Which Ethical philosophies are better and why?

[Qolselanu]

This was originally posted by Darth Wong on the TWCentre forums.

Question: Why is it wrong to murder someone?

Answers:
1. Because the Bible/Talmud/Koran says so (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)
2. Because it is harmful, and creates bad karma (Hinduism)
3. Because it violates the victim's human rights (Humanism)
4. Because if everybody thought it was OK to commit murder, society would fall apart (Universalism, Duty Ethics)
5. Because you should treat others as you would have them treat you (Confucianism)
6. Because murder is caused by having too much anger and not enough sympathy (Buddhism, Taoism, Aristotle's Golden Mean)
7. Because murder creates suffering and destroys pleasure/utility (Utilitarianism)
8. Because I will go to jail if I murder someone (Objectivism, aka "enlightened self interest")
9. Because it is not socially acceptable in your culture (Social Relativism)
10. Because it's illegal (Legalism)
11. Because the mofo's ****** will bust a cap in yo *** (Gangsta)
12. Because none of you understand Timecube (WTF?)

He got a bit daft with #11 and #12 but he was just messing around. Anyway, see the subject line! Which Ethical philosophies are better and why?

[Zephyr]

The ones where you get to make up the rules as you go along. Why? I don't feel like spelling it out....

[Eraserhead]

#12 actually makes no sense, because Gene Ray implores his readers to kill those ignorant of the Timecube.

[Qolselanu]

I thought there would be someone who knew what the Timecube is. :P

[Eraserhead]

5 and 6 more or less represent my way of thinking. I don't murder people because I sympathize and empathize with people. In murdering somebody, I would vicariously experience the murder from their perspective as well. I suppose sympathy, and especially empathy, make the boundaries between individuals permeable, leading to altruistic behavior. Most certainly this would have been an evolutionary advantage.

[UltraShy]

#3 is the best of the choices given. #8 is also good.

I think people basically agree not to kill each other as it's in everyone's self-interest. Without the understanding that you won't kill me & I in turn won't kill you, we'd all have to walk around with our backs to a wall holding a loaded gun ready to kill those who try to kill us. Not a very good way to live.

[missionhillandy]

#2, I am a strong believer of karma. (the kind where good/bad things happen to you equal to the good/bad things you've done, not reincarnation)

[Zephyr]

Originally Posted by Nicolay

5 and 6 more or less represent my way of thinking. I don't murder people because I sympathize and empathize with people. In murdering somebody, I would vicariously experience the murder from their perspective as well. I suppose sympathy, and especially empathy, make the boundaries between individuals permeable, leading to altruistic behavior. Most certainly this would have been an evolutionary advantage.

I think that was Hume's position. The evolutionary ties are obvious - a species that consisted of members that couldn't get along at all with each other or were hell-bent on killing each other wouldn't be too likely to propagate.

[WineKitty]

Originally Posted by missionhillandy

#2, I am a strong believer of karma. (the kind where good/bad things happen to you equal to the good/bad things you've done, not reincarnation)

I wish I could believe in karma but many bad things happen to really good people and vice versa.

I will go with 3.

[missionhillandy]

Originally Posted by Penny

I wish I could believe in karma but many bad things happen to really good people and vice versa.

I will go with 3.

When considering it, I believe you need to take in every aspect. Examples: Arrogance, guilt, isolation, being outcasted, loneliness ect ect.

Some people have big personality flaws without even realizing or acknowledging them because they put ego and pride before facts, so they externally or internally suffer as a result without knowledge of the cause.

[Mr. Frostman]

I like 4 and 7.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Frostman

I like 4 and 7.

7. Because murder creates suffering and destroys pleasure/utility (Utilitarianism)

There are problems with utilitarian philosophy. The idea of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness and it would be morally right to kill someone if doing so created maximum happiness. I remember an example from a philosophy class back in college.

In the example a group of people are exploring a cave by the sea shore. The tide is rising and it's time for them to leave the cave. The only way out is one opening at the top of the cave and the first one to try to get out is a very fat man. He gets stuck in the narrow opening and the rest of the group can't get him unstuck despite their best efforts. The water is rising and everyone -- except the fat man who has his head outside the cave -- will drown if they don't get this guy out of the way so they can escape. It just happens that one of them has a stick of dynamite and a match.

Do they use it to blow him away so they can save themselves? Either they murder an innocent man or the rest of the group dies. A utilitarian philosopher would say killing one is better than letting a dozen others die, so blow him up if that's what must be done. Yes, it's a far fetched hypothetical, but then so are most of the ideas dreamed up by philosophers.

You see examples of utilitarianism in real life when two fighter jets are launched to "escort" any plane that might have a terrorist situation. Those planes are there to shoot down a commercial jet before it can be used as a missile by a suicidal hijacker. The pilot who pulls the trigger and the commanders who give orders to pull the trigger would technically be murderers -- they just killed innocent people, even though they did so for the greater good to save even more people from being killed.

Utilitarianism uses people as a means to an end. You have no rights unless those rights happen to maximize overall happiness. You're fully expendable and killing you or making you miserable is fine if that's what is needed to maximize overall happiness.

[Qolselanu]

UltraShy, please tell us what you would do in the above situations that would be better.

Personally, I like #3, #5, and, #7. I also see a point in #9 in very limited situations.

[coldmorning]

Mainly #4 but I can also see 5, 8 and 11.

[Mr. Frostman]

Originally Posted by UltraShy

There are problems with utilitarian philosophy. The idea of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness and it would be morally right to kill someone if doing so created maximum happiness. I remember an example from a philosophy class back in college.

I thought the idea behind utilitarianism was to create the most benefit for largest amount of people. Now that I think about it, I can see where that might be a problem if someone tried to justify a murder by arguing that the cost of one person's life was outweighed by the benefit it had on a larger number of people. I'm not sure I would agree with that. I know very little about philosophy though, and probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

[Zephyr]

Originally Posted by Mr. Frostman

I thought the idea behind utilitarianism was to create the most benefit for largest amount of people.

It is. Ultrashy pointed out a common criticism of it: it uses people as means to an end in ways that might seem immoral. In some ways it's kind of the opposite of Kant's categorical imperative.

[Qolselanu]

After thinking about it some more I don't see any even a limited use for #9... I still agree with 3,5,7.

[RubyTuesday]

Number 11 is closest to my reasoning.
-Because it eventually harms me to harm another.

However, sometimes murder might be right. Depending on what I consider important to me. I mean that because I'm not spiritual enough to be able to give up my body, then I figure I would kill someone who was intent on killing me.

So, either way, it all comes down to what's in my best interests. I believe that even altruism is still all about what's best for oneself.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Ultrashy pointed out a common criticism of it [utilitarianism]: it uses people as means to an end in ways that might seem immoral. In some ways it's kind of the opposite of Kant's categorical imperative.

Exactly, I was merely pointing out an obvious problem with it that utilitarian philosophers must deal with.

I never said I could come up with a better idea than shooting down a hijacked 747 in rural Illinois before it makes it to the Sears Tower when it's crowded on a weekday morning. The common rule of "Thou shalt not kill" would have to be changed so that it has further notes to more fully explain it, explain that it's OK to kill innocent people if doing so results in the greater good for society overall.

Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea of rights. There are no absolute rights. You only have a right if it results in maximum happiness for society overall.

The goal is maximum happiness in aggregate. This means that some could be wildly happy, while some are left in absolute agony -- but that would be justified if it produced maximum happiness on average. It doesn't look at the happiness of anyone on an individual level, so it doesn't care if you're miserable as long as society overall is at maximal happiness.

[Kelly]

#5 isn't limited only to Confucianism. IIRC, according to my social psych class oh, those many years ago, every culture has some form of a law of reciprocity, be it the Golden Rule, the Wiccan Rede, etc.

Have a nice day,
Kelly