For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
This means that you choose what you like instead of what is right. This is not reasonable.Beauty wrote: What the heart says do, that is the right thing to do as regards ethics versus rationality. The reason is not because we are both ethical and rational and so the two can bring us at the crossroad as to which way to go, but the reason is that even in the face of ethics and rationality, both not there simultaneously, the heart is the way to go. This way we know, that should something else come up other than ethics and/or rationalism, the heart always rules, makes the laws and lays down the legislation. The heart - our higher mind - higher consciousness - the Spirit in us - is God. God is always right, guiding us in the right direction through voice of conscience and feeling in the heart. "God always with us," scripture says.
This comes down to the conflicting goods and harms of individualism and collectivism/utilitarianism. The Trolley Problem clearly illustrates the issue. Since it's impossible to know the ultimate and final upshot of one's actions we tend to err on the side if individual welfare as individuals, but with a utilitarian approach as a group.bahman wrote:Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?
What do you mean with the bold part?Greta wrote:This comes down to the conflicting goods and harms of individualism and collectivism/utilitarianism. The Trolley Problem clearly illustrates the issue. Since it's impossible to know the ultimate and final upshot of one's actions we tend to err on the side if individual welfare as individuals, but with a utilitarian approach as a group.bahman wrote: Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?
This could be expressed as deontological ethics versus consequentialism. Denontological ethics is duty based ethics, moral action is based on an obligation to adhere to certain rules for conduct. The best example of deontological ethics is Kantian ethics. Rightness or wrongness is based does not depend on consequences of action, rather it depends on the dictates reason. It is sometimes the case that deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics clash. I guess it depends on the ethical theory one adopts.bahman wrote:Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?
Flawed logic!bahman wrote:Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?
Fixing the typo (in red) may make it more clear.bahman wrote:What do you mean with the bold part?Greta wrote:This comes down to the conflicting goods and harms of individualism and collectivism/utilitarianism. The Trolley Problem clearly illustrates the issue. Since it's impossible to know the ultimate and final upshot of one's actions we tend to err on the side of individual welfare as individuals, but with a utilitarian approach as a group.bahman wrote: Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?
Because 'we' are scared of getting caught!bahman wrote:Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?
I think it should be matter of situation to whether we pick up dentological or consequentialism ethics.Ginkgo wrote:This could be expressed as deontological ethics versus consequentialism. Denontological ethics is duty based ethics, moral action is based on an obligation to adhere to certain rules for conduct. The best example of deontological ethics is Kantian ethics. Rightness or wrongness is based does not depend on consequences of action, rather it depends on the dictates reason. It is sometimes the case that deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics clash. I guess it depends on the ethical theory one adopts.bahman wrote: Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?
Human are rational beings. Ethics in fact is the result of practicing our rationalities.HexHammer wrote:Flawed logic!bahman wrote: Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?
Humans are not rational, that's why we need laws, morals and ethics to guide us! That's why we need FBI, CIA, DEA ..etc etc to enforce the laws.
Besides you need to make some examples, rather than just making castles in the skies with mere words.
..so why do we have police? ..because they need to catch people that doesn't behave ethically. Rapists, murderers, molesters ..etc.bahman wrote: Human are rational beings. Ethics in fact is the result of practicing our rationalities.
As for examples consider a case that a person is in very complicated medical situation which might force us to kill the person or consider killing a dictator which might benefit the society.
The key question is where the laws come from? Laws is the result of practicing rationality in given situation.HexHammer wrote:..so why do we have police? ..because they need to catch people that doesn't behave ethically. Rapists, murderers, molesters ..etc.bahman wrote: Human are rational beings. Ethics in fact is the result of practicing our rationalities.
As for examples consider a case that a person is in very complicated medical situation which might force us to kill the person or consider killing a dictator which might benefit the society.
Here in Denmark our ancestors was pirates that plundered, raped and killed left and right, they believed that might makes right.
Today in USA they have more prisoners than any other country in the world, if you think you can just teach people ethics in order to make them behave ethically, then you are wrong! ..dead wrong! They have a will of their own and can decide if they want to follow ethics or not.
What would be an example of something that you'd say is (or could be in someone's view) ethically wrong but rationally right?bahman wrote:Ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. Human is a rational being and his/her decision is governed by rationally too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right?