Policy or Ethical Value
Ethics is the discipline that seeks to study and objectively and rationally define rules that make it possible to differentiate human behavior into good (or right) and bad (or wrong).
The last part of the definition is often summarized as a contrast between what is good and what is bad. It is no coincidence that morality as an ethical behavior is often combined with the concept of morality.
Difference with Morality
This practice is not entirely correct; In fact the rational adjective that appears in the first part of the definition serves to properly distinguish between morality.
The set of values and rules of life of a subject or group and morality, a term with which we rationalize Want to legitimize behavior in an objective way.
In other words, ethics and morality are often used as synonyms without realizing the small but substantial difference: morality is the set of norms and values of a subject (or group).
Whereas morality, is to consider it together. Other than that, it logically reflects on that.
Ethics regards norms and values as given, whereas ethics tries to give them a rational and logical explanation. “Killing is wrong” for a subject’s morality while ethics also tries to explain why.
Objective ethics: does it exist?
Despite the failure of philosophy in the classical sense (the science of all sciences with the notion of answering the greatest mysteries of existence).
Which is also concerned with ethics and its objectivity, many claim to have arrived at an objective definition of morality.
Simple rationality highlights the substantial similarity of the words objective and rational. This attitude is the basis for axiom error (an axiom is a proposition that is assumed to be true.).
Every theory must recognize strong points, unproven truths that are considered to be true and from which all other propositions are derived logically and without logical error.
Unfortunately, in the ethical realm, these “fixed points” cannot be generalized, although within homogeneous groups there may be many similar ones, making it possible to exchange and discuss ethical issues.
Unfortunately, it is quite common among people to discuss ethical issues without first verifying that they have commonality of axioms (intersystem fallacy).
So it so happens that we want to conclude the thesis of the interlocutor using our own principles: we are very satisfied with our great reasoning ability, when in fact we are making a serious logical error.
It is clear that if we play according to our rules (of our system), one proposition of another may be “wrong”, but demonstrating a universal wrongness is wrong, we have only demonstrated.
Let’s try to explain the intersystem illusion with two examples.
Example of believers – A Muslim and a Christian find themselves discussing moral issues. The Christian (Muslim) constantly tries to convince the other that his morality is correct by.
The (Christian) Muslim would be able to challenge another’s thesis simply by saying “but I do not believe that Jesus (Mohammed) is the source of the Absolute Truth”.
The theological example clearly shows that we do not see that we are using one axiom (which may not be valid for another) because we are prone to a rational error.
Ethics is the set of norms and values of a subject (or group), whereas ethics, in addition to considering this set, reflect rationally on it.
Example of the killer – what has been said so far seems really discouraging, a kind of impossibility of talking to each other. In reality it is not so.
I can prove to another that he is wrong not by using my axioms, but by using my own, and to lead him to a conclusion that is absurd to him (but if… technique).
If he is a rational person, he will revise his axioms and probably come closer to me. Let’s say he wants to convince a murderer that his morals are wrong (if they pay me I kill, that’s my job).
The Wrong Way (Intersystem Error) is to start by telling him “But killing is bad…”: I’m trying to convince him using “my” rules. The correct way is: “Well, if they pay you you get killed.
You get an envelope with a name and a down payment, go and kill, then get the balance in your Cayman Islands account.” Correct?
I want to make a contract with you, here is the envelope and deposit, according to your rates”. He opens the envelope and finds his name written on it.
He’ll probably try “huh, but that’s not true”. With a lot of patience you start to point out that he had to change the rules (eg adding).
For example “except yourself”) and you find a new flaw in his system that he has just defined.
In pursuit of an objective morality (especially one aimed at opposing moral relativism or the absence of moral rules) one can choose basically two wrong paths:
We choose a manifest morality (leave it to God to explain to us what is right or what is wrong), that is, coming from a manifest religion;
As noted above, for a believer of any other religion, an atheist or an agnostic, that morality has no merit.
An easily understandable moral formulation is chosen, which is often effective (simple ethics). The (wrong) argument is more or less the following:
This theory (or this set of principles) seems unprovable to me, enough for me to be sure that it can apply to everyone! From a psychological point of view.
People who develop a simple morality are motivated by a great moral charge to which their self-esteem is often (fine).
In some cases the lack of coherence is obvious and it is not difficult to find cases in which the moral rule is broken (generally that are accelerated and thereby Now don’t know how to get out).
If the choice is more rational and wise, as we shall see, this path often leads to considerable moral imperfection.
In both cases, although the formulation is simple (at most one sentence), it cannot be expected to hold as a universal axiom.
Ethics and Neocynism: Consistency
In the case of simple morality, the general case of inconsistent moral representations is one whose only saying is “love your neighbor as yourself”.
A more complicated matter is represented by all the various forms of Sermon on the Mount, the golden rule of Christians: whatever you want men to do to you, let them also do.
Many Christians (and non-Christians who have chosen the rule as impenetrable at first sight) do not realize that the rule promotes the very moral relativism they condemn.
If enforced, as many There will be morals as many as men! Jesus realized the importance of reciprocity in morality, but he explained the preaching in a completely destructive way.
Our desires are “wrong” then it is complete anarchy. Let’s think about this trivial matter: I want that person to love me. Under the rule, I would be compelled to love even those who love me, but whom I do not love.
Or, I would like the professor to promote me; When I become a professor, I will promote everyone! Rules are a very nave way of codifying ethics. For more details, I refer to The Mystery of God.
It should be clear by now that the search for general and global axioms is completely utopian.
This is because reality is largely made up of uncertain scenarios, every situation, every environment has a thousand variables, boundary conditions, exceptions, special cases, etc.
In general, people who believe in objective ethics tend to over-simplify reality, take many things lightly and ignore obvious cognitive dissonances.
Since reality is largely uncertain, and since the definition of morality can only be rational, does nothing but apply the principle of rational choice to morality:
A morality is rational if it is consistent.
For Neocinism, that is, morality and coherence (of our whole lives) coincide at all moments of our lives, which is the harmony between actions and our moral precepts of the particular moment in which the action takes place.
Frustrated with the statement? Logically speaking, the greater your frustration, the less rational you are!
At this point, many proponents of simple ethics still will not be convinced and will try to “complicate” the initial rule, in any case believing they will arrive at some objective.
Too bad they run into a second problem of morality: perfection.
When a person wants to make his morality clear (that is, to alert him) he must list a set of rules on which morality is based.
The procedure is similar to that of a jurist who clarifies the law in a code. Without a Code, our judge, no matter how good he is, will never be able to claim to enforce the law.
But he will apply “his law”, often not always the same, depending on his personality and even That depends on the mood of the day.
Judges. It will also not be able to effectively transfer the law to others. The set of laws should be coherent but also complete, i.e. should manage all situations that can occur in general.
Similarly, ethical rules should positively handle as many cases as possible. We see two cases of simple morality that are not complete.
The first case (good) – for example, consider an ethics consisting of three rules I was getting
You might also like: