Ethics versus rationality

[Bahman]

Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.

Because ethics effect the conscience more than reason.

 

[davidv]

Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior.

Are all his decision rational? I can think of number of decision that are not rational. Why is that?

Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.

If both are grounded in reality, ethics and rationality cannot be in conflict. The problem is that our grounding is often emotion and wishful thinking.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.

Can you provide an example of a rationally correct and ethically wrong action, Bahman?

 

[MaryHelp777]

Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.

Did not God say in the Bible:

“He who is friends with the world is at enmity with God.”
Rational thoughts are not always the moral right thing to do.

“The way of the Cross is folly to the world.”

“God chose the humble and resists the proud.”
God teaches the moral people.and resists those who focus on intellect alone,

“Narrow and difficult is the way to Eternal Life and there are few who find it.”

The Pharisees were very educated men, but were great sinners and hypocrites. Even with all their learning, they were prophesied by Isiaiah as having eyes but never seeing, of having ears but never listening to God.
The Apostles were fishermen, one a doctor, one a tax collector, but they followed their consciences, followed their hearts in following Jesus, and had faith in Jesus.

“I shall write My laws on their hearts.” (God has written His laws on our consciences, so when we are friends with worldly notions, our consciences will still tell us what is right and wrong.)

Which is it better to be
A “Rational” Pharisee

Or

A moral faith filled Apostle

 

[DCNBILL]

Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.

1. Your definition of ethics is incorrect;

Merriam‑Webster; Ethics - rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad. (not a set of fixed moral principals.

1. Even though we are rational beings we do not always make rational decisions.

Since both of your premises were incorrect no correct conclusion can be made.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Did not God say in the Bible:

“He who is friends with the world is at enmity with God.”
Rational thoughts are not always the moral right thing to do.

“The way of the Cross is folly to the world.”

“God chose the humble and resists the proud.”
God teaches the moral people.and resists those who focus on intellect alone,

“Narrow and difficult is the way to Eternal Life and there are few who find it.”

The Pharisees were very educated men, but were great sinners and hypocrites. Even with all their learning, they were prophesied by Isiaiah as having eyes but never seeing, of having ears but never listening to God.
The Apostles were fishermen, one a doctor, one a tax collector, but they followed their consciences, followed their hearts in following Jesus, and had faith in Jesus.

“I shall write My laws on their hearts.” (God has written His laws on our consciences, so when we are friends with worldly notions, our consciences will still tell us what is right and wrong.)

Which is it better to be
A “Rational” Pharisee

Or

A moral faith filled Apostle

I don’t think a Pharisee was a wrong doer (in case he was) because he was a Pharisee, nor because he was rational (if he was so). I don’t think either that fishermen were irrational and, therefore, good men; nor that they were good men (if they were) precisely because they were irrational (if it happened that they were so).

If being irrational was a condition to be a good human being, then to be irrational should be a commandment, but there is no such a commandment.

I think that it is better to be a rational good human being than to be an irrational good human being. Besides, focusing on intellect alone is not a very rational attitude.

 

[Rhubarb]

1. Your definition of ethics is incorrect;

Merriam‑Webster; Ethics - rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad. (not a set of fixed moral principals.

A dictionary definition isn’t always helpful in philosophy. We can define our terms however we want in our discourse, provided everyone is using them in the same sense. I don’t think Bahman’s definition is far off from what you provided. An ethical theory /should/ be systematic and consistent. In that way, it’s fixed. Rules of behavior is the same thing as rules that gover behavior.

That being said, there’s great controversy over what is ethical and what is rational in certain situations. I don’t know how we can say they’re in conflict if we can’t always judge. Like another poster said, maybe an example?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.

Can you give me an example of such an action?

 

[MaryHelp777]

The whole problem of humans being human means, we have freedom to do right and wrong, and have our own opinions (which may be right or wrong),

So basically, humans can be rational or irrational.
There’s also the problem of opinions, what Person A believes may be an outright lie, while person B’s opinion is the truth.

Their opinions might seem rational to themselves, but there is only one universal truth. Jesus Christ the Word of God and His commands and instructions handed down through the True RC church he founded 2016 years ago.

 

[Bradski]

Can you give me an example of such an action?

Harvesting organs from someone with a fatal illness so that others may live. Destroying an enemy stronghold when you know innocent people will die. Torturing someone to find out where he hid the bomb.

How long does the guy have to live? How many innocent,deaths are worth it? What methods of to turn could you employ?

It’s the Trolley Problem.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Harvesting organs from someone with a fatal illness so that others may live. Destroying an enemy stronghold when you know innocent people will die. Torturing someone to find out where he hid the bomb.

How long does the guy have to live? How many innocent,deaths are worth it? What methods of to turn could you employ?

It’s the Trolley Problem.

“Harvesting organs from someone with a fatal illness so that others may live.”

Obviously not a rational option. Thou shalt not kill.

“Destroying an enemy stronghold when you know innocent people will die.”

The intent is only to destroy the enemy stronghold, so the act is ethically right and rational.

“Torturing someone to find out where he hid the bomb.”

Not ethically wrong, therefore rational. Self defense is always ethically right and rational so long as the means are proportional to the end. Waterboarding, for example, does not maim or kill, but produces results without killing.

Still looking for an act that is ethically wrong but rationally right.

 

[Bradski]

So if waterboarding is OK, then can you do it to anyone as long as it gets the right result?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Still looking for an act that is ethically wrong but rationally right.

I’ll give you one from my own life. Recently friend A got officially divorced from his wife. In the year between when friend A’s then-wife announced the desire for a divorce to when it was finalized, friend B broke off his friendship with friend A without saying a word to him and entered into a relationship with friend A’s ex-wife.

I have been friends with both A and B for over 25 years, and A and B have been extremely close friends in that same time. I have been far closer to friend B (who I would see several times a month) to friend A (who I might see two or three times a year. Rationally, I should support friend B since I’m closer to him and see him far more often. Ethically, I have chosen to support friend A since I greatly disapprove of B’s actions.

 

[Latias]

I’ll give you one from my own life. Recently friend A got officially divorced from his wife. In the year between when friend A’s then-wife announced the desire for a divorce to when it was finalized, friend B broke off his friendship with friend A without saying a word to him and entered into a relationship with friend A’s ex-wife.

I have been friends with both A and B for over 25 years, and A and B have been extremely close friends in that same time. I have been far closer to friend B (who I would see several times a month) to friend A (who I might see two or three times a year. Rationally, I should support friend B since I’m closer to him and see him far more often. Ethically, I have chosen to support friend A since I greatly disapprove of B’s actions.

Uh oh. Two independent thought alarms in one day.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I’ll give you one from my own life. Recently friend A got officially divorced from his wife. In the year between when friend A’s then-wife announced the desire for a divorce to when it was finalized, friend B broke off his friendship with friend A without saying a word to him and entered into a relationship with friend A’s ex-wife.

I have been friends with both A and B for over 25 years, and A and B have been extremely close friends in that same time. I have been far closer to friend B (who I would see several times a month) to friend A (who I might see two or three times a year. Rationally, I should support friend B since I’m closer to him and see him far more often. Ethically, I have chosen to support friend A since I greatly disapprove of B’s actions.

And do you have any reason to disapprove B’s actions?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So if waterboarding is OK, then can you do it to anyone as long as it gets the right result?

Which “anyone” are you talking about?

Waterboarding is a weapon of self defense only, not a water sport.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And do you have any reason to disapprove B’s actions?

My question as well. I see no reason to disapprove of B’s actions, especially if he was not the cause of the break-up of A’s marriage.

 

[Bradski]

Which “anyone” are you talking about?

Waterboarding is a weapon of self defense only, not a water sport.

If a terrorist holds out when being tortured, then as it’s apparently a method of self defence and doesn’t maim or kill, we could waterboard someone close to him to ensure that he talks.

That would be rational. And you’ve already indicated that you’d be prepared to actually kill innocent people to obtain a good result, so a non lethal method of obtaining g info should be OK as far as you are concerned.

By the way, what if we don’t know the guy knows anything? Do we need to waterboard him if there is a strong suspicion that he does?

I think you’re treading through a moral minefield, Charles. Careful where you step.

 

[Bahman]

Because ethics effect the conscience more than reason.

I don’t understand. Could you please elaborate?