|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:23 pm
Actually, the form of the question denies there being a time that the two can be different. In philosophy, a ethic base, or ethical theory always comes with a weighing mechanism. As such, it asks you to either weigh the means (if deontologic) or the ends (teleologic). When either a group or individual weighs the ethics under the same circumstances, even adjusted for larger numbers. For instance, in mills utilitarianism it is based on ends and the harm principle. If you kill a person that is stealing from you, it will make you happy to be alive but will also hurt your psyche, the person who finds the body, the people he knew, his family etc. It outways greatly either way you go. Ethics are objective, war and murder, self defense and a homicide, all have the same means and ends, Man = death
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:43 pm
The thing about a harms/benefit utilitarianism is that you could go on forever trying to calculate it. For example, if I killed that thief, there would be people made upset or unhappy about it, sure, but what about all the people who would enjoy the rest of their lives unmolested by theft (at least from that thief)? His enemies might be happy, too, and those who saw it on the news might be pleased to know there was one less criminal in the world.
In any case, I have yet to see a compelling justification for using happiness or harm as a standard of value. It seems rather arbitrary. What would happen to the theory if we substituted another arbitrary value like, I don't know... say, cheese?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:31 pm
THe whole ethics question can never be fully answered to everyones satisfaction. There is a reason for this and its very simple. Ethics is entirely sugjective and will always be so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:50 pm
But it's fun to argue anyway. 3nodding
(Not that I have anything to add to this particular discussion anyway... sweatdrop )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:15 pm
smoovegeek The thing about a harms/benefit utilitarianism is that you could go on forever trying to calculate it. For example, if I killed that thief, there would be people made upset or unhappy about it, sure, but what about all the people who would enjoy the rest of their lives unmolested by theft (at least from that thief)? His enemies might be happy, too, and those who saw it on the news might be pleased to know there was one less criminal in the world. In any case, I have yet to see a compelling justification for using happiness or harm as a standard of value. It seems rather arbitrary. What would happen to the theory if we substituted another arbitrary value like, I don't know... say, cheese? - As far as killing a thief, it could be considered in how it's presented also. If the news headline said "One less thug to rip you off in the world" you look like a hero or something, but if it says "Man murdered for stealing bread" then you'll be the one getting shot next...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:07 pm
smoovegeek First of all, everyone should feel free to jump in here and offer their opinion. This is where I see an opportunity for some wide divergence. As far as the implications for politics, well, first of all, income taxation comes to mind. I, as an individual, do not have the moral right to take money that you've earned to fund my grandmother's operation, or my kid's education, an urban renewal project, or anything else I think is worthwhile. I would argue that if you accept my position on group vs. individual ethics, the government -- be it federal, state/provincial, or local -- has no moral right to do it either. I think that you are correct in a way, but moral right is an issue which should be omitted by politics according to its very nature - power over another being is often considered immoral. Even though modern democracies try to decrease the imbalance of power, it is impossible to achieve this goal. Therefore politics is rather a question of necessity, than of moral judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:37 pm
Maze1125 Never. A group is an illusion, all actions done by individuals and only by individuals. We don't become a colective mind just because we are near other people. Being part of a group doesn't mean we lose our individuality. Don't large groups do act differently than the individuals that compose them? Think of mobs that go on rampages and destroy things, when all the people in them are peacable and reasonable. Have you never been in a crowd that was shouting really loudly, and found yourself shouting too, for no particular reason? The fact is, group mentality is sometimes stronger than individual morals. While that is not an excuse for doing something wrong, it's still a fact. The bravery, even bravado, that a group affords is intoxicating. Once person shouts, others take up the cry, and soon you're being swept along without really knowing where you're going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Community Values are based on the idea that as a group you are more powerful and therefore can enforce that power as you wish. For example: One community can wage war because they think that another community is a threat and it will be seen by many as not being immoral.
Personal values are based on a sense of failability. A person does not think it is right to needlessly hurt others because he or she does not wish that for themselves.
Now, I go for personal values amongst community why? Because the power felt and the desired additional power is a force that we can all see clearly corrupts some, like when people are given power over others on a personal level it is corrupted. Remember the movie stripes, when Harlod Ramis said "I've always been a pacifist. My father told me never fight anybody unless your sure your going to win." Power corrupts morality, and yes there are absolute morals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:15 pm
smoovegeek Well, to put it quite simply, my view is that there is no situation where a group has a moral right to do something an individual can't morally do. Which is why things that do fall under that category are so hotly debated, disagreed upon, and highly critisized. Such as war and politics...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:48 am
Newski Community Values are based on the idea that as a group you are more powerful and therefore can enforce that power as you wish. For example: One community can wage war because they think that another community is a threat and it will be seen by many as not being immoral. Wow, this is a perversion of what I normally think of as community values (no offense to the poster intended). Community values has never been about power to me, it is about doing the best for the good of the community instead of for selfish ends. It's community values that encourage the selfish American to actually care about his fellow neighbors and better the collective neighborhood. I can't say I've ever heard this take on "community values" before. Although I suppose power could pervert this into what you describe, I still disagree with Newski's definition of community values. Newski Personal values are based on a sense of failability. A person does not think it is right to needlessly hurt others because he or she does not wish that for themselves. Essentially the golden rule huh? Most people in this nation are ruled by something of this sort, but not all of them. I'm not sure where you're getting personal values being based off falliability either. This dosen't make much sense to me. I'll give ya a chance to explain this a bit better before I comment. whee And... that "absolute morality exists" statement I haven't seen in a while. Often claims of absolute morality end up being used as an excuse to destroy or convert another group. Conviction to one's morals is admirable, but not to the point that they are unchangeable as it causes pain in others who disagree. The simple fact that people can't agree on morals is proof enough to me that there's no such thing as absolute morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:40 pm
I can think of a case. Putting a serial killer to death would be considered unacceptable for an individual, but when a group decides that the serial killer needs to die(because he is a threat to the entire group), that is justified.
However, this is only the case if the individual is not personally threatened by the killer. For example, a man could not kill a serial killer that only killed women, because he is not personally threatened. However, the group is threatened; destruction of the females is dangerous to the entire group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:49 am
This example appears to be more a case of the 'lemming' effect than "group threat" effect. A person as an individual is more unlikely to want to bear the responsibility for sentancing someone to death, while in a group they are much more likely to make such a decision since they can use the group as an excuse to rid themselves of the guilt of killing. The group sittuation is only more justified in the minds of the people in that group, it is not more justified from an external standpoint. There are plenty of ways to deal with a threatening individual other than killing them. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:10 pm
Starlock This example appears to be more a case of the 'lemming' effect than "group threat" effect. A person as an individual is more unlikely to want to bear the responsibility for sentancing someone to death, while in a group they are much more likely to make such a decision since they can use the group as an excuse to rid themselves of the guilt of killing. The group sittuation is only more justified in the minds of the people in that group, it is not more justified from an external standpoint. There are plenty of ways to deal with a threatening individual other than killing them. sweatdrop Well, I was imagining a scenario with the death penalty in effect. Which I agree with for various reasons. But that's not important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:32 am
If it is wrong for the individual, it is wrong for the collective. The government, the society, the unit.
Collectives must be held to account, constantly.
The only variable is context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
