![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Notes on Recording of Lecture 31/08/2022
Aug. 31st, 2022 02:13 pmWhat is ethics? :
Ethics is the study of morality and good and bad behavior.
What is good character? :
Good character is having strong moral fiber and being able to perform the ethical and good action when presented with different options.
How to improve good character traits? :
One can improve good character traits in themselves by trying to embody them and follow them even when it is inconvenient.
Does the result or what you do determine if something is ethical? :
I believe the result determines if the action was ethical. One can have good intentions but their actions can result in bad outcomes, so therefore it is the result that determines if something is ethical. I don't believe that what you did to get there doesn't matter but the result is more important than the steps taken to get there.
Do you lean more toward utilitarianism or deontology?
I lean more toward utilitarianism.
Scenario A, outcome homeless man gets drunk:
No you were not ethical although your intentions were good. You intended to help a homeless man but the result was bad. Your money could have been spent in a better way if your intention was to help the homeless. You could have bought food for a local homeless shelter or soup kitchen or even donated your time, that is a more guaranteed way to see that your money and effort leads to good outcomes.
Scenario A, outcome homeless man buys a hamburger:
You were ethical in this scenario. Although my point from the first outcome still stands, in this case the result led to something positive so therefore you were ethical in this case.
Scenario B, outcome you offer him a job and he accepts:
You were ethical in this scenario. You gave the homeless man a path out of the life he was living and gave him a chance at changing.
Scenario B, outcome he gets sick from lack of food:
I still believe that you were ethical, you offered him a job and gave him an opportunity. There is no guarantee he would have spent your money on food in the first place and if your desire was to assist the homeless then as I said in scenario A, you could have donated your time or money to a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, guaranteeing that somebody in need will get assistance through your efforts.
Do the ends justify the means? :
I have explained my take on this previously, but to reiterate, I don't believe that they do. Although the result is the more important aspect of the two in my opinion, the way you accomplish your task is still important and if you are not being ethical in the steps you take to accomplish your goal then the end was not ethical. Both are important and can not be considered without the other.
Is the concept of "a war to end all wars" ethical? :
I cannot say without more context. What is the war based on? Was the war stopped to end tyranny, or so that a rich country can get richer? Is the reason given to the people to go fight and end lives a farce to enlist more, or is it truly a righteous and ethical goal? If the scenario is that there is one country that refuses to govern ethically and treats their people as a mere means to their ends and does not consider their rights, as well as frequently encroaching on other country's rights and is generally causing chaos throughout the world; then I believe that if all other diplomatic options have failed and any attempt inside the country by the people have been turned aside by authoritarian regimes, then yes perhaps a war to end all wars would be ethical.
So . . . what is Kant’s categorical imperative? :
Kant's categorical imperative is a system of ethics that hard defines morals and ethics as laws that must be followed regardless of situation, intent, or personal opinion.
What is the golden rule? :
The golden rule as I learned it was treat people how you want to be treated.
Does The Declaration of Independence contain the categorical imperative? :
Yes The Declaration of Independence contains the categorical imperative. The statement "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." categorically states that all men are created equal with the imperative that they have rights such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness that nobody can take away.
What do you think of the categorical imperative? :
I'm not a big fan of Kant's categorical imperative. It seems more like a describing the natural consequences for events rather than describing the morality of them. One example I found in an article by Britannica "Steal whenever you can get away with it" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/categorical-imperative) is a categorical imperative that states that thievery is okay as long as you do not face the consequences of it even though it is not moral. It can be used by people for whatever they believe to be true and does not deal with the larger question of if the actions taken themselves are moral. The morals that can be defined are tied to the individual rather than what humanity as a whole may believe, which can lead to some dicey universal laws.
Ethics is the study of morality and good and bad behavior.
What is good character? :
Good character is having strong moral fiber and being able to perform the ethical and good action when presented with different options.
How to improve good character traits? :
One can improve good character traits in themselves by trying to embody them and follow them even when it is inconvenient.
Does the result or what you do determine if something is ethical? :
I believe the result determines if the action was ethical. One can have good intentions but their actions can result in bad outcomes, so therefore it is the result that determines if something is ethical. I don't believe that what you did to get there doesn't matter but the result is more important than the steps taken to get there.
Do you lean more toward utilitarianism or deontology?
I lean more toward utilitarianism.
Scenario A, outcome homeless man gets drunk:
No you were not ethical although your intentions were good. You intended to help a homeless man but the result was bad. Your money could have been spent in a better way if your intention was to help the homeless. You could have bought food for a local homeless shelter or soup kitchen or even donated your time, that is a more guaranteed way to see that your money and effort leads to good outcomes.
Scenario A, outcome homeless man buys a hamburger:
You were ethical in this scenario. Although my point from the first outcome still stands, in this case the result led to something positive so therefore you were ethical in this case.
Scenario B, outcome you offer him a job and he accepts:
You were ethical in this scenario. You gave the homeless man a path out of the life he was living and gave him a chance at changing.
Scenario B, outcome he gets sick from lack of food:
I still believe that you were ethical, you offered him a job and gave him an opportunity. There is no guarantee he would have spent your money on food in the first place and if your desire was to assist the homeless then as I said in scenario A, you could have donated your time or money to a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, guaranteeing that somebody in need will get assistance through your efforts.
Do the ends justify the means? :
I have explained my take on this previously, but to reiterate, I don't believe that they do. Although the result is the more important aspect of the two in my opinion, the way you accomplish your task is still important and if you are not being ethical in the steps you take to accomplish your goal then the end was not ethical. Both are important and can not be considered without the other.
Is the concept of "a war to end all wars" ethical? :
I cannot say without more context. What is the war based on? Was the war stopped to end tyranny, or so that a rich country can get richer? Is the reason given to the people to go fight and end lives a farce to enlist more, or is it truly a righteous and ethical goal? If the scenario is that there is one country that refuses to govern ethically and treats their people as a mere means to their ends and does not consider their rights, as well as frequently encroaching on other country's rights and is generally causing chaos throughout the world; then I believe that if all other diplomatic options have failed and any attempt inside the country by the people have been turned aside by authoritarian regimes, then yes perhaps a war to end all wars would be ethical.
So . . . what is Kant’s categorical imperative? :
Kant's categorical imperative is a system of ethics that hard defines morals and ethics as laws that must be followed regardless of situation, intent, or personal opinion.
What is the golden rule? :
The golden rule as I learned it was treat people how you want to be treated.
Does The Declaration of Independence contain the categorical imperative? :
Yes The Declaration of Independence contains the categorical imperative. The statement "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." categorically states that all men are created equal with the imperative that they have rights such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness that nobody can take away.
What do you think of the categorical imperative? :
I'm not a big fan of Kant's categorical imperative. It seems more like a describing the natural consequences for events rather than describing the morality of them. One example I found in an article by Britannica "Steal whenever you can get away with it" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/categorical-imperative) is a categorical imperative that states that thievery is okay as long as you do not face the consequences of it even though it is not moral. It can be used by people for whatever they believe to be true and does not deal with the larger question of if the actions taken themselves are moral. The morals that can be defined are tied to the individual rather than what humanity as a whole may believe, which can lead to some dicey universal laws.
