Do morals and ethics have more to do with the quality of life than judgement of character?
Quality of Life
Side Score: 9
Winning Side! |
 |
Character Judgement
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard so many arguments saying that morals and ethics have no definitive motive, that they are all relative to a cultures comfort. For instance, most people don't rape infants, in fact most people would find that completely repulsive and evil. Do the people doing it think so too? They might only find it evil, but not disgusting. How can two people have such different standards for right and wrong? How can you justify that morals and ethics, because they are so relative, are nothing more than tools to value human character? --------------------------------- Naturally, I am a utilitarian. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, here's the definition in the Oxford American Dictionary: -"the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct." I can see, logically, that certain moral standards create a safer environment for more people than some do. It is not about "judgement", it is about action prevention and action promotion. In the case of infant rape in Africa, that I was talking about earlier, the reason we get so upset about this, and that we act against it, is because we wish to prevent this action from further destroying the quality of human life. We don't like to hear about it, and the infants I'm sure, and going to wish they could be normal once they grow up and realize what had happened to them... This is something that destroys society, so we fortify our morals by proclaiming them to be so bad. Something like infant rape, will undoubtedly cause a lot of anguish for the people that have to grow up knowing what they've when through, and for the family and community that have to deal with this as well. It is obviously NOT healthy for anyone involved. One mans "pleasure" (of which type of pleasure, I cannot say), is not worth the suffering of many. It is bad. The only good and bad, is the promotion and prevention of your ideas, as they will form into action eventually and you will likely have to deal with the actions. For more about the infant rape that I mentioned: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/ Side: Quality of Life
The problem with utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is that it can lead to some pretty atrocious stuff. Lets say there is a rich billionaire. By utilitarian standards, wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable to murder the billionaire and use his money for the public good? So, now instead of one person with billions of dollars, we can spend those billions to help many others. greatest good for greatest number of people. Side: Character Judgement
I would have to say, that if there were 100 people, 99 of which were so poor that they were suffering, and there was 1 rich "billionaire", that his murder is completely justifiable, or at least reasonable. Everyone is capable of murder, but we do not murder unless we feel the need to. In that case, if 99 people feel the need to murder, well then what are you going to do? It's 99 poor vs 1 rich. This might be just a me thing, but I think the more atrocious is the man living for himself and himself only. That whole scenario is extremely simple though and wouldn't be so in real life. One of my favorite arguments is "If you were stranded with a few other people and you were starving, would you eat another person and how would you go about choosing who would be eaten? Also, if you do decide to eat someone and others agree, and if it was you who was chosen, would you allow it to happen? Would you still agree? That is more complex or realistic, but it is also easy to grasp. Side: Quality of Life
Morals and ethics are survival traits (or instincts) that humans have collectively define in order to ensure survival of the species. From that perspective, I think there is a very strong argument that they have more to do with quality of life, since a life without quality with be less likely to survive and multiply. Character judgement is the means by which morals and ethics are implemented across the species. Side: Human Survival Mechanism
|
I think morals and ethics have more to do with one's character than their quality of life. Morals and ethics are what define you as a person, and don't necessarily lead to a better or worse quality of life. You could have great morals and be a "stand up person" all around but still not be happy with the quality of your life. Side: Character defines a person
2
points
Morals and Ethics have to do with judgment of character. Morals: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:" Note: there's no mention of benefiting anyone, let alone benefiting a majority. It has nothing to do with quality of life. It has to do with what most people think is right. Like, not committing murder. Utilitarian: "the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority." Note: a utilitarian defines his own morals based on quality of life. But not everyone would agree with a utilitarian's definition of morally right. Killing someone for the greater good is still murder. Now, I may commit murder for the greater good, but I would never say that I was morally right in doing so. I try to act with my eyes open (no self delusions) and I try to take responsibility for my actions. So I would accept the punishment for my actions, not try to explain it away. Side: Character defines a person
If as you say, it is a judgment of character, then how do you put a value on what is "good" and what is not? How do you judge if you're not judging on the basis of what is best? In other words, why is murderer bad if you're not concerned about the quality of the person's life that was murdered? Do you see what I'm getting at? Sure, it is a judgment of character, that is obvious, but I think there's something underlying the process of judgment, and it has to do with the quality of life... Side: Quality of Life
|
