Personal and Social

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

RWStanding
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Personal and Social

Postby RWStanding » Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:37 am

Personal and Social
There is a clear impression, especially in religion, that ethics is all personal and one to one. As if everyone being nice to each other is the fount and sum of ethics. But this also assumes there is no really anything called society, merely 'politics' and authority. In reality almost all relationships have a social aspect, far more important than personal taste. We even have philosophical opinions that, for instance, a gay relationship is entirely a matter for those directly involved. And with migration there is the entirely obvious attitude that as Good Samaritans we have a duty to help, we being an aggregate of individuals. In fact society must be more than the sum of its parts, other than for extreme anarchists. Democracy is about providing a voice for society, and it is unfortunate that the best we can do is parliament and government. Anything that affects two people is certain to have its effect on others and the young generation - and that means on society.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 2503
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Personal and Social

Postby Harbal » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:48 am

RWStanding wrote:There is a clear impression, especially in religion, that ethics is all personal and one to one. As if everyone being nice to each other is the fount and sum of ethics.

When you lose sight of the individual, pragmatism tends to predominate and it becomes about averages and statistics where people who don't exactly fit a predetermined set of criteria get left out. Maybe this is one reason why communism never seems to work.

But this also assumes there is no really anything called society, merely 'politics' and authority.

I would say the opposite.

In reality almost all relationships have a social aspect,

So now you're saying it doesn't assume "there is not really anything called society"? :?

We even have philosophical opinions that, for instance, a gay relationship is entirely a matter for those directly involved.

If society doesn't provide us with a safe environment in which we can practice our preferred lifestyle isn't it falling short of one of it's main purposes? Isn't tolerating differences that may not be to our own particular taste part and parcel of social living? Obviously, society needs rules in order to work but it should make the effort to distinguish between what is genuinely harmful and what is purely a matter of perception.

And with migration there is the entirely obvious attitude that as Good Samaritans we have a duty to help,

This is something that is dealt with almost exclusively on a societal -rather than individual- level and is a glaring example of something society seems to be incapable of making a success of.

Democracy is about providing a voice for society, and it is unfortunate that the best we can do is parliament and government.

In the modern world all societies consist of far too many individuals to function in anything approaching an ideal way. For the vast majority, being part of society amounts to a disappointing compromise.

Anything that affects two people is certain to have its effect on others and the young generation - and that means on society.

Everything effects somebody, how can you eliminate effects?


Return to “Ethical Theory”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest