This page is something like a stub, a try at suggesting a structure element for the SourceOfEthics discussion. It might be a model for similar pages of other participants in the discussion.
The page contains (1) a summary that is intended for a future collection of such summaries maybe in a page like OurConceptsOfEthics?. It will also contain (2) various elements of my view of ethics, as they grow during the discussions.
I consider this page as a personal workspace in MaintainerMode, so please don’t refactor it as you would other wiki pages. Please use the “discussion” section to suggest major changes. – HelmutLeitner
I think that “ethics” is a phenomenon with lots of historical contributions e. g. from the many religions and philosophers. One can learn about this diversity e. g. at universities or from books. There are, of course different views and definitons. This is given. To seek the “one true new definition of ethics” makes no sense. Ethics is a fuzzy concept, a bag of issues. Roughly ethics is about “what is good” and about guidelines or rules that are intended to help making “good decisions”.
Ethics is related to the concept of “freedom”, because without a choice ethics makes no sense.
Ethics is related to the concept of “advantage”, because “good” is never abstract but always a “good for X”. Something seems generally “good” when it is good for me, my family, my community, the society, the ecology of planet earth, the universe. But it is rare that these are not conflicting. And ethics gets nasty when the “for X” is hidden.
Ethics is paradoxical, because it may offer another choice and increase your freedom. But it may also reduce your freedom, when you follow an authority closely. Similarly, ethics, as a personal philosophy, is a way to reflect on what we do and so increases our autonomy. But ethics, as a ruleset, can be used to dominate the behaviour of others (in this it appears as a predecessor of laws). Ethics can also serve other interest, like building authority or for making a living as an author - it will then look different.
I do not think that there is a “true ethic”, because the concept of “truth” is difficult in itself. Even most natural scientists think that their theories and knowledge are hypthetical, although it is reasonable to have some confidence in them because they are well tested. Ethics may also be tested (1) to be accepted by people and (2) to work in practice. The first is easier than the second, and in general this is much harder in ethics than in physics.
Perhaps ethics should be seen less as a set of rules and more as a process to become aware of the needs/wants/interests of others with the intention to take them into account. If this is true then ethics is less advanced by intellectual logic but more by dialogue culture. This also means to be open about the own needs/wants/interests.
An ethics concept should help people to live together in peace and relative happiness. This will be hardly possible without caring and sharing. Traditional philosophical ethics is not very effective at pushing that.
Ethics is full of contradictions. I think that a perfect ethical system can not have to form of a piece of rational, linear logic, like a mathematical system built from axioms. It must be dynamical, a new way of thinking and putting arguments. Perhaps more defining a process than its results.
I think (following the philosophy of KarlPopper), that human knowledge is hypothetical. Theories are scientific (rational) only when they can somehow be tested with reality. Confidence in theories can grow over time with good results of such test, but any new situation may prove them insufficient. Then a change of the theory or a new theory is required. We never know when we are at the end. We may have certain truths, but we can never be sure of them.