Are all Ethics Fundamentally Utilitarian?

[2ndRateMind]

So, we have deontology, which posits a duty to keep rules (often owed to God). We have situation ethics, which presumes that morals depend on the situation, and therefore vary. We have virtue ethics, which suggests that good character is a necessary prerequisite to morality. And we have utilitarianism, which holds that outcome determines ethics (the greatest happiness of the greatest number).

But on examination, we can discern that all ethics depends on the outcome. The deontologist thinks that obedience leads to the best outcome. The situation ethicist thinks that flexibility depending on the circumstances will lead to the best outcome. The virtue ethicist thinks that a population of good characters leads to the best outcome. And utilitarianism is directly about outcome. So we have duty and rules, situation, character, and outcome on which to base our personal moral codes.

So, what do you think? Are all ethics fundamentally about outcomes, and therefore utilitarian in nature?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Lynx]

Ethics are more about motives than outcomes. If ethics were defined by outcomes you would need to see the result to evaluate the ethics.

From a religious perspective ethics involves a lot of "I am no more important than you are." It clears up a lot of confusion too.

I never said it was EASY though. You gotta keep reminding yourself of this every day. Sometimes multiple times a day. You are no more important than anybody else. It goes against human nature.

 

[2ndRateMind]

It is said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. To avoid that trap I think we must focus on objective outcomes. However, I will readily admit that the future is difficult to forecast. I think we need to progress gently and carefully, gathering feedback about the results of our decisions as we go.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Lynx]

It is said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. To avoid that trap I think we must focus on objective outcomes. However, I will readily admit that the future is difficult to forecast. I think we need to progress gently and carefully, gathering feedback about the results of our decisions as we go.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Yeah that ties in with what the Bible says about doing what is best in your own eyes.

That's why you read the Bible, to get information on which actions are more and less beneficial. Ethical behavior includes and even requires gathering information that shapes your actions. Keeps you off that road to hell.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

So, we have deontology, which posits a duty to keep rules (often owed to God). We have situation ethics, which presumes that morals depend on the situation, and therefore vary. We have virtue ethics, which suggests that good character is a necessary prerequisite to morality. And we have utilitarianism, which holds that outcome determines ethics (the greatest happiness of the greatest number).

But on examination, we can discern that all ethics depends on the outcome. The deontologist thinks that obedience leads to the best outcome. The situation ethicist thinks that flexibility depending on the circumstances will lead to the best outcome. The virtue ethicist thinks that a population of good characters leads to the best outcome. And utilitarianism is directly about outcome. So we have duty and rules, situation, character, and outcome on which to base our personal moral codes.

So, what do you think? Are all ethics fundamentally about outcomes, and therefore utilitarian in nature?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Ethics or morality is not based on outcome in less you have a foundational law. Outcome can be subjective.

 

[JStates]

It is said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. To avoid that trap I think we must focus on objective outcomes. However, I will readily admit that the future is difficult to forecast. I think we need to progress gently and carefully, gathering feedback about the results of our decisions as we go.

Best wishes, 2RM.

"Objective outcomes" is a bit of a contradiction though. Outcomes are not perfectly knowable for a human. All outcomes are "uncertain" in that a certain mode of behavior "might" be "likely" to get you to a certain outcome, but you cannot know that in advance. Then there's the little problem of "cui bono" -- who benefits from Outcome X? Few outcomes are universally beneficial. "The most good for the most people" is still potentially bad for some.

That concept of "cui bono" seems to be important to me. Who benefits from my choices and are they worthy of benefiting? Ought not I to make choices based on who is the worthiest to benefit?

"The Worthiest" being God, it follows that God's glorification should be the basis of all ethics.

I'm not the most logical of thinkers. There are probably gaps in my train of reasoning. But I'm sure, in this case, that my conclusion is correct.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Ethics or morality is not based on outcome in less you have a foundational law. Outcome can be subjective.

Indeed, outcomes may well be subjective. Doubtless Hitler, for example, thought that the eradication of European Jewry was a 'good' thing. Nevertheless one can imagine a 'happiness' survey where everyone was asked to rate their happiness on a scale from one to ten. The misery of six million Jews would then outweigh Hitler's murderous ambitions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Indeed, outcomes may well be subjective. Doubtless Hitler, for example, thought that the eradication of European Jewry was a 'good' thing. Nevertheless one can imagine a 'happiness' survey where everyone was asked to rate their happiness on a scale from one to ten. The misery of six million Jews would then outweigh Hitler's murderous ambitions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

When the majority of the world either promoted or was lenient towards slavery did that make slavery good? The majority of happiness also doesn't imply something is moral.

 

[2ndRateMind]

When the majority of the world either promoted or was lenient towards slavery did that make slavery good? The majority of happiness also doesn't imply something is moral.

Point taken, and well made.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[p_rehbein]

So, what do you think? Are all ethics fundamentally about outcomes, and therefore utilitarian in nature?

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ETHICS

 

[2ndRateMind]

When the majority of the world either promoted or was lenient towards slavery did that make slavery good? The majority of happiness also doesn't imply something is moral.

So, I've been thinking about this overnight. To me it seems that provided no one's human rights are infringed, the greatest well-being of the greatest number might be an appropriate and respectable stance for a utilitarian to adopt. Thus one can still emphasize outcome as the important feature of what is moral.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

"Objective outcomes" is a bit of a contradiction though. Outcomes are not perfectly knowable for a human. All outcomes are "uncertain" in that a certain mode of behavior "might" be "likely" to get you to a certain outcome, but you cannot know that in advance. Then there's the little problem of "cui bono" -- who benefits from Outcome X? Few outcomes are universally beneficial. "The most good for the most people" is still potentially bad for some.

That concept of "cui bono" seems to be important to me. Who benefits from my choices and are they worthy of benefiting? Ought not I to make choices based on who is the worthiest to benefit?

"The Worthiest" being God, it follows that God's glorification should be the basis of all ethics.

I'm not the most logical of thinkers. There are probably gaps in my train of reasoning. But I'm sure, in this case, that my conclusion is correct.

Why do you think God needs glorification or, indeed, worship? Surely He is above such things? And how does God's glorification translate into a system or code of ethics?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

So, what do you think? Are all ethics fundamentally about outcomes, and therefore utilitarian in nature?

I'd just like to thank you all, for helping me to think this topic through.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

So, I've been thinking about this overnight. To me it seems that provided no one's human rights are infringed, the greatest well-being of the greatest number might be an appropriate and respectable stance for a utilitarian to adopt. Thus one can still emphasize outcome as the important feature of what is moral.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, this often the way a atheist or secularist will define morality but I always ask for them to define human rights and what makes them a right. The reason I ask because they also believe reproduction rights (abortion) and lgbt equality are also rights.

It just returns us back to needing a foundation. The Romans for centuries had a huge Empire with great prosperity but we also know how the minority was looked over. The majority was well off but the minority had to experience persecution, slavery, sexual abuse, and gladiator events.

So in order for the minority to also be protected we have to define human rights and where do they come from. We can agree that lgbt people have the right to life, liberty, property but who says they have a right to marry, raise children, or act out sexually in old way?

 

[2ndRateMind]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights seems to be a good place to start if one wants a definition of those rights. As for where these rights come from, I think they are good, and ultimately everything good has God as its source.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights seems to be a good place to start if one wants a definition of those rights. As for where these rights come from, I think they are good, and ultimately everything good has God as its source.

Best wishes, 2RM.

One big problem is that the UN declaration sounds good in many ways but has no foundation in what it promotes. Where is God? If only from men then they are only subjective.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Is this a Biblical right for marriage?

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Where do they find these rights? There is no cooperation when they take my money as taxes to pay for those irresponsible or lazy. There are better Biblical methods for taking care of the weak, sick, and vulnerable.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Again where does tthis right come from to force healthcare workers to preform abortions? Government has largely helped people stay unemployed, remained sick, remained disabled, etc.

Our foundation for rights in America are written down in the Declaration of Independence. The rights come from our creator, which with minimal research that creator is the God of the Bible. The Bible being the moral foundation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that 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—

This is why in a recent thread I started was about an interview of Jordan Peterson. He was explaining how the Bible has been the foundation for all of western society going back to Europe, the Renaissance, and the shift from Roman paganism to Christianity.

Our philosophy, science, education, laws, everything was built upon that perspective.

 

[2ndRateMind]

One big problem is that the UN declaration sounds good in many ways but has no foundation in what it promotes. Where is God? If only from men then they are only subjective.

I think we need to realise that God's role is implicit, not explicit, in the declaration. It is meant to be a document that anyone can sign up to, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Nevertheless, I have little doubt but that God underlies the declaration, just as He underlies scripture.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

One big problem is that the UN declaration sounds good in many ways but has no foundation in what it promotes. Where is God? If only from men then they are only subjective.
...
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Where do they find these rights? There is no cooperation when they take my money as taxes to pay for those irresponsible or lazy. There are better Biblical methods for taking care of the weak, sick, and vulnerable...

I'm interested to learn what these Biblical methods are, and why, after the 1600 or so years since the Bible was compiled, we still have hunger stalking the Earth?

As for your cooperation as regards taxes, I take it you live in a democratic nation state, and can vote for whoever you want, or stand for election yourself if you can find no one who adequately represents your views.

As for the lazy and/or irresponsible I think this to be overstated as a problem. We humans are an acquisitive species, and most of us just want a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And I would be interested to know how you would separate out the lazy and irresponsible from decent folks who just can't find a job? The attitude seems to me to be a clear cut case of victim blaming, and adding the insult of disrespect to the injury of poverty.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I think we need to realise that God's role is implicit, not explicit, in the declaration. It is meant to be a document that anyone can sign up to, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Nevertheless, I have little doubt but that God underlies the declaration, just as He underlies scripture.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Oh but it is implicit. Nature's God or creator could be Allah. Now of course, the 1st amendment protects people's religious beliefs and prevents government from creating a state church. You see the God of the Bible from the founders deliberations, debates, writings, and foundations of law.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I'm interested to learn what these Biblical methods are, and why, after the 1600 or so years since the Bible was compiled, we still have hunger stalking the Earth?

As for your cooperation as regards taxes, I take it you live in a democratic nation state, and can vote for whoever you want, or stand for election yourself if you can find no one who adequately represents your views.

As for the lazy and/or irresponsible I think this to be overstated as a problem. We humans are an acquisitive species, and most of us just want a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And I would be interested to know how you would separate out the lazy and irresponsible from decent folks who just can't find a job? The attitude seems to me to be a clear cut case of victim blaming, and adding the insult of disrespect to the injury of poverty.

Best wishes, 2RM.

For instance, hunger is never prescribed within scripture for government. It was the Church/ individual who are told to care for the needy.

Needy are those who legitimately are in need because scripture also says for those who will not work, will not eat. Then in the OT God provides some lessons on food. He tells the farmers to leave the corners of their field for the hungry. He also teaches responsibility with the seasons to store up crops for the off seasons which teaches us today, we should be good stewards with our resources.

You are correct as a whole nation, these policies were voted in. But not everyone voted for these policies. I for one believe the private sector handles these problems better. I did not vote for them but unfortunately now my taxes go to failed policies that are creating record high inflation.

As for the lazy and/or irresponsible I think this to be overstated as a problem. We humans are an acquisitive species, and most of us just want a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And I would be interested to know how you would separate out the lazy and irresponsible from decent folks who just can't find a job? The attitude seems to me to be a clear cut case of victim blaming, and adding the insult of disrespect to the injury of poverty.

We are to have discernment with wisdom, love, and proper judgement. Government does not have this type of discernment.

Poverty has many different reasons and not all are related to being a legit victim.