What is your Ethical Ideal?

[Krystal Meth]

My ethical ideal stems from an objective structural context of genetic self-interest. Whatever increases the biological fitness of my group is good, and whatever decreases it is bad. Man's purpose, viewed in the framework of my version of evolutionary ethics, may be defined as the effective replication of "selfish genes". By group, I understand breeding population. By purpose, I mean anything that serves a purpose, for example the human eyes are tremendously purposive, but I do not mean to imply that they have a literal designer.

The "self" is a vehicle created by genes with the purpose of replicating more genes. The individual does not exist in meaningful terms; a person can only be defined in relation to external objects, not in isolation. The human body requires air & nutrients and so on to survive and therefore the definition of the individual must include its environment and external relationships. In further examples, what defines a chair is its relationship to external objects in that we use it to sit on, a cup is defined by its purpose as a vessel we use to drink from. Therefore, in isolation, a chair, cup, or person does not have a reality.

I am not committing the naturalistic fallacy from deriving value from fact because I solve the is-ought problem by clarifying that "ought" means an action which is necessitated by reasons stemming from a structured context. For example, "it is lightning, therefore it ought to thunder". Now, some "oughts" are hypothetical since they follow from other "oughts" that no-one is compelled to accept. However, there are some structured contexts that nobody can avoid such as evolutionary theory. Man cannot escape evolution, therefore is logically compelled to act in a manner that is conducive to group survival because of evolutionary strategies such as kin selection which favours the reproductive success of the group. Even if people don't or refuse to act for the good of the group, they cannot escape this reality.

[Breedingvariety]

However, there are some structured contexts that nobody can avoid such as evolutionary theory. Man cannot escape evolution, therefore is logically compelled to act in a manner that is conducive to group survival because of evolutionary strategies such as kin selection which favours the reproductive success of the group. Even if people don't or refuse to act for the good of the group, they cannot escape this reality.

1. According to you, any action is conducive to survival of a group. That means ethically individual can do anything and therefore there is no ethics which would determine if an action is ethical.
2. You don't specify for what groups survival individual is acting. It could be specie, race, ethnicity, religious group. Different actions for interests of different groups, would still be ethical, according to you.

[Breedingvariety]

I don't have an ethical ideal. I have spectrum of morality from most moral to most immoral:
- Negation of the world
- Compassion
- Courtesy
- Rudeness
- Cruelty

[Konstantinovich]

My ethical opinions are that "Life-Fulfillment" or "flourishing" are the greatest goods. Exactly what the value of life-fulfillment is varies between people, but the everyone's personal flourishing will have some things in common. Like being moral rather than immoral leads to a greater life-fulfillment. The value of the thing itself is a little hard to explain. I think the state of having not regretted one's life, having meaning connected with it, would be important. Life-fulfillment takes into account animals as well, as we can see that animals enjoy their lives in a way similar to but different to us. Their's is a fulfillment of pleasure, while humans have an existential (meaning/purpose-oriented) component. As for what moral laws are preeminent, I think that the categorical imperative is most basic and important.

[Feral]

A combination of chaotic good and lawful good.


http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html
http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html


</nerd>

[YeshAtid]

I'm somewhat veered towards Kant's notion that all people are inherently rational, and that when certain circumstances require it most will exercise their cognitive reasoning in order to find a solution. Therefore, I don't feel that imposing any kind of moral imperative upon the masses will be beneficial in creating a more "ethical" society, in fact one could even go so far as to argue that by doing so man's rebellious nature is engendered, leading to an increase in "immoral" behavior. This is often coupled with Jeremy Bentham's brainchild(pardon the cliche) of Utilitarianism, wherein man as a collective should seek to maximise the pleasure felt by people whilst minimising any form of pain.This is indeed based on the presumption that humans are rational enough to deem this to be a desired societal outcome, and so will take great pains and compromises to fully attain this aim. If these two rather abstract ideas were conjoined, then society would be a far more conducive and happy society, but alas this seems to be quite a "tall order", hence I'll remain thoroughly misanthropic

[maxpayne3]

utilitarian consequentialist policies within a consistent deontological framework (e.g. a constitution)

character/virtue issues should be practical and would be dealt with at the local level ofc

[arcticwolf]

These precepts which are universal

Not causing harm to any being
Not taking of what is not given
Not distorting reality/lying
No sexual misconduct ( sexy romantic, caring is ok, no weird shit though
No clouding of the mind (drugs, alcohol, fanatical thinking etc

There is no way anyone can go wrong following these 5 precepts, they are the base of ethics. The more you get away frrom following these 5 precepts the less ethical you will be, no matter how much you disagree.

The short version is: Do no harm, Do good, Train your mind.

[Breedingvariety]

Not causing harm to any being

Those who harm, suffer more than the harmed. I believe in karma.

Not taking of what is not given

Greed and vanity cloud the riches of the spirit.

Not distorting reality/lying

Liars have the most time to tell lies to themselves and therefore they are the most deceived.

No sexual misconduct ( sexy romantic, caring is ok, no weird shit though

Sex clouds the mind. It is the opposite of intelligence.

No clouding of the mind (drugs, alcohol, fanatical thinking etc

Those who seek the most pleasure with drugs and alcohol, will experience the most suffering. As pleasure is not the nature of this world.
Tortured souls seeking redemption in material find physical torture instead.

There is no way anyone can go wrong following these 5 precepts

I agree.

[Mortimer]

1. According to you, any action is conducive to survival of a group. That means ethically individual can do anything and therefore there is no ethics which would determine if an action is ethical.
2. You don't specify for what groups survival individual is acting. It could be specie, race, ethnicity, religious group. Different actions for interests of different groups, would still be ethical, according to you.

yeah just wanted to say the same, he could view humans as a group or whites or french etc. i know he means whites though most people do when they talk about breeding populations and genes

i think im a anthropocentrist and humanist, i follow also the golden rule, and im also enviromentalist and animal lover