[i]Empirically constructing an Ethical Framework.[/i]

[Gho the Girl]

I have heard mention of this from Tea, and in other threads people keeps speaking of how one objectively creates ethics. However, while this is repeatedly told to me, no one has ever taken the time to show me how exactly one makes such a thing empirically.

Could one or another show me how one empirically (or at the least in a completely objective manner) forms ethical rules? Preferably with an example.

Much appreciated.  

[Gho the Girl]

Am I wrong in my assumptions?  

[TeaDidikai]

Objectivity creates ethics? I don't recall saying such. I have said that objective reality trumps subjective reality.

I have also demonstrated how objective reality comments on ethics.

If you want to construct objective ethics- you have to remove the assumption of moral standards in cases where there is non-falsifiable justification.

Start by taking the topics and examining the reasons for the positions already present. Does it involve a standard that cannot be demonstrated? Weed out from there.  

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Objectivity creates ethics? I don't recall saying such. I have said that objective reality trumps subjective reality.

I have also demonstrated how objective reality comments on ethics.

If you want to construct objective ethics- you have to remove the assumption of moral standards in cases where there is non-falsifiable justification.

Start by taking the topics and examining the reasons for the positions already present. Does it involve a standard that cannot be demonstrated? Weed out from there.

I remember you saying something like ethics was empirically determined.

Or was I wrong? gonk  

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

TeaDidikai

Objectivity creates ethics? I don't recall saying such. I have said that objective reality trumps subjective reality.

I have also demonstrated how objective reality comments on ethics.

If you want to construct objective ethics- you have to remove the assumption of moral standards in cases where there is non-falsifiable justification.

Start by taking the topics and examining the reasons for the positions already present. Does it involve a standard that cannot be demonstrated? Weed out from there.

I remember you saying something like ethics was empirically determined.

Or was I wrong? gonk

There are ethical standards that are objective given the field and discourse... but I'm not sure I said what you're saying I said. Perhaps you can link it? The wording sounds off.

Maybe I did say it when I was tired and meant to word it differently?  

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

TeaDidikai

Objectivity creates ethics? I don't recall saying such. I have said that objective reality trumps subjective reality.

I have also demonstrated how objective reality comments on ethics.

If you want to construct objective ethics- you have to remove the assumption of moral standards in cases where there is non-falsifiable justification.

Start by taking the topics and examining the reasons for the positions already present. Does it involve a standard that cannot be demonstrated? Weed out from there.

I remember you saying something like ethics was empirically determined.

Or was I wrong? gonk

There are ethical standards that are objective given the field and discourse... but I'm not sure I said what you're saying I said. Perhaps you can link it? The wording sounds off.

Maybe I did say it when I was tired and meant to word it differently?

It was in that "Morality is subjective" thread in M&R. We actually got into a discussion. It was like less than a week ago. I don't know if I could link it.

Meh. I just would like to see an example of objective ethics, I guess.  

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

I just would like to see an example of objective ethics, I guess.

I think the problem here is that we're seeing a simplification of what the philosophy of Ethics includes.

When you're talking about Moral Relativism/Ethical Subjectivism, you're talking ideology. When you're talking about the objective nature of things like HIPPA and Model Rules, you're talking Applied Ethics.

To construct Objective Ethics, you'd have to go through the subgroups of Normative Ethics- applied ethics and moral theory. Then you have to discard elements of ethical behavior that cannot be empirically substantiated as valid. (Note- Valid, not logical).

Model Rules and HIPPA set ethical standards for their fields. In that sense, they're objective.

Does that answer your question?  

[Calixti]

Okay, this whole discussion is confusing. Informative, but confusing. If I understand what you're saying, Tea, then ethics in the ideological sense of the word can be subjective sort of in the way people view cultural relativism ("That's okay for their culture, but it's not something we'd allow or see as normal here"), but they're more concrete and objective, and sometimes don't quite hold up when applied to real life (like the sense of entitlement in some cultures and the idea that it doesn't hurt anyone [which I don't think is correct] that leads to culture rape which I think most of us would say is wrong). Or am I misunderstanding entirely?

I should take some classes on ethics for the last of my gen. ed. requirements.  

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

I just would like to see an example of objective ethics, I guess.

I think the problem here is that we're seeing a simplification of what the philosophy of Ethics includes.

When you're talking about Moral Relativism/Ethical Subjectivism, you're talking ideology. When you're talking about the objective nature of things like HIPPA and Model Rules, you're talking Applied Ethics.

To construct Objective Ethics, you'd have to go through the subgroups of Normative Ethics- applied ethics and moral theory. Then you have to discard elements of ethical behavior that cannot be empirically substantiated as valid. (Note- Valid, not logical).

Model Rules and HIPPA set ethical standards for their fields. In that sense, they're objective.

Does that answer your question?

Vagabond Vendor was right. This is like I'm asking a calculus question without understanding addition. I can't even begin to understand what you're talking about, maybe a little. Sort of. Just a bit.  

[TeaDidikai]

Calixti

Okay, this whole discussion is confusing. Informative, but confusing. If I understand what you're saying, Tea, then ethics in the ideological sense of the word can be subjective sort of in the way people view cultural relativism ("That's okay for their culture, but it's not something we'd allow or see as normal here"), but they're more concrete and objective, and sometimes don't quite hold up when applied to real life (like the sense of entitlement in some cultures and the idea that it doesn't hurt anyone [which I don't think is correct] that leads to culture rape which I think most of us would say is wrong). Or am I misunderstanding entirely?

I should take some classes on ethics for the last of my gen. ed. requirements.

So far so good. But I argue that we take it a step further and examine moral relativism more deeply- because the idea rests on an appeal to tradition or popularity.

That upon further examination we see that ethical behavior isn't about context- that's manners or cultural sensitivity. Ethics is about proper behavior. Society constructs ethics to protect itself and it's members. As a result, we build ethics as we develop as a society. We currently see it as immoral for a thirteen year old to be knocked up by her own Father.

We have objective reasons for this. We see the psychological damage caused by incest, the abuse of power, rape- the physical damage that carrying a child can do to a body that isn't ready for it, we see a need for children to own their own sexuality and have it not be exploited etc. This doesn't change simply because you're in a different part of the world. We demonstrate this by comparing the quality of life and doing case studies that examine the wellbeing of these young women (or pick another ethical standard that has been objectively explored).

Applied Ethics isn't trumpted by Moral Theory.  

[Calixti]

TeaDidikai

So far so good. But I argue that we take it a step further and examine moral relativism more deeply- because the idea rests on an appeal to tradition or popularity.

That upon further examination we see that ethical behavior isn't about context- that's manners or cultural sensitivity. Ethics is about proper behavior. Society constructs ethics to protect itself and it's members. As a result, we build ethics as we develop as a society. We currently see it as immoral for a thirteen year old to be knocked up by her own Father.

We have objective reasons for this. We see the psychological damage caused by incest, the abuse of power, rape- the physical damage that carrying a child can do to a body that isn't ready for it, we see a need for children to own their own sexuality and have it not be exploited etc. This doesn't change simply because you're in a different part of the world. We demonstrate this by comparing the quality of life and doing case studies that examine the wellbeing of these young women (or pick another ethical standard that has been objectively explored).

Applied Ethics isn't trumpted by Moral Theory.

Okay, I get that much. Helps that we've talked about it in my sociology and social psych classes. (Hooray for useful gen. ed. requirements!) Problem I keep running into with constructing an ethical framework for myself is, and I'm sorry if this is poorly worded, the line between saying this degree of moral relativism is okay because these cultural norms, though strange from an outside perspective, don't harm anyone, but this degree of moral relativism isn't okay because these cultural norms are strange from an outside perspective and do harm people, and the grey area between "harm" and "cultural indoctrination," if that makes any sense.

A mild example, I guess would be my refusal to shave my body hair, even though I'm female and my culture dictates that a woman's legs and underarms (if not more of her body) ought to be shaven if visible. I don't do it, because I feel it, along with other beauty standards associated with my culture, are oppressive towards all people regardless of sex or gender, and I feel it's wrong to force gendered behaviours like leg- and underarm-shaving on anyone because it interferes with their right to self-determination in terms of gender expression. But even though I feel it's harmful, it's not an idea I try to force on anyone, or talk any female friends uncomfortable with the idea of not shaving into, because...

And that's where I trail off, because I'm not sure why I allow people to try to force me to adhere to cultural norms that I feel are oppressive, or why I don't try to persuade people trying to do so to see things from my perspective, which I guess is an example of my moral theory (that oppressive beauty standards harm people of all sexes and genders ought to be eliminated) not holding up in real life. It's the grey area, it doesn't harm in any obvious, visible way, and the majority of female-identified people do shave their legs and underarms when they're visible, and even claim they choose to do so, therefore they're not being harmed by the standards of beauty they're adhering to, when I believe in a lot of cases they're just incapable of seeing, or choosing not to see the harm because they've been indoctrinated by the dominant culture to see such oppression as normal.

I think I lost the thread of what I was talking about.

And I'm sorry for hijacking your thread, Gho. sweatdrop I can butt out if you'd prefer.

EDIT: Looks like there is an ethics class available fall semester--Philosophy 220, Elements of Ethics. I can arrange a meeting with my academic adviser, discuss whether it would be a better idea to take eighteen credit hours next semester, drop my other gen. ed. class and replace it with Elements of Ethics, or take Elements of Ethics spring semester next year if it's available. It's a class I do want to take and I think it might help me figure out some of the questions I'm wrestling with.  

[TeaDidikai]

Calixti

Okay, I get that much. Helps that we've talked about it in my sociology and social psych classes. (Hooray for useful gen. ed. requirements!) Problem I keep running into with constructing an ethical framework for myself is, and I'm sorry if this is poorly worded, the line between saying this degree of moral relativism is okay because these cultural norms, though strange from an outside perspective, don't harm anyone, but this degree of moral relativism isn't okay because these cultural norms are strange from an outside perspective and do harm people, and the grey area between "harm" and "cultural indoctrination," if that makes any sense.

Makes sense. And when we look at the "gray" area, we simply have to examine objective studies and the reasoning for the tradition.

Quote:

A mild example, I guess would be my refusal to shave my body hair, even though I'm female and my culture dictates that a woman's legs and underarms (if not more of her body) ought to be shaven if visible. I don't do it, because I feel it, along with other beauty standards associated with my culture, are oppressive towards all people regardless of sex or gender, and I feel it's wrong to force gendered behaviours like leg- and underarm-shaving on anyone because it interferes with their right to self-determination in terms of gender expression. But even though I feel it's harmful, it's not an idea I try to force on anyone, or talk any female friends uncomfortable with the idea of not shaving into, because...

And that's where I trail off, because I'm not sure why I allow people to try to force me to adhere to cultural norms that I feel are oppressive, or why I don't try to persuade people trying to do so to see things from my perspective, which I guess is an example of my moral theory (that oppressive beauty standards harm people of all sexes and genders ought to be eliminated) not holding up in real life. It's the grey area, it doesn't harm in any obvious, visible way, and the majority of female-identified people do shave their legs and underarms when they're visible, and even claim they choose to do so, therefore they're not being harmed by the standards of beauty they're adhering to, when I believe in a lot of cases they're just incapable of seeing, or choosing not to see the harm because they've been indoctrinated by the dominant culture to see such oppression as normal.

So the challenge would be- show you're right.

Demonstrate that removing body hair is a form of oppression that psychologically harms the general populous. Before that can be done- you can't take an objective moral stance on it- only a subjective and personal one.

Quote:

EDIT: Looks like there is an ethics class available fall semester--Philosophy 220, Elements of Ethics. I can arrange a meeting with my academic adviser, discuss whether it would be a better idea to take eighteen credit hours next semester, drop my other gen. ed. class and replace it with Elements of Ethics, or take Elements of Ethics spring semester next year if it's available. It's a class I do want to take and I think it might help me figure out some of the questions I'm wrestling with.

Good luck! It'd be wonderful to have someone with a more formal education on the subject.  

[aoijea23487]

i'm majoring in philosophy & religion when i get to college [four months away!], and i can't wait to take an ethics course. i guess i can't answer your question yet, though i would agree with Tea that you take an issue and work with it. i think a good background in formal logic will help greatly.  

[TeaDidikai]

Toasty Marshmallow

i think a good background in formal logic will help greatly.

Indeed.