My proposed ethical system

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, ultimately there is a “consequence” which measures the act, but the final goal is the universally desired good of happiness. Heaven and Hell are simply the confirmation of our choices toward or away from happiness (within the context of grace). Happiness is a fulfillment of our nature, which is something we do not simply choose.

Hard as I try, I fail to find anything more subjective than “happiness”. And what would be that alleged “nature” be?

 

[e_c]

A harmonious environment. Live and let live. Respect others. And no deity required.

You’ve not seen where this thought actually leads in real world history. Eventually certain persons are more equal than others and we only “let live” those most useful to the agenda of “ending harm” to the State.

Hard as I try, I fail to find anything more subjective than “happiness”. And what would be that alleged “nature” be?

Happiness - the fulfillment of all natural desires without the fear of losing them insofar as possible.

Human nature - what a human being is, and with a view to the ethical (which is more than the merely “moral”), what human beings are FOR inherently because of WHAT they ARE… Rational, animal, vegetal, each with distinct parts and ends inseparable from their existence.

Just plain old Aristotle n such.

We are going to have a problem though, because “nature” as I’ve described it requires a Creator ordaining things such and such a way. And that is the more useful discussion anyway. So I’ll participate in that discussion, but not this one anymore. I won’t play the part of Sisyphus anymore, on this thread or on future ones like this one. I’m officially retiring from trying to convince “secular moralists” on CAF of the problems of their positions on their dedicated threads to the topic beyond linking to past threads.

Outtie…
-e_c

 

[BornInMarch]

Two do not make one . If “A” would “B”, then doing the same act to “A” would not restore the state of affairs. What would you consider a proper action to punish a rapist? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, rape for rape? The whole concept of “justice” comes from the desire to restore the state of affairs to the original status. But that is impossible in most cases. If there would be a way to prevent the original act, there would be no problem.

Assuming the person is truly guilty and is of sound mind, I would proscribe a certain amount of time in prison both to restore some dignity to the victim and to ensure the guilty person can not do the same thing to other people.
I would NOT subject him/her to any excessive or cruel punishment, just enough to make the person understand the error of his/her ways and to turn him/her back into a productive member of society. If I was designing a prison system from scratch then I’d make a system that favors rehabilitation over punishment and that thinks of the 8th Amendment as a human right as apposed to a polite suggestion; “Guilty But Mentally Ill” rulings, Felony Disenfranchisement, Mandatory Minimums for non-violent offences, trying minors as adults, sentencing minors to life imprisonment, involuntary experimentation, and compulsory sterilization would all be Off The Table entirely. Guards who abused prisoners or who “looked the other way” when prisoners to abuse each other would be themselves be arrested and thrown in prison.

The world is full of people who act maliciously and who inflict harm. While it would be wrong to stoop to their level, it would also be wrong to let them go scott-free. If we make rules, but give no consequences for breaking them, then the rules don’t mean anything. Practically, failure to enforce rules (meaning failure to punish those who break the rules) creates a moral hazard (a situation where someone knows he/she will not bare the negative consequences of a behavior, and so engages in that behavior more often).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You’ve not seen where this thought actually leads in real world history.

I am not aware of any society, which was actually founded on these principles. So history does not help you in your endeavor of discrediting this ethical system.

Happiness - the fulfillment of all natural desires without the fear of losing them insofar as possible.

“Natural” desires are undefined. Different people have different desires.

Human nature - what a human being is, and with a view to the ethical (which is more than the merely “moral”), what human beings are FOR inherently because of WHAT they ARE… Rational, animal, vegetal, each with distinct parts and ends inseparable from their existence.

That is much too vague to be useful. Our nature is founded on our genes, and modified by our upbringing. There is no “uniform” human nature.

Just plain old Aristotle n such.

We are going to have a problem though, because “nature” as I’ve described it requires a Creator ordaining things such and such a way. And that is the more useful discussion anyway. So I’ll participate in that discussion, but not this one anymore. I won’t play the part of Sisyphus anymore, on this thread or on future ones like this one. I’m officially retiring from trying to convince “secular moralists” on CAF of the problems of their positions on their dedicated threads to the topic beyond linking to past threads.

Outtie…
-e_c

In that case, thank you for your thoughts. Best wishes.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Assuming the person is truly guilty and is of sound mind, I would proscribe a certain amount of time in prison both to restore some dignity to the victim and to ensure the guilty person can not do the same thing to other people.
I would NOT subject him/her to any excessive or cruel punishment, just enough to make the person understand the error of his/her ways and to turn him/her back into a productive member of society. If I was designing a prison system from scratch then I’d make a system that favors rehabilitation over punishment and that thinks of the 8th Amendment as a human right as apposed to a polite suggestion; “Guilty But Mentally Ill” rulings, Felony Disenfranchisement, Mandatory Minimums for non-violent offences, trying minors as adults, sentencing minors to life imprisonment, involuntary experimentation, and compulsory sterilization would all be Off The Table entirely. Guards who abused prisoners or who “looked the other way” when prisoners to abuse each other would be themselves be arrested and thrown in prison.

The world is full of people who act maliciously and who inflict harm. While it would be wrong to stoop to their level, it would also be wrong to let them go scott-free. If we make rules, but give no consequences for breaking them, then the rules don’t mean anything. Practically, failure to enforce rules (meaning failure to punish those who break the rules) creates a moral hazard (a situation where someone knows he/she will not bare the negative consequences of a behavior, and so engages in that behavior more often).

I have no problem with this line of thought, but we must be aware of the limitations of technology. The more advanced our technology becomes, the prevention of crimes will be more available. Suppose, we can develop a world-wide monitoring system, where the malicious thoughts can be detected before they are acted upon, and a well-directed pulse could “erase” them. Suppose that the system is “foolproof”, it cannot be subverted to create an unbreakable 1984-like society.

In other words, it would limit (“castrate”) people’s “free will”, so they remain free in every respect, except when it would lead to performing malicious acts. Yes, I know that this is science fiction (for now), but an interesting thought experiment nevertheless. Would you “vote” for such a system? I would.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have no problem with this line of thought, but we must be aware of the limitations of technology. The more advanced our technology becomes, the prevention of crimes will be more available. Suppose, we can develop a world-wide monitoring system, where the malicious thoughts can be detected before they are acted upon, and a well-directed pulse could “erase” them. Suppose that the system is “foolproof”, it cannot be subverted to create an unbreakable 1984-like society.

In other words, it would limit (“castrate”) people’s “free will”, so they remain free in every respect, except when it would lead to performing malicious acts. Yes, I know that this is science fiction (for now), but an interesting thought experiment nevertheless. Would you “vote” for such a system? I would.

Interesting. Of course you realize that, for example, a cleric (Catholic or otherwise) who upholds his or her Church teaching that homosexuality or abortions are objectively grave sins can be tried in some places for those statements being called ‘hate speech’. So please tell me, who determines what thoughts are 'malicious"?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Interesting. Of course you realize that, for example, a cleric (Catholic or otherwise) who upholds his or her Church teaching that homosexuality or abortions are objectively grave sins can be tried in some places for those statements being called ‘hate speech’.

I consider the concept of “hate speech” ludicrous. A speech, which incites someone to go and kill and maim is a very different issue - just like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

So please tell me, who determines what thoughts are 'malicious"?

Reason does. Malicious thoughts are the ones which are the precursor to cause immediate physical harm to someone else, like raising a gun and kill.

 

[Rau]

…Maybe I should have included the Golden Rule as the “zeroeth rule”, but I thought it was obvious

Maybe you should have included it, but you realised that it too will, at times, be found in conflict with Rule 3?

Answer to Rau’s post #37 and #42:

Now the more extreme situations the simple rules are problematic. Real life-threatening situations (not being cut off in the cashier’s line in a grocery store as e_c suggested ) can happen in two “flavors”. One, when you must react instinctively to an immediate danger, and the other one, where you have time to ponder your actions. If the situation demands immediate, instinctive reaction (and please use your sound mind in deciding how to discern them) there is no “ethics”, there is no “morality”. Your instincts take over, and you react automatically.

I think this has no relevance to anything we’ve been discussing.

In an actual real lifeboat situation (when you foresee that some resources will run out and you cannot do anything about it) -]where you are NOT in immediate danger,/-] [and]-]but /-]you will have to make some “him or me” type of decision eventually, I don’t think that there is a solution which will satisfy everyone. Which simply supports the fact that “ethics” is subjective. You can invoke the altruism and offer a self-sacrifice in order to save others, or you can use the “might makes right” and throw out the weaker in order to save yourself. But there is no objective method which will decide that one is better than the other. It is all a matter of “taste”.

It is not a requirement of a system of ethics that all the players are happy about the outcomes in specific scenarios. Those who die, or suffer, or lose or… won’t be happy with that outcome, but if the ethical system is worth its salt, it should nominate a valid course of action.

From your comments above, it seems it would be ethical (under your system), to murder the person in front of you in the queue to the lifeboat if you were not of a mind to miss out on a spot. I assume this is an example of Rule 1 being cast aside, and the Golden Rule being cast aside, because you feel “forced”. Rule 3 - which admits a very broad view of what “forced” means [and a corrupted view of self-defence, as was discussed earlier] - always prevails, no matter what act is done, or against whom. Perhaps, “might makes right” should be noted as the sub-text to Rule 3?

Q: Would it be ethical to murder more than one person ahead of you in the queue if that was necessary to secure a spot in the lifeboat?

 

[Rau]

…The only pertinent point is that in 99.99% of the time they WORK…

Well, if you start with the Golden Rule, you’re most of the way to a harmonious environment. But when times get difficult, and your Rule 3 cuts in - your system ultimately turns to “might is right”. That’s not typically considered ethical behaviour.

 

[Rau]

I consider the concept of “hate speech” ludicrous. A speech, which incites someone to go and kill and maim is a very different issue - just like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

Hate speech, properly defined, is not an unreasonable concept in civilised society, and it is entirely distinct from inciting a person to violence.

Speech intended to psychologically wound another, or which vilifies another, typically an entire set of people, and typically focussed on various personal characteristics (race, creed, sexuality, gender, disability, etc.) is behaviour not in accord with the Golden Rule. Societal rejection of that behaviour (at least the more extreme cases) is not ludicrous.

Where some legislators have gone astray is that the “crime” of “hate speech” is judged to have been committed almost solely according to how some person feels about what was said. This is the scenario Tantum ergo addresses, and laws operating on this basis are absurd.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Well, if you start with the Golden Rule, you’re most of the way to a harmonious environment. But when times get difficult, and your Rule 3 cuts in - your system ultimately turns to “might is right”. That’s not typically considered ethical behaviour.

There are problems for which there is no solution; and such problems exist in every facet of life. Especially since there is no method which would decide if “solution A” is better than “solution B”.

Hate speech, properly defined, is not an unreasonable concept in civilised society, and it is entirely distinct from inciting a person to violence.

Ah, and who will “properly” define hate speech? And what will that definition be? There are already laws against defamation, and those laws are not limited to any group of people.