Ethical theory: is it more about the self or more about the state?

[Phat]

Hey,
I’m having a hard time wondering whether ethics is more about the self (more personal) or more about the state or society (more political)? My teacher posted this question and I must choose one of the two positions. I can’t come to a consensus whether it is more about the self or the state. I need help or any advise on this in a philosophical perspective. Meaning I don’t need any feelings or opinions, but more in line of reasoning to determine whether it is about the self or the state. Much appreciation!!

Peace
Phat

 

[otjm]

Which came first, the person or the State?

Without people, there is no such thing as the State; but the reverse is not true.

If, therefore, people came first, then ethics came either from people or from the construct created by people which we call the State.

Therfore, the question is, can people without a construct of State have ethics?

That should do it for a foundation…

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

The state is made up of individual persons. Therefore, I think it is impossible to have ethics of the state in the absence of ethics of the people. The state may be collective ethics, but the collective is reducible to individuals. I vote for “ethics of the person.”

My two bits worth…

• Rob

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Phat,

In Jesus day there were many evils that world leaders committed. The Pharisees tried desperately to get Jesus to speak out against Ceasar so they could have Him arrested and killed. Jesus did not speak out against any world leaders. Instead, Jesus taught individuals, who desired to follow Him and go to heaven, what ethics they must live by.

Jesus established His Church through St. Peter. St. Peter and his successors were given the “Keys to the Kingdom” to use to guide His flock as He did, as to the ethical conduct they must follow.

In the past forty years or so, Church leaders seem to relentlessly condemn and preach to world leaders while rarely targeting Catholics with their condemnations and reprimands. This is not how Jesus focused on ethics.

Ethics, as taught by Jesus, are about His followers conduct.

 

[otjm]

In the past forty years or so, Church leaders seem to relentlessly condemn and preach to world leaders while rarely targeting Catholics with their condemnations and reprimands. This is not how Jesus focused on ethics.

Steve, you were doing fine untill you hit this spot. Any review of the history of the Church will show that the Church, throughout much of its history, has preached to world leaders about issues larger than individual ethics. And in fact, for a period of time - one altogether too long, the Church was intimately involved in world politics, or at least politics on a fairly wide “local” level.

And as far as what the Church has had to say, I do not consider that it failed to admonish and lead individual ethics over these last 40 years, either; it seems more that individuals have chosen to ignore what the Church has said. Not that doing so would be a whole lot different than any other particular time in history.

 

[Phat]

Thanks for all who posted! While I like the post about Jesus and ethics that He preached, I’m looking one that can be answer in a manner that is reasonable in an non-theological ethics class. The teacher is looking at an answer that can be answer in logically and with pure reason, not reason and faith.

Peace,
Phat

 

[Chancellare]

I have certain fear that your teacher is leading you to discover and understand contradiction of terms. Putting individual and state in one side of the equation is a prelude to a chemical combustion.

According to the Social Contract theory of Rousseau, the State was merely the outcome of a compact freely made by its individual citizens. Consequently they were under no moral obligation to form a State, and the State itself was not a moral necessity
There is a sense in which all men are ethical individualists, that is, inasmuch as they hold the voice of conscience to be the immediate rule of conduct. But ethical individualism means more than this. It means that the individual conscience, or the individual reason, is not merely the decisive subjective rule, but that it is the only rule; that there is no objective authority or standard which it is bound to take into account.
But this site is supposedly populated by philosophers of the non-secular kind and since Catholics are not individualists, they accept as the supreme rule, the law of God, and as the final interpreter of that law, the Church.
Therein lies the disconnect.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Thanks for all who posted! While I like the post about Jesus and ethics that He preached, I’m looking one that can be answer in a manner that is reasonable in an non-theological ethics class. The teacher is looking at an answer that can be answer in logically and with pure reason, not reason and faith.

Peace,
Phat

Hello Phat,

Put yourself in a pre-government erra. Those who have personal ethics abide by them. Those who do not have personal ethics are out raping, murdering, stealling and committing all kinds of attrocities on the body of people as a whole. What do you think the general population will do to protect, the body of people as a whole, from those people who do not have ethics? Will they not form a government which will form a code of ethics that all people in that group will be forced to comply with for the protection of the body of people as a whole?

I think it is clear that the State came into existance through the need of the masses to form a code of ethics which all members of the group will be compelled to follow for the protection of the body of people as a whole.

 

[Steven_Merten]

And as far as what the Church has had to say, I do not consider that it failed to admonish and lead individual ethics over these last 40 years, either; it seems more that individuals have chosen to ignore what the Church has said. Not that doing so would be a whole lot different than any other particular time in history.

Hello otjm,

From the last forty years do you have any quotes from Church leaders instructing Catholics that they hate Jesus and will burn in hell if they do not tithe or pay a proper donation to care for the poor? About twelve times I heard Pope John Paul II condemn the World Bank for not forgiving Third World debt to help the poor. Never once did Pope John Paul II demand that the Catholic Church (1.1 billion Catholics) tithe and donate to pay off Third World debt.

I have heard and believe that Catholics, those who purchase beyond basic nessessities, pay only about a half a percent of their income to love Jesus and feed the poor as God commands. Jesus promises eternal life to Catholics who assist the poor through paying off Third World debt. Jesus made no such promise to the World Bank.

Pope John Paul II clearly spelled it out that not supplying feed tubes to comatose patients was “Murder!”. I said wow, this is going to cost the Church (1.1 billion Catholics) a great deal of money in health care costs caring for comatose patients in Third World nations. Some posters on CAF assured me that the Pope was not calling Catholics murderers for not tithing enough to insure all Third world nation’s comatose people could recieve a feed tube to save them from dying. The Pope was just condemning and reprimanding First World capitalist businesses. It seems it was not important enough for the Pope himself to teach Catholics just what murder, is/is not, in regard to feed tubes, but it was extreemly important for the Pope to teach Capitalist health care businesses what is murder.

I see Church leaders as focusing their attention on being seen as condemning America rather than reprimanding Catholics to do as Jesus commands for the salvation of their souls. I have heard many Catholics on the street who hate it when Church leaders talk about tithing and donations. Many Catholics, especially Europeans, love it when Church leaders condemn America. But really, what job did Jesus leave with Church leaders, straightening out Caesar (the State) or leading Catholics (the Church) into eternal life?

The Democratic World society (States) which America and Great Britan established after WWII is infinitely more just than the erra before WWII. Church leaders have, since WWII, fallen into the temptation of focusing on leading through world leaders. This may lead to more glorification of themselves by being seen as putting demands on Super Power leaders, but it has imensly decayed Church leader focus on the personal ethics of Catholics for the salvation of their souls.

The State does not go to heaven for caring for the poor, the Church (individual Catholics) does.

NAB MAT 25:31

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, **‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” ******

 

[conan025]

We are to pray for our civil authorities and obey them, as far as conscience allows. (Romans 13 and 1 Timothy 2: 1-2) However, when there is a conflict, God’s laws are higher, and “we must obey God, rather than man.” (Acts 5:29)

This is powerfully portrayed in the film “A man for all seasons,” about the life of St. Thomas More (sp?). Executed for refusing to acknowledge the divorce of Henry VIII, his last words were, “I die the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” That would have to be among my favorite movies.