Moral ethics

[ckBejug]

Which code of moral ethics mosts describes the way you are?

Ethic Egoism- doing acts only beneficial to yourself
Ethic Altruism- doing acts only beneficial to other people
Utilitarianism- doing whatever will bring about the greatest good with the least amount of pain
Deotony- abiding by a moral code for the sake of lawfullness and/or following what religion dictates is right and wrong.

Theorist/Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg deduced the stages of moral obligation in society. Here is an overview of what he said....

Kohlberg believed...and was able to demonstrate through studies...that people progressed in their moral reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behavior) through a series of stages. He believed that there were six identifiable stages which could be more generally classified into three levels.

Kohlberg's classification can be outlined in the following manner:

PRECONVENTIONAL
punishment-obedience orientation
personal reward orientation

CONVENTIONAL
good boy-nice girl orientation
law and order orientation

POSTCONVENTIONAL
social contract orientation
universal ethical principle orientation

While it would be very nice if everyone got there, it's rare for people to ever reach the final stage in the steps he outlined. The final stage is the one in which you do something simply because you have personally decided, with no outside influences, that it is the right thing to do. I think that this is ultimately what morality boils down to- we decide to do something because we firmly believe it is the right thing to do.

The way I see it, the first is obviously not the way. The second would only benefit mankind if EVERYONE followed it, but sadly, due to the seemingly innate selfishness of most humans, people seem to be prone to taking advantage of other's kindness. (Abraham Maslow, another psychologist, states in his hierarchy of needs that humans cannot be innately kind unless their own needs are fulfilled. This is perhaps the reason altruism fails. I think that makes a lot of sense. People seem to be selfish by nature, and kindness is taken advantage of a lot.)

A combination of the second, third, and fourth pretty much describe the way I try to do things. Some people feel that one of the main benefits of theism (and thus deotony) is that it keeps people in line. I could probably say I abide by deotony, but I can't say that without adding that the way I work also involves ethic altruism and utilitarianism since I would put my life on the line to save another's, and sometimes decisions I make (like researching and working with mice.....) are based on the idea of saving the many over saving the few- Utilitarian thinking. Of course, if all can be saved, that's an entirely different matter.

But I don't (mostly) abide by deotony (the Bible) simply because "God says so." I try to make decisions because it's what I've truly decided to work best for me in life. For example, I decided to abstain from sex (I mean casual sex, not like sex in a long-term kind of relationship/ within the bounds of of being engaged and/or married) not because God/the Bible said it's BAD, or because it would be considered "immoral," but for reasons on physical, emotional, and psychological levels that go beyond the religious aspect and into the pragmatic.

Ok, I'm tired of typing... Now how about you guys?

[Anonymouse]

Well what if we are a little in between altruism and egoism? I can't quite put my finger on it.

This is a great thread by the way, time and quality are put into it.

I think for the most part everyone will find a combination of the moralities listed in them, not just one or two.

In any event, I think capitalism, what Mises and the Austrian School of Economics have highlighted, is pretty much what speaks for us all, we all move for our self interested for most of the time, not neglecting the other moralities, but that is in sum and substance our way of passage.

[ckBejug]

Ok, so I get what Ayn Rand talks about how reason and (moral) egoism are the philosophical foundations that capitalism is based on. I also think Mises gives a pretty convincing argument as to how capitalism is the one system that pretty much provides benefits for everyone. I just don;t see how it would work in practice. Sure it's off the main topic of the thread but we're being intelligent-ish so lets carry on anyway.................

[fIReBuRntInHeLL]

Most people, including me! go with Egoism and Altruism.
But i believe the biggest "moral ethic" to human is the egoism. whatever u do, u do it for yourself. you love, you eat, u go school, u make and hav friends, u sleep and etc etc u do all these stuff
only for yourself, because u always wanna feel good. even when u do something about someone, still u doing for yourself so l8r u ill feel better.
So egoism for me!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by ckBejug Ok, so I get what Ayn Rand talks about how reason and (moral) egoism are the philosophical foundations that capitalism is based on. I also think Mises gives a pretty convincing argument as to how capitalism is the one system that pretty much provides benefits for everyone. I just don;t see how it would work in practice. Sure it's off the main topic of the thread but we're being intelligent-ish so lets carry on anyway.................

It's not a matter of "practice", since we all work in this fashion daily, all working for our self interest, based on the individual. The Austrian School of Economics is the only economic thought dedicated to focusing on economics per the actions of the individual, whereas the Kenysians and Classicals, etc., all focus on economics from a group or collective perspective.

Individualism is the one pillar we are all sure of, that collectivism has historically tried to wipe away, be at democracy, fascism, or socialism. For all political systems it has been the individual that has been feared for ideas whether of dissent or disagreement, grow from the individual, only the individual can think and act accordingly to his thoughts.

Most people around me at least, act in between egoism and altruism, and I am sort of classing myself in that as well, since no one can be purely altruistic nor purely egoistic, even if we tried, since directly or indirectly we would be working towards the other end. Just my two cents, I'm sure Tramanian and Arvestaked would have far more to contribute to this than I.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse For all political systems it has been the individual that has been feared for ideas whether of dissent or disagreement, grow from the individual, only the individual can think and act accordingly to his thoughts.

You're forgetting the good old US of A. Here we have the electoral college, originally put in place to keep the masses from gaining too loud of a voice in the election of a national leader. We also had property qualifications and voting tests, though those are things of the past. The hoi poloi was what was feared, almost as much as the tyranny of the individual.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You're forgetting the good old US of A. Here we have the electoral college, originally put in place to keep the masses from gaining too loud of a voice in the election of a national leader. We also had property qualifications and voting tests, though those are things of the past. The hoi poloi was what was feared, almost as much as the tyranny of the individual.

Ha! That's the most common fallacy that somehow the electoral college is to keep the masses from gaining power. The 'masses' can never gain power. The "democracy" has already divided people along mass minded thinking, since that is what democracy is about, mass mindedness, grouping people based on ideology, race, culture, ethnicity, gender, that is the way democracy works, mass politics, mass rallies and every politician utters that word. Indeed it allows the small clique on top to gain power via the masses, as Hitler so eloquently stated in Mein Kampf. The "republic" which the framers had set up is now but a microcosm in our minds in the haze of "democracy".

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Ha! That's the most common fallacy that somehow the electoral college is to keep the masses from gaining power. The 'masses' can never gain power. The "democracy" has already divided people along mass minded thinking, since that is what democracy is about, mass mindedness, grouping people based on ideology, race, culture, ethnicity, gender, that is the way democracy works, mass politics, mass rallies and every politician utters that word.

Ha? Been watching too much Pinky and the Brain? You seem to be forgetting that the electoral college was put in place more than 200 years ago, well before the "democracy" had done anything. I wasn't speaking to the current state of affairs, only pointing out that it has not always been so. Then again, neither of us was alive back then, so what the hell do we know?

[violette829]

UGH! Ehemm....Going back to Ethics...I believe that it IS natural to feel that u must always take care of ur needs first, tend to urself, before u can get to others. In the heirarchy of needs, we see how this idea comes about. It is sad to say, but no one will tread heavy waters, unless they are wearing a wet suit, for anyone. We first look at our own situation, then we act. It sounds selfish, but we are human. If we don't think about our needs, we will be risking our lives all the time. We must make sure that our minds, as well as our bodies, are in tact before we are even able to help out someone else. The only time I see this theory get blurry is when a mother's natural instincts act to benefit her children. I've seen it many times with my mother. She won't even give herself a second thought; she'll just do whatever we need. Otherwise, as far as people, as a whole, of COURSE we do for ourselves before others....we have to....how else will we survive? The best example is the theory of Evolution.....and I am not about to go into that, u must all know it by now........u BRAINIACS!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by violette829 UGH! Ehemm....Going back to Ethics...I believe that it IS natural to feel that u must always take care of ur needs first, tend to urself, before u can get to others. In the heirarchy of needs, we see how this idea comes about. It is sad to say, but no one will tread heavy waters, unless they are wearing a wet suit, for anyone. We first look at our own situation, then we act. It sounds selfish, but we are human. If we don't think about our needs, we will be risking our lives all the time. We must make sure that our minds, as well as our bodies, are in tact before we are even able to help out someone else. The only time I see this theory get blurry is when a mother's natural instincts act to benefit her children. I've seen it many times with my mother. She won't even give herself a second thought; she'll just do whatever we need. Otherwise, as far as people, as a whole, of COURSE we do for ourselves before others....we have to....how else will we survive? The best example is the theory of Evolution.....and I am not about to go into that, u must all know it by now........u BRAINIACS!

Actually, what you probably wanted to say as your best example is economics.