milligal

Great response.

Utilitarianism has faults. As a society we must choose some format to determine our standard of living. Is is okay to steal? Why not? Utilitarianism does not demand intervention into personal lives. It actually focuses on a larger scale into the majority issues. It's theories focus on national/political issues such as war, hunger, poverty, etc.

You give a good example-that of homosexuality. Most people I've discussed this issue (moral philosophy) with could not choose one theory to stand by. In this scenario the social contract fits better in my opinion-everyone agrees not to intrude on anothers rights and other than that-live how you want. The drawback of this theory is that it is self motivated without promoting charitable actions or selfless deeds.

There must be a balance between the two....

pseudonous

I must admit I haven't read Locke's [i]Social Contract[i], but now I am curious to read it. Still, I have read a smattering of the philosophes and Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration. Their ideas are interesting but I never could accept any of their philosophical systems.

Certainly, as you say, we must accept some format as a society. Yet, I still can't help thinking that these philosophers really believed thier own constructions. I'm still looking for an ethical system that doesn't see eating meat, homosexuality, experimenting on a cluster of cells,etc. as an ethical consideration, except at a completely personal level. One that is concerned with the common good rather than the good of the majority. In my opinion, there are enough legitimate social issues without fabricating more.

Can you suggest any philosophers who viewed ethics along these lines?

milligal

That's a difficult question since many philosophies are based on ethical subjectivism-basically the idea that no action can be proven wrong, rather it can only be proven that one feels it is wrong.

Utilitarianism was the biggest promoter of not eating meat and respect for animals,you might want to look up Elizabeth Anscombe, Peter Geach or Kant's 'Categorical Imperative'. These philosophers argued for absolute moral codes. Although Kant did feel human beings were better than animals.

Personally, I feel that 'asbsolute' moral codes leave no room for humanity.

The An-Jel

Ok tell me what the differences are between Ethics and Morals?

__________________
"And let there be Light!" said the Blind man.

Life is simple, people make it complicated - Basilisk

Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - Royal Gibraltar Regiment

milligal

The two are very alike with the exception of their use in our society.

Ethics are evidence based within a particular class of people, morals are based on conscience and are not based on evidence-you hear of morals being referred to in a religious or spiritual sensitivity. Ethics are based in a more practical environment-if you go through your co-workers desk looking for a pencil to use, he may not like it and may become upset-it's unethical to intrude on someone else's space, although you could not say it was immoral.

pseudonous

Morals are principles. Ethics is a system. Beyond that the two words can be used interchangably. However, Utilitarianism is a good example of an attempt to create an ethics which was not influenced by the morals of the society. This would allow the ethics to be usable to different countries with different cultures. So, at least to some people, the desire to create an ethics was prompted by a desire to get away from morals.

Gettin' In Tune

Very interesting post.

Utilitarianism also has historical roots in economics. The economic problem with utilitarianism is that it cannot be compared across individuals. Who is to say that $1.00 to a homeless man would give him more pleasure than $1.00 to Bill Gates.

There is no hedonistic calculator to maximize pleasure in a society. Mill was Bentham prominent student. Sometimes hedonism gets confused with pleasure and happiness.

As Mill once said, 'happiness is not fulfilling one's desires, but learning how to limit one's desires.'

Currently I am looking into stoicism and libertarnism for a moral base.

Aaron

Situation dictates ethics. Morals are the scale that weighs ethics.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan

Danlo

Perhaps this is a little from left field but here goes...

This thread touches on a concept that I believe will become more widespread as we continue to improve and refine our technological information systems.

In particular, whenever a contentious moral/ethical issue arises there are stronger and stronger calls for a referendum to be held so that resolution can be determined by the 'majority'. Clearly the cost to hold a referendum is huge (with government elections being an example) and hence referenda only rarely occur.

However, over the past 20 years we have seen an astronomical improvement in the way that information is communicated via the internet, TV and every other gadget under the sun! People are becoming more and more mobile and have a larger number of interfaces to information management systems than ever before.

If we extrapolate these advances in technology, it is my suspicion that given enough time society will eventually be given the tools to be able to make instantaneous decisions on any issue whatsoever. So in effect this would mean that numerous, frequent referenda (ie. decision by majority) could become the most common way of determining society's laws and future moral/ethical pathways.

I personally believe this would be an extremely dangerous path to take (as the majority isn't always right in my opinion) but you never know, it could happen!

Just my 2 cents worth...

Jacob

Danlo Re: referendums

The Achilles heel of referendums is that people invariably tend to vote selfishly. This is not always good for society as a whole.

Jacob