Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

HelloWorld314
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 19 Mar 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 93

26 Apr 2017, 4:57 pm

Hello World,

I find it hard to buy ethical rules just because they are ethical. I feel the need to question every societal rule with logic to determine if it really works or not before accepting and applying the rule, and I find myself question some of the ethical rules like no castration, no death penalty, no torture, no lying, no prostitution, etc in a way like I question whether chocolate milk or yogurt for breakfast is better for me. This makes some people around me angry as they believe unethical is unethical, and this reason is enough to ditch those unethical options, while I feel the need to consider the unethical option and see if it really is good for us in the long term before ruling it out.

Thus I have always been called cold, unemotional, unethical, antisocial by people despite I don't enjoy inflicting pain on others. I guess part of it is also because I don't react with disgust or anger when those unethical stuff gets brought up, I generally react with calm logic and interest like the way I would react to a math question. I guess it makes people think I don't care about others' suffering? Well, I do take others' suffering into consideration but it is only a part of the equation and I feel the need to consider the whole picture if that makes any sense.

Your thoughts and experiences regarding this matter are welcome!


_________________
Cheers,
HelloWorld314

p.s. English is not my native language, please correct me if I have made any mistakes. I would really appreciate it. Thanks:)


MagicMeerkat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,562
Location: either here or there

26 Apr 2017, 5:04 pm

Kinda have to agree with you there. "Ethics" is just a word people throw around like "animal "welfare". Animal rights opposes cruelty to animals period, whereas, animal "welfare" says you can do whatever you like with them as long as you supposedly do it in a "humane" way. Yeah, sure, you can starve them or electrocute them, as long as you starve or electrocute them "humanely".


_________________
Every time you spell "meerkat" with a C, a baby meerkat cries. Please think of the meerkats.


Ignotum
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 197
Location: Tennessee

26 Apr 2017, 5:34 pm

HelloWorld314 wrote:
Hello World,

I find it hard to buy ethical rules just because they are ethical. I feel the need to question every societal rule with logic to determine if it really works or not before accepting and applying the rule, and I find myself question some of the ethical rules like no castration, no death penalty, no torture, no lying, no prostitution, etc in a way like I question whether chocolate milk or yogurt for breakfast is better for me. This makes some people around me angry as they believe unethical is unethical, and this reason is enough to ditch those unethical options, while I feel the need to consider the unethical option and see if it really is good for us in the long term before ruling it out.

Thus I have always been called cold, unemotional, unethical, antisocial by people despite I don't enjoy inflicting pain on others. I guess part of it is also because I don't react with disgust or anger when those unethical stuff gets brought up, I generally react with calm logic and interest like the way I would react to a math question. I guess it makes people think I don't care about others' suffering? Well, I do take others' suffering into consideration but it is only a part of the equation and I feel the need to consider the whole picture if that makes any sense.

Your thoughts and experiences regarding this matter are welcome!


I understand quite a bit, always having had trouble feeling empathy for others. I think perhaps it is possibly ingrained in us aspies to think rationally and logically rather than simply accepting societal rules and their "ethical values". This should be an extensively good trait, but unfortunately, it is just interpreted by others as eccentric and cold. This quote by Plato sums up the situation pretty nicely:

“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”

Culture, and the widely accepted beliefs/ideals therein, distract from what is universally true and good. No need to feel down because you can rationally see beyond it.



Anon_92
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

26 Apr 2017, 7:12 pm

People must die. As hobbible as it is to say, some people must die. Like bin Laden... he just hadda go.



Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,484
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

27 Apr 2017, 3:32 am

Without ethics, humans can't live in large groups to enjoy the benefits of trade and technology. We have an instinct to demand fairness and teach mutual respect. The Golden Rule sums up the field quite well. Those who reject moral behaviour cause a lot more damage than their basic theft, but can still prosper individually. If too many choose that path, their whole civilization collapses.
There is also the related field of polite manners. These can seem artificial and phony, but they are also a good guide to getting along with people of indeterminate emotional condition and mental capacity - things we are not good at knowing anyway. On the whole being polite works better than being rude, especially if one's message is upsetting.



ElabR8Aspie
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 9 Apr 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 219
Location: Universe

27 Apr 2017, 5:25 am

HelloWorld314 wrote:
Hello World,

I find it hard to buy ethical rules just because they are ethical. I feel the need to question every societal rule with logic to determine if it really works or not before accepting and applying the rule, and I find myself question some of the ethical rules like no castration, no death penalty, no torture, no lying, no prostitution, etc in a way like I question whether chocolate milk or yogurt for breakfast is better for me. This makes some people around me angry as they believe unethical is unethical, and this reason is enough to ditch those unethical options, while I feel the need to consider the unethical option and see if it really is good for us in the long term before ruling it out.

Thus I have always been called cold, unemotional, unethical, antisocial by people despite I don't enjoy inflicting pain on others. I guess part of it is also because I don't react with disgust or anger when those unethical stuff gets brought up, I generally react with calm logic and interest like the way I would react to a math question. I guess it makes people think I don't care about others' suffering? Well, I do take others' suffering into consideration but it is only a part of the equation and I feel the need to consider the whole picture if that makes any sense.

Your thoughts and experiences regarding this matter are welcome!


Ethical?Question the society norm,what your told and what your not told.
Look for hidden agendas,there is always an hidden agenda.
Where money and profit is involved,people,animals,the earth,don't matter,fact!

That's life currently on this planet,unfortunately,keep on looking outside the square.: )


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 159 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 75 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)

"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment." --Ralph Waldo Emerson


C2V
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2015
Posts: 2,666

27 Apr 2017, 7:22 am

Quote:
The Golden Rule sums up the field quite well.

I disagree. Instead of "do unto others as you want done unto you," I agree with "find out how others want to be treated and treat them such."
Example of neurotypical Vs autistic values in this way - it may be how a neurotypical person wants to be treated is to be hugged. So they hug everyone, because they like hugging themselves. To an autistic like me being hugged feels like being crushed. Applying such a golden rule in that way would not be beneficial to the autistic party.
As to the OP I believe there is a difference between personal ethics - what you have carefully considered and determined to be right - and the blanket ethics as termed by your society. Ethics have shifted and changed a lot throughout time and culture, and continue to do so into the future. Just because you think for yourself and determine what is right and what isn't doesn't make you a monster.
In fact, this method can lead to a higher standard of personal ethical behaviour than determined by outside society.


_________________
Alexithymia - 147 points.
Low-Verbal.


Ants
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 51
Location: Huddersfield, England

27 Apr 2017, 11:02 am

Interesting post. I find a lot of what people believe to be ethical and moral are quite convoluted with their own emotions and opinions (and bollocks). As hard as it is for people we need to have an objective (and closer to the truth) view of things. I find Sam Harris' discussions of morality interesting.

Whats the morally correct decision from the unlikely scenario below:

In your home you have the cure to a disease which your about to release [that day] and save MILLIONS of lives. Also in the home is your child. A fire breaks out in your house and you know that you will only be able to save either your child or the cure. What is the ethically right thing to do?

Now I understand this is a) unrealistic and b) a case where emotions should likely win out every time.

Good discussion though guys.



Lace-Bane
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,569
Location: tennessee

27 Apr 2017, 11:20 am

Ants wrote:
Whats the morally correct decision from the unlikely scenario below:

In your home you have the cure to a disease which your about to release [that day] and save MILLIONS of lives. Also in the home is your child. A fire breaks out in your house and you know that you will only be able to save either your child or the cure. What is the ethically right thing to do?

Now I understand this is a) unrealistic and b) a case where emotions should likely win out every time.
if the child is too young to have been taught to escape to safety on their own during a fire, then save both even if it means dying of burns.


_________________
七転び八起き


Ignotum
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 197
Location: Tennessee

27 Apr 2017, 11:35 am

My post wasn't supposed to be opposed against empathy or compassion by the way, I just felt that the individual should decide what he/she thinks is good and ethical rather than simply accepting what society tells them. They should adapt their own moral guidelines to everyday life while doing good unto others.



Last edited by Ignotum on 27 Apr 2017, 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,484
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

27 Apr 2017, 12:39 pm

C2V wrote:
Quote:
The Golden Rule sums up the field quite well.

I disagree. Instead of "do unto others as you want done unto you," I agree with "find out how others want to be treated and treat them such."
Example of neurotypical Vs autistic values in this way - it may be how a neurotypical person wants to be treated is to be hugged. So they hug everyone, because they like hugging themselves. To an autistic like me being hugged feels like being crushed. Applying such a golden rule in that way would not be beneficial to the autistic party.
As to the OP I believe there is a difference between personal ethics - what you have carefully considered and determined to be right - and the blanket ethics as termed by your society. Ethics have shifted and changed a lot throughout time and culture, and continue to do so into the future. Just because you think for yourself and determine what is right and what isn't doesn't make you a monster.
In fact, this method can lead to a higher standard of personal ethical behaviour than determined by outside society.

I did get into trouble for over-reliance on the Golden Rule when dealing with women, especially those who said they didn't want to be treated differently than men. However, for eleven words, it covers a lot: No malicious gossip, no theft, no murder, no slavery, no torture, no ostracism, no cheating whatever the temptations and so on on one side, and encouragement to be polite, helpful, predictable, loyal, careful, sympathetic, honest but discreet, etc. on the other.

"Political Correctness" OTOH, may masquerade as ethical, but it is hiding its own elephants in the room.



creepycrawler
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2016
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 49

27 Apr 2017, 1:34 pm

I'm always surprised when I hear about someone getting so shocked by the mere questioning of accepted norms of behavior; most people I spend time with are open to such discussion.

However, I have to accept that people have different value systems than I do and thus prioritize different things than I do - which can make discussion problematic if not impossible. A few possible sources of values could be:

1) Logic - If my values systems tells me that what's important is maximizing happiness and reducing suffering, then my ethical standards are going to be centered around the best ways to accomplish that. Logical and empirical evaluation will be essential.

2) Authority - If my values system instead tells me that what's important is obeying and carrying out the will of a divine being, then my ethical standards are going to be centered around looking for signals of that being's will. Whether something is logical is less important than how closely I believe it matches the preference of the divine being.

3) Emotion - Another possibility could be that I value my own emotional state above all else. Each action is evaluated based on how it makes me feel: things that make me happy are good, and things that make me upset are bad.

You can see how if three people held a different one of these outlooks, a productive discussion could be difficult - because they all have different values prioritized. They could all agree on a course of action, but for different reasons. Even more confusingly, one person could hold all three value systems that take precedence at different times.

I think it's ironic that you say "I Don't Buy Ethics", because it sounds like your problems arise from your willingness (and your peers unwillingness) to practice ethics (as a field).


_________________
"Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly." - Charles Addams


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,469
Location: The Oort Cloud

27 Apr 2017, 1:58 pm

MagicMeerkat wrote:
Kinda have to agree with you there. "Ethics" is just a word people throw around like "animal "welfare". Animal rights opposes cruelty to animals period, whereas, animal "welfare" says you can do whatever you like with them as long as you supposedly do it in a "humane" way. Yeah, sure, you can starve them or electrocute them, as long as you starve or electrocute them "humanely".


As opposed to animal "rights" where you can let animals suffer/starve/die as long as you're not interfering with their supposed "rights."


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (moderator)


bjornflanagan
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 35
Location: Sioux Falls, SD

27 Apr 2017, 5:54 pm

Ants wrote:

Whats the morally correct decision from the unlikely scenario below:

In your home you have the cure to a disease which your about to release [that day] and save MILLIONS of lives. Also in the home is your child. A fire breaks out in your house and you know that you will only be able to save either your child or the cure. What is the ethically right thing to do?

Now I understand this is a) unrealistic and b) a case where emotions should likely win out every time.

My son of course but for amoral reasons.

"Was aus Liebe gethan wird, geschieht immer jenseits von Gut und Böse." -Nietzsche

What is done out of love is always beyond good and evil.


To the OP and the use of normative logic provoking terms similar to cold or callous, I get that. I often get rebuked when I say that the objective world is amoral. A group's ethics are are derived from instinct and cultural constructs they interpret to be the best way to live. This is why I think we end up with empty moral laws that limit individuals or groups without reason.


_________________
"A very common error: Having the courage of one's convictions; rather, it should be having the courage to attack one's own convictions."

***Friedrich Nietzsche***


Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,484
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

27 Apr 2017, 6:05 pm

Ants wrote:
Interesting post. I find a lot of what people believe to be ethical and moral are quite convoluted with their own emotions and opinions (and bollocks). As hard as it is for people we need to have an objective (and closer to the truth) view of things. I find Sam Harris' discussions of morality interesting.

Whats the morally correct decision from the unlikely scenario below:

In your home you have the cure to a disease which your about to release [that day] and save MILLIONS of lives. Also in the home is your child. A fire breaks out in your house and you know that you will only be able to save either your child or the cure. What is the ethically right thing to do?

Now I understand this is a) unrealistic and b) a case where emotions should likely win out every time.

Good discussion though guys.


This is a variation on the "trolley car problem" - If you throw a switch, someone dies, but if you don't five people die. It has to be decided to legally cover the asses of the people programming robot cars, so there's lots of discussion these days.