Using this I have to think you are saying that these rules are in some way relative to the individual. Sorry they are not. This is defining whether something is unethical or not.

Looking at the two possibly relative things, harm and life...

Harm IS NOT relative in this argument. Does it or does it not harm someone in any way conceivable. To what degree has no merit and thus is not relative. We are not talking about perception. Harm refers to lessening or causing damage. For example If I punch someone, that is harmful. If I do it for their benefit. That is not. It is easy to see the logic on a flow chart . This means it is not relative, not perceptive, and not subjective. There is a gain, or at least I think there will be a gain and to act in a way that i think will result in a gain is not relative. My knowledge and awareness of the situation is relative and subjective however the action itself is not and is absolutely defined as not unethical.

Life issue is not relative, but a variant. A variant does not make things relative or subjective. It makes it a variant. If you want to argue that valuing life is subjective that is another issue. Humans and all other creatures as far as we can tell value life. The rule is absolute. It has a variant which even if that variant is relative, it does not have anything to do with the morality code's absoluteness itself.

Also that life value, i think, does have an absolute as well...


Perhaps i'm wrong, but jsut saying nuh-uh doesn't cut it Joe, as I have told you before.

 

[Durakken]

btw the other definitions of absolute are...

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.

That opens a big can of worms, but assuming proper definitions and such this does work, but why go there.

2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.

Doesn't apply

3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.

I don't think what i am saying is complete, but working on that ^.^ so that wouldn't apply

4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.

Using this in any and all situation should result in the conclusion that you will not contradict and nor will you ever be unethical. That works ^.^

5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.

This is roughly the same as 4, works.

6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.

Already argued this and it does work.

7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.

Depends. Are you raising certainty to 100% i wouldn't. If not it works. If so it doesn't. So you might have me with this one and only definition unless you argue the other position. And you only have me on this due to my agnostic stance. if I took a gnostic (the correct definition of gnostic) stance then you wouldn't have an argument here.

 

[Fictionarious]

New rule - let's not use the following words anymore in this thread, in order to aid each of our individual understandings of the topic: subjective, objective, absolute, relative. In my experience they sow more confusion than they do understanding, if we want to use one, give a concrete example of what you mean by it.

The topic to me seems to be "can we come up with an algorithm that, once all the variables are plugged in, always gives us the most ethical course of option (action/inaction) to elect?", and the OP providing his still-in-the-works hypothesis.

So let me take a look.

stage 1 - Harm: Does it do harm? (harm is subjective to some degree)

stage 2 - Consent: Are those that it does harm consenting to being harmed? (how does one show consent, how long it lasts, and can they give consent may be questioned)

stage 3 - Intent: What is the intent of the person doing the harm/being harmed? (it's important to ask both because if the the intent of the harmed to just experience being shot then if the one doing the harm shoots the person in the head...well there is a problem though there was "consent" the intent changes the understanding of what was consented to)

stage 4 - Defense: Was the harm done out of defense of life? (the biggest problem with this part is the word life. Just about ever "yea but..." moral situation can be included in this defense of life, if you manipulate the word life quite a bit)

First question is one of ordinal priority. Why harm first? Let's say a person honestly wants to commit suicide, and tries to. Would we try to stop them even though the action is unanimously consented to by all affected (just him)?
To improve or clarify step four, we should remind ourselves of the scientific criteria for life:
1. It grows
2. It reproduces
3. It has metabolism
4. It responds to stimuli
I'm reminded of that parody song where a guy kills three farmers in cold blood to save the life of a turnip or something. We obviously need a narrower basis than life, but what? A limbic system, perhaps?

Edit: I made a YouTube Video listing some of the common "Trolley Car Dilemmas" and my take on them, I don't think it's a particularly good video, but if you're interested -
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobin26#play/all/uploads-all/6/JVYFXhaE

 

[Durakken]

First question is one of ordinal priority. Why harm first? Let's say a person honestly wants to commit suicide, and tries to. Would we try to stop them even though the action is unanimously consented to by all affected (just him)?
To improve or clarify step four, we should remind ourselves of the scientific criteria for life:
1. It grows
2. It reproduces
3. It has metabolism
4. It responds to stimuli
I'm reminded of that parody song where a guy kills three farmers in cold blood to save the life of a turnip or something. We obviously need a narrower basis than life, but what? A limbic system, perhaps?

I don't see suicide as unethical and the harm statement concerns someone else, not the person taking the action.

Ethically I would say that there is a reason to stop suicide and a reason to say suicide is unethical...

Unethical side which i don't buy based on the whole argument that we control our reaction...is that killing one's self would harm others emotionally

The Ethical side would be that the person is ill and is unable to give consent to themselves to kill themselves if we argue that the reason we can do whatever we want to ourselves is because we give consent to ourselves... or that if someone that is not sane or understanding of the implication etc can not give consent.

We can also argue that it is part of a contract that we enter into as part of a society that given that someone is mentally ill or something we agree that we will help them and to not do so would be unethical.

I prefer the consent argument mainly because it is the overall simplest to argue imo.


edit: also as far as the life thing i think it is inherent that there is some sort of branching hierarchy...

universe
galaxy
solarsystem
Sun
planet
conscious species
continent
country
area
non-related connected
family/friends/pets
self
animal hierarchy?
plant hierarchy?

Something to that effect where with each level we add a large number so that it takes a lot to overcome the importance, but doesn't preclude it from happening.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Perhaps i'm wrong, but jsut saying nuh-uh doesn't cut it Joe, as I have told you before.

Yes, but that's exactly what you are doing. Your position does not provide any absolute guide because it is all based on subjective judgment. Instead of dealing with my criticism, you quote the dictionary and press on with your incorrect position.

You've come up with an acceptable system for ethical behavior... you have NOT come up with an absolute or a perfect one. Just admit it and move on.

 

[Fictionarious]

As far as "harming others emotionally" goes, I think this is an abuse of the word harm. It's certainly impolite to kill yourself without regard to who you leave behind, but not harmful, and therefore not unethical. Also I don't buy the argument that anyone wanting to commit suicide must be mentally ill.
I subscribe to the branching hierarchy model only from an ecological perspective. I'm fond of the Gaia hypothesis, in other words. But that's as far up as the hierarchy goes now (one level), since we haven't colonized other planets or solar systems yet. Nonliving matter isn't morally considerable to me.

 

[Durakken]

Joe, I defended my position. You said it was not absolute. You are being contentious about what I'm calling absolute without showing ANY argument why it's not absolute. So I present the what the word actually means and covered all the possible references as to why it might be considered not absolute and showed that it is not the case. You have not presented any argument to the contrary. Show why it is not absolute other wise you have no merit.

Of course you could be saying something can be neither absolute nor subjective. In which case, sure...but using that then you must go, here's why I don't think so. which you don't and that does nothing to help you. Let's say i can say this with 50% certainty... You saying no doesn't move that certainty at all. It just shows your ignorance.



Fictionarious,
The mentally ill point. I agree. You do not have to be mentally ill to wish to commit suicide. However, I would assume that you are as a well person generally would not want to kill themselves so I would need to check that, but provided someone isn't mentally ill suicide is perfectly alright.

Yes the above planet level hierarchy is just an assumed how it would be. It is also not a correct model as I put it because there would obviously be some change in the hierarchy when a species starts to live on multiple planets and in solar systems. Also there is evidence that sometimes we act in non self-interested ways. Which I would call the hero dilemma. There is no reason as far as I can tell for someone to sacrifice their life in favor of another persons.

But yeah I think that hierarchy is there. I don't have any idea how that hierarchy is actually set up. I would assume that psychologists and behavior researchers would have a much better idea of it beyond just that weak model.

 

[Zylstra]

Every moral, legal, ethical ruling i can think of seems to follow these rules as to whether it is indeed ethical or not...

stage 1 - Harm: Does it do harm? (harm is subjective to some degree)

stage 2 - Consent: Are those that it does harm consenting to being harmed? (how does one show consent, how long it lasts, and can they give consent may be questioned)

stage 3 - Intent: What is the intent of the person doing the harm/being harmed? (it's important to ask both because if the the intent of the harmed to just experience being shot then if the one doing the harm shoots the person in the head...well there is a problem though there was "consent" the intent changes the understanding of what was consented to)

stage 4 - Defense: Was the harm done out of defense of life? (the biggest problem with this part is the word life. Just about ever "yea but..." moral situation can be included in this defense of life, if you manipulate the word life quite a bit)

Can someone find a problem with these? Logically or other wise? Or create a situation where one can't apply this?

And if we create a situation where this has a problem with is there any rule/stage that may be added that would fix that?


As a pre-argument...There is the situation of "if you have a train going down tracks that you can switch between, if there is X on track 1 and Y on track 2, what is the ethical decision to make" To this I would say that any action that IS right (i'm not saying which is right) is made in defense of life with no intent to harm...and obviously with some level of consent. The problem with this is that it is more mathematical than than an ethical rule. Life in this sense is a variable in an equation then. How to define that variable is a whole different subject and not an ethical issue imo. There is also the problem of if X and Y are equal is inaction ethical? Personally, I would say that it is another rule/stage, but i don't have enough data on that subject to put that in. Also I don't know quite how to word it...

So comments?

They don;t form an absolute moral code

they form common criteria by which one determines what they deem desirable (do I want to be harmed, Do I agree to this, is this what I meant to happen, who can I get to help make sure noone does these things to me). As such, they tend to form the core of any social contract, formal (codified; see law) or otherwise (implied; see ethics and social norms).

 

[Zylstra]

I just don't see how any of that gets you to an "absolute" anything. Everything you said is fine, but it is also very subjective.

the only 2 points that are possibly subjective is What is harm and defining life.

Life is more or less a short hand that is probably not the best wording. However nothing about that is subjective. It is a mathematical-esque variant which asks well does a group of 5 kids have a higher value than 5 adults? I think most people would say while there is more variables than just that there is a difference in value.

Harm is subjective in the sense that it alters by way of view point, but there is definitely some rules defining this hierarchy of that is objective which seems to me to be predicated on some sort of life/knowledge value.


This is not absolute in the sense that "Stealing is always wrong," but rather there is a set of rules and variables that if you plug in you will end with an absolute this is the right/ethical choice.

What's more subjective than 'intent'- what did I intend and what do I believe you intended? Do I found your intent objectionable?

 

[Durakken]

They don;t form an absolute moral code

they form common criteria by which one determines what they deem desirable (do I want to be harmed, Do I agree to this, is this what I meant to happen, who can I get to help make sure noone does these things to me). As such, they tend to form the core of any social contract, formal (codified; see law) or otherwise (implied; see ethics and social norms).

I have to question... What's the difference?

Social Contract forms Government through Law
Law that is not Just is not a Law
To be Just something must be Moral/Ethical

A social contract must be moral/just/ethical or is illegitimate.

Or another way...

Morals/Ethics -> Mores -> Social Contracts

They are all the same thing imo. we just call them different. And if they are not the same I have to question if something is Unethical why would I want it in my social contract/Government?

 

[orpiment99]

Consent can be subjective as well. Parents have the right to consent for their children, some children (adult) have the right to consent for their parents, and consent can be given for something that one has an incomplete understanding of or that has been misrepresented.

The basis of your argument is a set of criteria which I think all reasonable people use to determine what the morally correct action in any given situation is. Yet even a group of reasonable people will have different opinions on what is ethical because they weigh priorities differently. Therefore, I can't see any way that an absolute moral code can exist.

 

[Durakken]

What's more subjective than 'intent'- what did I intend and what do I believe you intended? Do I found your intent objectionable?

Intent is a variant. If my intention is to harm/help/whatever then that is my intention. That is not subjective.

If you claim that is subjective then all algebra is subjective, which it isn't


How I perceive your intent however is subjective. We are and are not talking about at the same time. It's assumed if you were to use this as a legal procedure that the evidence would perceive the intention correctly, but that is not guaranteed and that doesn't change that there was an intention and it was x.

In other words. The intention, whatever it is, is not relative. The Perceived intention is. We are talking about the actual intention and not the perceived intention.

 

[Durakken]

Consent can be subjective as well. Parents have the right to consent for their children, some children (adult) have the right to consent for their parents, and consent can be given for something that one has an incomplete understanding of or that has been misrepresented.

Again I have to point out that consent whether given or not IS NOT subjective. That is a fact one way or the other. Perceived consent and the ability to consent are completely different issues.

This is another of the reasons why this is used for unethical and not what is ethical... though it is a somewhat assumed that if something is not unethical it must be ethical... A child doesn't understand therefor can not possibly come to a accurate conclusion and thus it would be more harmful to allow them to consent than not. I don't like that argument, but it can be made.

The basis of your argument is a set of criteria which I think all reasonable people use to determine what the morally correct action in any given situation is. Yet even a group of reasonable people will have different opinions on what is ethical because they weigh priorities differently. Therefore, I can't see any way that an absolute moral code can exist.

Here's the thing. There is no weighing any where in any of those, besides the last one, and those are very rare to actually have to deal with where there is weighing that would involve some great debate about how to weight life. And as I said, I think there is an absolute way to weigh life inherently.

 

[SatanicBunny]

Here's the thing. There is no weighing any where in any of those, besides the last one

Yes there is, very much so. You even said it yourself in your orginal post (emphasis mine):

stage 1 - Harm: Does it do harm? (harm is subjective to some degree)

When you consider the consequences of any given action, what you perceive as "not causing harm" to someone might in their own oppinion be harmful. You might think that driving to work does not cause any harm to anyone but there are those who say that by increasing the CO2 emissions you're accelarating global warming which will in the end be harmiful to the whole of humanity....

"Absolute moral code" is also self-contradicting because morality is entirely dependant on how we view the world itself. In order for anyone to have an absolute moral code he/she would have to have a completely objective view of reality which is impossible because everything is subjective.

In my oppinion Joe already said it best:

Your position does not provide any absolute guide because it is all based on subjective judgment. - -

You've come up with an acceptable system for ethical behavior... you have NOT come up with an absolute or a perfect one. Just admit it and move on.