Ideas about morals and ethics - Am I wrong?

[gamerwiz09]

So, lately it seems I've been picking up on all these ethical and moral ideas that are written into the TV shows I watch. The thing is, I disagree with them.

Most of the time I can see how they would be 'good' and possibly 'right' decisions, but logically, rationally, and scientifically, they don't make any sense. Now, I'm not trying to sound like a hardass or anything, I'm just saying that if it came down to making a decision, I think I'd have to go with the most logically beneficial.

For example, is it wrong to sacrifice the lives of few to save the lives of many? Now, I say no. But I guess the general idea is that its better for no one to be sacrificed and just have everyone die. But I don't understand that.

For this second example, there's specific cases, but I'll just sum it up into a general category. Do people have different worths? Okay, now...I understand...everyone is equal, everyone is a life, and life no matter what should be...blah, blah. But logically, isn't a doctor or other highly educated individual of more use to the world than someone who is uneducated? Even a common laborer is more useful than, say, a whore. And if you had to choose who to sacrifice, would you offer up the whore, or let everyone die?

Here's another, is it worth it to put lives in danger or take a chance to save someone who is dying? I mean, come on. Ya, if you're a cop, its not really your decision to make, to save the person is your job, but is it worth it?

Again, I'm not trying to sound badass or anything, I'm just looking at something that isn't usually associated with logic - what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' and trying to apply logic to it. I'm just wondering, am I wrong to think this way? If I am, I'll admit it. I'm just asking because I consider you guys more knowledgeable than me and I'm curious what you think, and if possible, help me understand why these ideas are accepted.

 

[Almalexia]

Eh, I don't rely on 'ethics' and all that crap. It's just someone's populized ideals, most commonly in the form of religion. It's really better to use common sense and logic than ethics and morality.

 

[Kleidophoros]

Its not about being wothy or not or the logic in sacrificing a few to save the rest, its about conscience i believe. Who would want blood on their hands?

 

[gamerwiz09]

But the scenario is you either let a few die to save many, or you let them all die. I think the reason it's considered 'wrong' to save the few to save the many is because those people who consider it wrong also believe that as humans we don't have the right to decide who deserves to live and die. I think that's based off of religion though, because deciding would be God's job, and it would be bad to wield God's power.

 

[Kleidophoros]

But the scenario is you either let a few die to save many, or you let them all die. I think the reason it's considered 'wrong' to save the few to save the many is because those people who consider it wrong also believe that as humans we don't have the right to decide who deserves to live and die. I think that's based off of religion though, because deciding would be God's job, and it would be bad to wield God's power.

I meant that exactly; we will all die because of a storm but if we toss a few off board we might make it to the shore. If we all die well we all die but if i toss you into the sea then your blood is on my hands now. Yes you are old and sick and possibly a sex offender still i wouldnt be able to sleep when i go to bed.*

*But seriously, i will carve you up real nice if thats gonna save us.

 

[gamerwiz09]

But the point I'm trying to make is it's the blood of many or the blood of a few, so why not go with the few. The thing I didn't specify which your example is specific to, is whether you are part of the group.

If you are, like in your example, then it becomes a question of selfishness as well. If not than its merely a question of who deserves to die, few, or many. I still think the main problem is playing God though.

 

[G36E]

So, lately it seems I've been picking up on all these ethical and moral ideas that are written into the TV shows I watch. The thing is, I disagree with them.

There's your problem, you're fine.

 

[Kleidophoros]

But the point I'm trying to make is it's the blood of many or the blood of a few, so why not go with the few. The thing I didn't specify which your example is specific to, is whether you are part of the group.

i tried to explain that; if storm kills us then we die, i dont carry the burden, storm does. at least we try.
But if i kill you(or dont try to save you) to save us then its on me.

If you are, like in your example, then it becomes a question of selfishness as well. If not than its merely a question of who deserves to die, few, or many. I still think the main problem is playing God though.

Of course its about playing God. And i believe conscience. and selfishness. but selfishness has a reverse effect; i want to live so i might just agree to toss you offboard if thats gonna save me.

 

[gamerwiz09]

So, lately it seems I've been picking up on all these ethical and moral ideas that are written into the TV shows I watch. The thing is, I disagree with them.

There's your problem, you're fine.

Nay. They are commonly expressed ideas, but I've noticed them collected alot in movies/TV as of lately. I was waiting for someone to point that out.

If you are, like in your example, then it becomes a question of selfishness as well. If not than its merely a question of who deserves to die, few, or many. I still think the main problem is playing God though.

Of course its about playing God. And i believe conscience. and selfishness. but selfishness has a reverse effect; i want to live so i might just agree to toss you offboard if thats gonna save me.

Not quite sure what you're saying here.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

"Logically" isn't really the word. You're assuming that certain things have value (for no particular reason), then just putting them into a cost/benefit thingy.

But yeah, consequentialism is the best.

I'm just looking at something that isn't usually associated with logic - what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' and trying to apply logic to it.

Logic is rarely applied to anything haha. People just pretend to be using logic when they make claims.

 

[gamerwiz09]

"Logically" isn't really the word. You're assuming that certain things have value, then just putting them into a cost/benefit thingy.

But yeah, consequentialism is the best.

Meh. I was wondering this, trying to find the right word to describe - reason, rationality, science, logic, etc. I think logic fits well enough if your just talking about it. I suppose you're right though.

 

[Archonsod]

Or possibly utilitarianism.

There's no such thing as a correct morality or ethical code though. The search for a universal ethical system pre-occupies philosophy in much the same way as unified field theory preoccupies physics.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I think of ethics as a means of deciding behaviour. In that sense they sort of exist...

Edit: Like, when asked "why are you doing that?", the only rationale can be an ethical one (by definition). Am I making sense?

"Logically" isn't really the word. You're assuming that certain things have value, then just putting them into a cost/benefit thingy.

But yeah, consequentialism is the best.

Meh. I was wondering this, trying to find the right word to describe - reason, rationality, science, logic, etc. I think logic fits well enough if your just talking about it. I suppose you're right though.

Forgive me. I have hangups about things =p

 

[gamerwiz09]

Or possibly utilitarianism.

There's no such thing as a correct morality or ethical code though. The search for a universal ethical system pre-occupies philosophy in much the same way as unified field theory preoccupies physics.

Yup, yup, right again. I suppose I should have said "Are my ideas generally accepted and will I be considered some sort of evil person?"

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Yes, you'll probably be considered evil. Lots of people find utilitarianism revolting.

 

[Archonsod]

hey Archonsod, do you have a moral system of any sort? Not even a system -- a collection, if you will? I'm looking to build one for myself, but I haven't yet found a good place to start.

I'd say I was a nihilist, though I think it was either Mer or Mage (bloody wolf avatars) who claimed I was a utilitarian at some point. I probably fit somewhere between the two.

Yup, yup, right again. I suppose I should have said "Are my ideas generally accepted and will I be considered some sort of evil person?"

All depends on the group you're in at the time. All ethical philosophies oppose each other at some level, generally an "evil" person is someone who's ethical values are opposite to that of the prevailing group. Usually judgments tend to be specific to a given group; if you were a racist who supported children's charities for example whether you'd be considered evil would depend entirely on whether the judge placed higher emphasis on racial equality over altruism or children.

Generally, morality is not constant across a culture, nor do people usually straightjacket themselves into a particular code.

I agree in the hypothetical absence of divine law.

Even if there is a divine law, divinity does not excuse the need for explanation. "God said so" is hardly a compelling argument

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Arch has a heart of gold really.

Generally, morality is not constant across a culture

For example...

 

[Archonsod]

Take your pick.

 

[gamerwiz09]

Take your pick.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Well that's hardly going to help haha.
'
Oh wait, you said "across a culture" not "across cultures". Nevermind. I thought it was relativism or something.