An intrinsic value to ethics beyond utility, an ultimate standard for ethics?

Praeglacialis

Is there an intrinsic value to ethics, beyond being a device for personal or group utility or social cohesion?

Is there a standard for ethics which can be applied across all cultures, and if not, how can one be judged higher in value than another?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I'd say no. I see no basis for ethics that doesn't ultimately come back to enlightened self-interest. Promotion of social cohesion is just one part of enlightened self interest.

The moral concepts of right and wrong are really just hangovers from religious belief.

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
The OP and posters to this thread are encouraged to meet with the following standards contained within the Philosophy charter:

Black Swan wrote: »

Forum Guidelines:

You are encouraged to elaborate upon or challenge a philosophical position, logic, significance, relevance, analytical method, context, interpretation, prediction, historical antecedents, empirical foundation, or comment by a poster...

Citing philosophers and their works in support of your position taken is greatly encouraged. Links are sometimes helpful too.

Praeglacialis

Apologies for my procrastinature. By a standard of ethics I'm referring to something as broad as say, a political system which would have ethical ramifications for its citizens. An autocratic system versus a democratic one for instance. Or a religious versus secular system. Is one able to criticise such another system, and by what means? How might humanism be ultimately justified as a mode of moral conduct. Surely one should determine what aught to be done based on utility, but different people or factions will have their own opinion on what is considered utilitarian.

If an Islamic state suppresses woman, and a good proportion of these women do not consider themselves suppressed or judge their way of life to be proper and right, are we justified by criticising their system which we would see to be unethical, and by what grounds. The same could be said for the abortion debate. It is largely determined by what one defines as human life, and its varying importance in different forms. Perhaps not the best example because of the religious component but one might have been born under any circumstances, under any system of ethics. How can one judge ones system to be higher in value if it was pure chance that your nature/nurture resulted in what you deem to be right or wrong?

We are in essence making an assumption on how we think other people should live their lives based on how we live ours in our cultural environment. Are we in fact right, have other cultures just not evolved to our standard? Are we in fact morally superior to our ancestors who enslaved others and committed what would be considered grave crimes by today's standards. I'm wondering if such a thing as 'Pragmatic Ethics' exists. Or are we all just battling systems of what is best, or wrong or right in some sort of deterministic fashion, meaninglessly.

How much of a capacity is there to predict what will be unethical tomorrow? The slaughter of animals may be deemed generally unethical in a couple of centuries. Should one try for foresight and stop eating meat now? I take it that a lot of what is deemed unethical is down to the judgement of our peers. Is the main reason for our not doing something 'wrong' because of social chastisement? Does that take away its existential value?

How can we justify our actions, ethical or otherwise in a realm of complete subjectivity?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Praeglacialis wrote: »

How can we justify our actions, ethical or otherwise in a realm of complete subjectivity?

It's an old question, with no clear answer IMHO.

I think the debate is always clouded by the fact that when we turn our minds to philisophical questions, we do so with minds that have formed in the context of some culture or society. So, even if we're atheists, the fact that we might have gone through some religious formation as children means that, half unconsciously, our view that such and such is a moral question is a product of that formation, rather than some objective view.

I think (but don't know) that this is what Wittgenstein was getting at when he said "if this is not a hand, then I don't know what a hand is." We don't apply philosophy onto a blank canvas. We might try to construct arguments that can stand on their own. But our feeling that it is necessary to do so, our choice of topics that require explanation, are not likely to be independent of the culture in which we live. We start any investigation at a point in time, already possessing some idea that "this is a hand" or that abortion is a moral question.

Which, I suppose, brings me to Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil". Morality, good, judgment, as we understand them are really just habits of thought that only makes sense within a religion, probably the Christian religion. It's just such a familiar habit of thought that it's hard to drop it, even if we no longer recognise the faith on which it is based.

This potentially causes a problem for social order. This problem is the theme around which Plato's Republic is based. Only a precious few, in Plato's opinion, will have the capacity to live with the full knowledge of reality. The rest will need to be indoctrinated from birth with myths that encourage them to live in a socially responsible manner.

But if you were to ask "what's socially responsible, and why is it better than irresponsible", I don't think there's any objective basis anywhere that can answer that point.