Ethics applies primarily to human situations

[baywax]

Like I said in my first post, I think you are on the right track in looking for a logical construct of ethics. The idea that the ethical principles we should live by fell out of the sky on a couple of stone tablets 6,000 years ago seems a little arbitrary...

But just because some things are logical/mathematical, doesn't mean everything is logical/mathematical in the same way. Perhaps the way to bridge this gap is by thinking about machines that think. Robots. Are they capable of ethics? If ethics is about doing what is right because it is right, but a non-sentient robot does things because it is programmed to do them, or fits situations into pre-programmed criteria for determining right and wrong, it isn't ethics. But if they are sentient and can understand the concepts of right and wrong, maybe they are ethical. But then, if ethics is logical, then aren't we just trying to find pre-programmed criteria that we can use to make our own determinations of right and wrong? That is were the problem becomes circular (both the definition of ethics and the definition of sentient)...

I'm getting your drift here. My use of the word ethics has been too general and that is a dangerous thing to do with a word with respect to clarity, conciseness and focus.

Also I can use your definition(s) of the word to begin to separate the origin of the concept (ethics) from its present day form.

I will, however, maintain my position that suggests how ethics could quite possibly have been derived by humans from their observations of natural laws and how these observations convinced humans to adapt an understanding of the mechanisms of cause and effect in nature to the formation of an ethical society. Thank you Russ

 

[raolduke]

I know it was not an insult but I would really enjoy it if you did, I deserved it.

I will, however, maintain my position that suggests how ethics could quite possibly have been derived by humans from their observations of natural laws and how these observations convinced humans to adapt an understanding of the mechanisms of cause and effect in nature to the formation of an ethical society. Thank you Russ

To say man kind created a system of moral law based on observations of natural law makes sense, in a sense. If you put it that way human beings seem more pathetic. Ethics are not pathetic and I agree that they exist but you can't argue that they are absolute.

 

[Moridin]

There seems to be two rival classification of the system of ethics and morals. Since the are vastly connected, I will touch upon them both in the following text.

Before getting to that, I would like to form at least some definition(s) of ethics and morals as well as state how they differ from each other, strictly on a linguistic basis. The phrase 'ethical individuals knows it is wrong to cheat, while moral individuals do not cheat' is a quite good distinction with ethics being a set of principles or values and morals being modes of conduct that are taught and accepted as embodying principles of right and good.

One common connection with the above definitions of ethics and morals is that an authoritative institution, whether it be religious or materialistic, somehow teaches the difference between their definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' and that such definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' are widely accepted in the majority of the cases with an intent to pass on a set of behavioral methods of interaction to future generations. This includes a sense of ethics and morals as we know it limited only to humans.

On the other hand, there is an increasingly amount of evidence from evolutionary biology in favor of it being more than just an arbitrary and subjective definition by an authoritative body of what a specific culture defines as 'right' and 'wrong'. The vampire bat, for instance, demonstrates clear reciprocal altruism by regurgitating blood for others with less temporary luck in hunting. For this system to work, bats that have received blood must return the favor when the roles are reversed^1,2. Similar altruistic behavior connected to ethics and morals can be seen in a number of other animals³.

Assume an initial genetic variation of behavioral traits. Over time, less productive behavior will be selected against provided that the same genes do not control other productive behavior. Therefore, individuals with traits for productive behavior will increase. It is clearly shown by the documentary Nice Guys Finish First (see references) and the concept of Prisoners Dilemma in Game Theory that selfish behavior is not always the most successful behavior when it comes to survival and reproduction.

Moreover, it would seem logical to assume that even though there are a massive amount of different religious or materialistic authorities, the most fundamental ethics and morals are just about the same, no matter where you look. Random acts of killing is frowned upon in many cultures and species. This could be an example of convergent evolution.

Then of course, we have the issue with religious institutions historically being a source of 'eithics' and 'morals', as they have defined it.

To sum up, I would say that it is logical to assume that morals have been selected over time and that the word moral is just a description of this process and certain behavioral traits. Ethics on the other hand, that is, rules of consensus could very well be a traditional phenomena, enforcing the already existing phenomenas that the word 'morals' describe.

¹ http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/personalityandindividuality/morals.shtml
² Laurent Excoffier Why can't people be more like bats? Nature 399, 322 - 322
³ Dawkins, Richard The Virus of Faith; Dawkins, Richard Nice Guys Finish First[21:53 to 24:40] (Both available on Google Video and YouTube)

 

[baywax]

you can't argue that they (ethics) are absolute.

Since we agree that ethics is an "artificial" rendition of natural laws that are rendered by humans in the form of written and unwritten laws I really can't argue from that standpoint that they are absolute. This is because there exists some kind of barrier that prevents us from approaching the area of "absolutes" in our attempts to replicate nature.

"It can be shown from the laws of thermodynamics that absolute zero can never be achieved artificially, though it is possible to reach temperatures arbitrarily close to it through the use of cryocoolers. This is the same principle that ensures no machine can be 100% efficient." From Wicpedia.

What is absolutely true is that without ethics there would be a lot of traffic accidents and dead pedestrians. What's even weirder is that there would be much less of a population of humans in general and this would probably have an "ethical" effect for the rest of life on earth.

So it appears that either we become 99% efficient in our attempts at ethics or there will be some kind of dramatic reduction in our population according to what Russ has termed the "downward pressure" of environmental elements.

 

[raolduke]

Without ethics then couldn't you say that Darwins theory would show its true colors?

 

[Moridin]

Which in your opinion would be?

 

[raolduke]

Ethics would probably be created just because the strong would survive and then set up a code of conduct.

 

[baywax]

Without ethics then couldn't you say that Darwins theory would show its true colors?

Survival of the fittest can mean a lot of different things. "Fittest" doesn't alway imply brute strength or strength in numbers. It can mean "intellectual fitness" and the cunning tactics of survival that are spawned by that kind of strength.

I'd say that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is well supported by the development of ethics in human societies. Ethics evolved with humans as a survival tool for every civilization. Its fairly obvious that evolution passed along valuable tools, like the brain, to use in the survival of the species "competition".

You could be right in the sense that without ethics, our families, groups, societies, communities and civilizations would all collapse in disorder and disarray. But that would simply be a function of and more evidence of evolution itself.

Here's a thread on the PF where religion, morals and ethics are discussed as playing a large role in maintaining the longevity of civilizations.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1307391#post1307391

 

[raolduke]

I already agree with that. Its just to show that ethics can never be absolute. Not to say that you couldn't apply "ethical" to a properly working machine or system. This is just a little word fun but - Man vs. Machine, How would you explain society?. It works exactly how it wants (perfectly) with flaw.

 

[baywax]

I already agree with that. Its just to show that ethics can never be absolute. Not to say that you couldn't apply "ethical" to a properly working machine or system. This is just a little word fun but - Man vs. Machine, How would you explain society?. It works exactly how it wants (perfectly) with flaw.

It appears, after studying evolution, that it is the "flaws" that lead to new, better evolved strengths in life and in society. Since the Russian Holocaust of the Ukrainians (est. 12,000,000 killed) and the German Holocaust of the Hebrews (est. 6,000,000 killed) there have been fewer and less brutal "unethical" events such as those. (Now there is more sensitivity and caution used to stop such possible events). These flaws may have acted as a "wake up" call that helped steer the evolution of the human society in a direction of cooperative longevity. And that is all about survival.

 

[raolduke]

Wouldnt humanity be better off if, to say, Hitler did accomplish his goal. It wouldn't seem that great at first but it would turn out nicer. The problem with people is that they expect home-runs right off the bat.

 

[baywax]

Wouldnt humanity be better off if, to say, Hitler did accomplish his goal. It wouldn't seem that great at first but it would turn out nicer. The problem with people is that they expect home-runs right off the bat.

How would "it turn out nicer" according to your reasoning, if any?

 

[raolduke]

I am not to sure of Hitler’s theories, maybe you do, but population control means diversity would be eliminated. If the government was completely controlling (reference to Orwell inserted here) and if things ever degenerated to concepts like "newspeak" it would eliminate conversations like the one we are having now. We would be completely dull but in my opinion that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
To say that I am a sadist and I only practice my belief on people who feel pleasure from pain (masochists) - is there anything wrong with this?

 

[baywax]

I am not to sure of Hitler’s theories, maybe you do, but population control means diversity would be eliminated. If the government was completely controlling (reference to Orwell inserted here) and if things ever degenerated to concepts like "newspeak" it would eliminate conversations like the one we are having now. We would be completely dull but in my opinion that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
To say that I am a sadist and I only practice my belief on people who feel pleasure from pain (masochists) - is there anything wrong with this?

Hitler practiced his sadistic measures on non-consenting participants. Including homosexuals, sexual deviants, gypsies, Hebrews, Africans, resistance fighters (Dutch, Polacks, Russians, Communists, Democrats, and many others). He expected his staff to commit suicide with him (allegedly) in his Berlin bunker rather than give up to the allies. Many didn't and fled after he (allegedly) killed himself. Some have speculated that he escaped and survived to form Ikea in Sweden.

If you practice your sadistic pleasures in the same manner as Hitler, it is by every indication unethical and it won't last long because of reprisals and revenge seekers.

 

[Moridin]

raolduke, evolution or Darwin does not state that the strongest is the one that survives, it is the survival of the fittest, not strongest. Fittest in this concept is not the one that is the most well-trained individual, it just means that the individual best suited for survival will survive in a given environment. Evolution does not work towards a goal of better organisms on an absolute scale.

 

[baywax]

raolduke, evolution or Darwin does not state that the strongest is the one that survives, it is the survival of the fittest, not strongest. Fittest in this concept is not the one that is the most well-trained individual, it just means that the individual best suited for survival will survive in a given environment. Evolution does not work towards a goal of better organisms on an absolute scale.

This all seems true. Take the dinos again for example. These were demonstratively unethical creatures yet their species survived the rigors of living on this planet for over 300 million years. That's a long reign for any species. It was only until humans or their immediate anscestors were required to live cooperatively, in groups, in trees, on the savanah or on the beach that they somehow learned to develop an ethic.

What was it that brought about the development of ethics in groups of humans? Did they learn by trial and error? Was it a trait learned by example from other animals such as elephants or wolves?