h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My ethics started (fairly obviously) from biblical teaching in that, being English, the bible is pretty well the corner stone of the laws of the land, and it's wider moral thinking. Having reached an age where it now occurs to me to challenge / question these ideas, that is where I work from. In other words, use biblical teaching as a starting point and try and work out from there. It isn't easy because you're trying to read out for some fundamental inate law of morality that probably isn't there, but I guess you have to ask yourself questions like 'if that was the law- what would be the consequences?' and try to rationalise it like that.

I'm bookmarking this without reading anything beyond the first post because it's a really good question. I'm too drunk to read and contribute but would like to catch up with it when sober.

Hence this:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ... (paraphrasing)

What's wrong with that?

And no, it doesn't actually mean that everything you might want should be done unto you.

It's about how you treat people and relate to them, and how the way you treat people is a reflection/example of how you'd like people to treat you.

Of course the vengeance thingy is often much more complicated ... as well as pathetically tedious and predictable.


az

You know, it's different in German, but much clearer:
It's the sentence negated, ie.:
Was du nicht willst das man dir tu
das füg auch keinem andern zu

in English:
What you don't want others to do unto you,
Don't do to them.

So you don't need to worry about people like SoRB who want to snog every attractive woman they see in a pub or wherever, if that's not anything you'd like to have done to yourself.
Easy, isn't it?

Reciprocal altruism (which is the basis of do unto others?) is not even unique to our species.

I think the thing with ethics is not to base your ethics on anything at all, but just to consider things carefully. Ethical rules and principles are useful for simplifying this task and for clarifying your thinking about it.

Personally, I find the 'do unto others' rule (or something like it, say SoRB's modified version) useful. I think it's also important to think about taking responsibility for your actions. Saying to yourself: I chose to do this, and the consequence has been that, and I could have chosen to do otherwise; the consequence is due to my decision. Really accepting that the choice to do one thing rather than another is your own choice and not something outside your control. One danger of fixed rules and principles is that they allow you to hide behind them and not take responsibility for what you do and what you expected to happen as a consequence.

The "Do unto others..." thing is good, but as SoRB showed it doesn´t work as an absolute rule. Good as a rule of thumb though. Same with that thing you hear the Wiccans go on about "If it harms none do as you will." What exactly harms someone might be a matter of debate.
However I think that moral(among humans and animals) is basically there to ensure a stable society, but not necessarily a good and just one.

"Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." - George Bernard Shaw

Religion is a sod with this "golden rule". This is what leads to missionaries. Look what Christian Missionaries did to the North American Indian - by believing they were doing them a favour, they forcibly converted these "heathens" and discounted the Indian's beliefs as worthless.

Islam is the only religion that does not adhere to the Golden Rule. The closest that Islam comes to this principle is a hadith that says

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

This brotherhood however does not extend to everyone. Quran (9:23) states that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam. In fact there are many verses that tell the Muslims to kill the unbelievers and be harsh with them. A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29) It says: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”

This is the perfect definition of fascism. There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal. The rest of mankind have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. The entire Quran is the breach of the Golden Rule. Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads (47:4).

>> Reciprocal altruism (which is the basis of do unto others?) is not even unique to our species. <<

Right on Dunx!
Reciprocal altruism is almost a truism.

As I tried to explain earlier this 'doing unto' stuff is not a human intellectual or philosophical or religious code, not a conscious or wilful way of being, but a simple basic fact of the cosmos.

Similar sayings are trying to say the same thing:

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
You shall reap what you sow.
Fight fire with fire.
What goes around comes around.
As the twig is bent so grows the tree.
Garbage in, garbage out.

It's like some sorta Newton's Law of Karma. Like action=reaction.

It isn't perfect, nothing is, but at least 9 times out of ten people will get what they deserve, not as part of some higher court of justice but simply as feedback from their own output.

Those who live 'good' lives and 'see good' in others will generally enjoy an environment of goodliness. NOT because of some high ideal or religious edict, but merely because that's the way things actually work in the real whirled.


~jwf~

Why is this even worthy of discussion? Don't be a winker* and the world might be a better place. No religion necessary.

*I = A: edited for the filter

Prisoner´s Dilemma.

I think the Golden Mean WS referred to in the first posting is the middle path of virtue (eg courage) lying between the outer paths of vice (eg cowardice and fool-hardiness). This is one of Aristotle's.

As an atheist, deontological ethics even 'good' ones (if I do something bad I will go to hell) have no advantage over consequentialist ethics (if I do something bad, somebody will do something bad to me). I have two problems with consequentialist ethics:

1) They can allow you to be really evil if your unlikely to be found out
2) The positive payback is the admiration of others (vanity vanity all is vanity)

Hence I find it difficult to commit now to utilitarianism (act to increase the sum of human happiness), ethical humanism (do as you would be done by) and game theory (prisoner's dilemma). All of which are ultimately consequentialist.

(No objection at all if others are nice to me because their scared s**tless of the consequences).


I'd like to think that I'd behave ethically even if I was stuck on a desert island even with no hope of rescue.

The payback can only be in terms of self-respect, hence the ethics and activities I observe must be those I would find admirable, whether in myself or in others.

I think this ends up being I am want I am, I will be what I can be, to hell with the consequences and if you don't like it, tough.

It might be a version of virtue ethics, but I'll have to read up on it

doesn't that lead us into the 'be the best person you can be' type motto?

Which sounds ok. But that, of course, depends on what 'best' is defined as being.

This sounds to me like we may be in the 'all humans are selfish' debate. Even self-respect is a desire to see oneself in a good light, be that socially, intellectually or whatever. So it still comes down to the question of getting something back. And with a variable definition of 'good'.

Is that cobblers? Not sure.

Everyone wants, arguably needs, to like themselves, I don't think that is selfish. I think you probably define or judge someone by why they like themselves. Ie, if you are sitting at home thinking you are a jolly good person because you got all those kids to be quiet by strnagling them, the fact that you like yourself is probably not the prime consideration, nor does that self respect defend your ethical position.

I think the "gray" (grey?) areas are more difficult than the black & white questions about ethical behavior. So ... the death penalty. Much of the world believes it is barbaric. Certainly it not an example of the Golden Rule. But is it possible to believe in the proper execution of terrible criminals, say mass murderers on the scale of Hitler & co. (assuming they had been on trial), without automatically being unethical?

In my opinion, there is nothing that provides an absolute answer to such questions. I know what I believe, and you know what you believe, but there is no way to finally decide the issue.

>>This sounds to me like we may be in the 'all humans are selfish' debate. Even self-respect is a desire to see oneself in a good light, be that socially, intellectually or whatever. So it still comes down to the question of getting something back. And with a variable definition of 'good'.

Is that cobblers? Not sure.<<

Moral virtues are not arbitrary. Like wolves and elephants (unlike polar bears) we are a social species and possess, at least in part, a natural impulse towards altruistic and cooperative action in addition to our own pleasure and preservation.

I would maintain that this could lead towards an entirely rational list negative attributes (irresponsible, feckless, lazy, inconsiderate, uncooperative, harsh, intolerant, selfish, mercenary, indiscreet, tactless, arrogant, unsympathetic, cold, incautious, unenterprising, pusillanimous, feeble, presumptuous, rude, hypocritical, self-indulgent, materialistic, grasping, short-sighted, vindictive, calculating, ungrateful, grudging, brutal, profligate, disloyal, and on and on) characterising actions to be preferentially avoided by a human being living life well.

Everyday life presents us with situations and potential courses of action where many of these vices are in play, for which a median path (a sort of multidimensional golden mean) exists maximising the avoidance of vice. This is the path of virtue. It is rarely entirely free of vice, but does select for "the lesser of two evils"

Judgement of which vices are in play at any given time, and how to best realise their avoidance is an act of reasoning (a second natural attribute of humanity), founded on accumulated wisdom gained from life's experiences.

I picked "self-respect" as my own personal payback, simply because that's the one that works best for me.

The Greek word is "eudaimonia", for which there is no entirely satisfactory translation. Happiness or flourishing are often used but it in the sense of the peace of mind that may be gained simply by living a virtuous life to the full, fulfilling your own personal potential free of shame and regret.

So yes, there is a reward element but this reward is shared amongst the community. Achieving eudaimon also implies that a rational objective observer may look back over your life and achievements and say that that was a life well-lived and worth living.

Interesting reply Seth.
"Moral virtues are not arbitrary. Like wolves and elephants (unlike polar bears) we are a social species and possess, at least in part, a natural impulse towards altruistic and cooperative action in addition to our own pleasure and preservation."

First off, I ain't disagreeing, just exploring what you've said.

If morals aren't arbitrary where do they come from? Would they be inherent 'survival' traits? I.e. people, and therefore societies, are more likely to survive if they look out for each other. Societies where they don't, may survive for a while but are likly to fail in times of hardship or strife.

The natural instinct towards altruism is an interesting one.
Mainly because you can only really judge the reasoning for it from that subjective pov.
Also the term 'natural' doesn;t sound entirely right to me. There are those who aren't. Same as there are those who aren't sociable or who don;t have an instict for preservation (or where it is low enough for other self endangering impulses to override it).


It is entirely possible for what appears to be altruism to be entirely selfish.

I get my morals by and large from sport.

Now I know that some say that sport is just war withhout the dead people, but I think that though violence and play are both innate sport is an extension of play though it does ahre some formalised structure with war.

Anyway sport taught me that you need other people. you need to keep them onside or you dont have a game if you force people away. It taught me that it's ok to break the rules on occasion but that we all need to understand the rules to be able to play together or against each other.

It taught me that peolpe have different skills and skill levels we all have aour parts to play and that we can all play together we we take time to understand our capabilities and needs.

Sport taught me that racism was BS it taught me a lot of things. In the person of one Brian Clough it taught me that conviction and enthusiasm can be the most valuable things to have.

>>Also the term 'natural' doesn;t sound entirely right to me. There are those who aren't. Same as there are those who aren't sociable or who don;t have an instict for preservation (or where it is low enough for other self endangering impulses to override it).<<

By 'natural' I wasn't implying that altruism was innate to all human beings to the same degree. I wouldn't particularly want to cloud the issue with a nurture/nature distinction, but there is significant evidence around that genetic controls do operate at a level in social/antisocial behaviour, and that if social behaviour (including self-sacrifice) among a significant proportion of individuals confers a survival benefit to the parent community, the genes of those sacrificed may paradoxically be preferentially conserved.

However, there is an even stronger mechanism for the greation of 'naturally' altruistic societies. Within communities, humans are far more peaceful than those of our primate relatives. It does appear that rather than actively conserving altruistic genes, the dominant mechanism has been the active removal of anti-social genes from the pool. ie the good guys got together and killed the psychos for the greater good.

Now this is a really interesting moral issue

Neither my parents, nor my grandparents (born before 1900) ever went to church for anything except family weddings. They were shocked when I wrote a will in my twenties leaving my body to the nearest teaching hospital (that clause is still valid 40 years on)and all finished up in a pretty churchyard on a hill. But that was convention rather than belief.
Everyone was also shocked when I got married in a registry office. Again social convention rather than belief. I went to state schools for 13 years where there was a "corporate act of worship" every morning. So I can recite large chunks of the King James' version of the bible and know all the words of more than a hundred christian hymns.Part of my culture - not part of my belief.
Thank you once again for your lengthy answers. A few more random thoughts for your comment:
I don't steal - not even pencils from the office. Why not? I wouldn't get into trouble. If someone gives me too much change, I give it back.
Why?
There are one or two people I don't want to ever speak to again, but I am sure I wouldn't do anything to wipe them out, even if I knew I wouldn't get caught. Why not?