3 ms·

Ethics are completely arbitrary. The article comes from a particular background. From said background, the espousal of "unethical" is understandable. Whether

Ethics are completely arbitrary. The article comes from a particular background. From said background, the espousal of "unethical" is understandable. Whether you consider the ingestion of octopus to be unethical or not depends entirely on your own definition of ethics.

sabertoothed 7y ago
> Ethics are completely arbitrary. That cannot possibly be true if ethics is based on what causes suffering / well-being.
- vertex-four 7y ago
  At some point, ethics comes down to "whose suffering/well-being do you prioritise when you're presented with a bunch of shitty options", and that's where everyone eventually disagrees.
  - chibg10 7y ago
    I don't think this is actually true in the vast majority of day-to-day ethical decisions, although there are cases where it's certainly true. I'm fairly confident that many more unethical actions, even subjectively defined (i.e. from each individual observer's pov), are the result of ignorance and apathy than actual differences of opinion regarding ethics.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Ethics isn't based on what causes suffering / well-being. At best, it takes those things, along with many others, into account (and usually from the side of a specific community, not across the board). Specific ethics have been adhered that caused tons of suffering to people (The Spanish Inquisition was a protector and enforcer of certain ethics, for example. Homophobia was also based on ethics, and when slavery was a thing in the US, it was totally compatible with the Southern ethics at the time -- you could be a well respected gentleman considered totally ethical and own 1000s of slaves -- that you also beat to work and so on).
  - socraticmethod 7y ago
    |Ethics isn't based on what causes suffering / well-being. Ehh, where we've landed in contemporary, normative-esque based ethics, it kind of is. Where you think ethics gets its imperative force depends largely (as you mentioned) on your community and environment. Western philosophy has however been shaped enough by utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc., to the point that they all to a degree recognize suffering and/or the need to reduce it. Peter Singer's summary of WH Leckly's 'ever expanding circle of responsibility' is a good example of this. '"...Lecky wrote of human concern as an expanding circle which begins with the individual, then embraces the family and ‘soon the circle... includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man [sic] with the animal world."' -- https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm Singer suggests that "Our century is the first in which it has been possible to speak of global responsibility and a global community." If an ever expanding circle of responsibility includes reducing suffering on a global level-- and sentience being the compelling criteria that it is-- including animal suffering vs. human culinary pleasure/preference will definitely continue to be relevant in any ethical/philosophic discussions moving forward. It's interesting that one of the logical ends to reducing suffering as much as possible ultimately leads to expanding the circle of responsibility to future generation and those not yet alive to even suffer. This is where environmentalism and regard for those ahead of our decisions comes into play. Maybe you're right that ethics isn't entirely based on suffering / well-being, but that's largely where it is headed.
coldtea 7y ago
>Ethics are completely arbitrary. Well, I'd say adjusted/evolved culturally/historically to help steer communities, improve/constrain certain societal aspects, but yes, it's not like they are physical laws.
longblack 7y ago
To say ethics are arbitrary is to say that there is no reasoning behind them, which is basically the opposite of what ethics truly are. Ethics are commonly a "system of moral principles", said system and principles being the reasoning behind ethics. I'm assuming what you are trying to say is that "ethics are not absolute", which has strong arguments; however, I think the critique of the use of "unethical" is partially in agreement with my assumption of your first point ("ethics are not absolute"). Assuming ethics are not absolute, then labeling something as unethical in a blanket statement would not always hold true. I would suggest simply prefacing the statement with "I/many believe" would sit more comfortably.

sabertoothed 7y ago

> Ethics are completely arbitrary. That cannot possibly be true if ethics is based on what causes suffering / well-being.

vertex-four 7y ago
At some point, ethics comes down to "whose suffering/well-being do you prioritise when you're presented with a bunch of shitty options", and that's where everyone eventually disagrees.
- chibg10 7y ago
  I don't think this is actually true in the vast majority of day-to-day ethical decisions, although there are cases where it's certainly true. I'm fairly confident that many more unethical actions, even subjectively defined (i.e. from each individual observer's pov), are the result of ignorance and apathy than actual differences of opinion regarding ethics.
coldtea 7y ago
Ethics isn't based on what causes suffering / well-being. At best, it takes those things, along with many others, into account (and usually from the side of a specific community, not across the board). Specific ethics have been adhered that caused tons of suffering to people (The Spanish Inquisition was a protector and enforcer of certain ethics, for example. Homophobia was also based on ethics, and when slavery was a thing in the US, it was totally compatible with the Southern ethics at the time -- you could be a well respected gentleman considered totally ethical and own 1000s of slaves -- that you also beat to work and so on).
- socraticmethod 7y ago
  |Ethics isn't based on what causes suffering / well-being. Ehh, where we've landed in contemporary, normative-esque based ethics, it kind of is. Where you think ethics gets its imperative force depends largely (as you mentioned) on your community and environment. Western philosophy has however been shaped enough by utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc., to the point that they all to a degree recognize suffering and/or the need to reduce it. Peter Singer's summary of WH Leckly's 'ever expanding circle of responsibility' is a good example of this. '"...Lecky wrote of human concern as an expanding circle which begins with the individual, then embraces the family and ‘soon the circle... includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man [sic] with the animal world."' -- https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm Singer suggests that "Our century is the first in which it has been possible to speak of global responsibility and a global community." If an ever expanding circle of responsibility includes reducing suffering on a global level-- and sentience being the compelling criteria that it is-- including animal suffering vs. human culinary pleasure/preference will definitely continue to be relevant in any ethical/philosophic discussions moving forward. It's interesting that one of the logical ends to reducing suffering as much as possible ultimately leads to expanding the circle of responsibility to future generation and those not yet alive to even suffer. This is where environmentalism and regard for those ahead of our decisions comes into play. Maybe you're right that ethics isn't entirely based on suffering / well-being, but that's largely where it is headed.

coldtea 7y ago

>Ethics are completely arbitrary. Well, I'd say adjusted/evolved culturally/historically to help steer communities, improve/constrain certain societal aspects, but yes, it's not like they are physical laws.

longblack 7y ago

To say ethics are arbitrary is to say that there is no reasoning behind them, which is basically the opposite of what ethics truly are. Ethics are commonly a "system of moral principles", said system and principles being the reasoning behind ethics. I'm assuming what you are trying to say is that "ethics are not absolute", which has strong arguments; however, I think the critique of the use of "unethical" is partially in agreement with my assumption of your first point ("ethics are not absolute"). Assuming ethics are not absolute, then labeling something as unethical in a blanket statement would not always hold true. I would suggest simply prefacing the statement with "I/many believe" would sit more comfortably.