When we try to find an ethical rule to guide our judgements, usually we use the following method: Propose an ethical rule, then consider specific exmples to determine whether it gives us the right solution. If we can think of an example where it gives the answer we think is wrong, then the rule is flawed.
But here's the problem: What use is an ethical rule if all it does is give us the answers we already believe to be correct?
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Maybe it's not that the rule is flawed but that the belief that we base the rule on is flawed.
For example, if I want to make a rule that says, "an eye for an eye," and then I think of an example in which that rule would not give a fair outcome, it is not the rule that is flawed but my belief that I can use violence to solve problems.
Or maybe you had some other example in mind?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Or maybe they help with the grey areas. Like there are examples where what is right or wrong is clear to me without the aid of a rule. If a proposed rule disagrees, it must be invalid. But there are some areas that are trickier, and an ethical rule can help me weigh the pros and cons.
You think?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think everyone is unique and ethical rules in an organization help iron that stuff out. I think there is one right answer to every situation, but it depends on having perfect knowledge of everything that led to the situation and perfect knowledge of everything that will result. Since none of us have that, we need ethical rules most of the time.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I'm not sure about the proper words to use here, but it would seem that ethics must be based on some moral principle. If we say "an eye for an eye", what is causing us to say that? Or do we discover our morals by testing these ethics and then deciding if the outcome is fair? Well what defines fair?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Or misunderstanding the rule. Most people who use the quote fail to know "An eye for an eye;" is the absolute maximum punishment allowed to be perpetrated upon the accused. 1st) There must be absolute confidence in the accused's guilt: ie there must be no exculpatory evidence that might throw doubt on that confidence. 2nd) There must be no mitigating or extenuating circumstance that might justify reducing the punishment. 3rd) There must be no method for the accused to redeem himself for the effects of the crime. 4th) The victim or those nearest&dearest to the victim must agree with the court's decision to impose the maximum punishment.
Which is why the modern state of Israel has imposed the death penalty only once: upon AdolfEichmann, the nazi architect of the Shoah/Holocaust genocide.