Ethics: Objective or Subjective

[Mr. Muto]

I am assuming the position that ethics is objective.

 

[McBell]

Define "ethics"

For example, which of the types of ethics are you referring to:

1. utilitarianism, which emphasizes maximizing overall welfare
2. egoism, which prioritizes maximizing one's own welfare
3. deontological ethics, which posits absolute duties or prohibitions
4. the ethics of rights, which emphasizes the protection of individual rights
5. virtue ethics, which focuses on the development of virtuous character
6. feminist ethics, which considers gender differences in moral thinking
7. environmental or ecological ethics, which recognizes moral obligations towards nature

 

[The Hammer]

I am assuming the position that ethics is objective.

"All ethics start with subjective first principles.

Just as with the natural sciences, you can only trace the cause of morals and ethics backwards a finite number of times before you have to say "I do not know what the cause of that is". "

Is there a distinction between Subjective and Objective Ethics, or not?

So, from what I understand, subjective ethics refers to when one's personal taste, emotional state, and contextual situation can cause one person to reach a different moral conclusion in a situatio...

philosophy.stackexchange.com

I still stand by, ethics and morals are subjective first and foremost.

 

[The Hammer]

Define "ethics"

For example, which of the types of ethics are you referring to:

1. utilitarianism, which emphasizes maximizing overall welfare
2. egoism, which prioritizes maximizing one's own welfare
3. deontological ethics, which posits absolute duties or prohibitions
4. the ethics of rights, which emphasizes the protection of individual rights
5. virtue ethics, which focuses on the development of virtuous character
6. feminist ethics, which considers gender differences in moral thinking
7. environmental or ecological ethics, which recognizes moral obligations towards nature

"To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person’s choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the individual to include what is determined to be right, and wrong, for a community or society at large.

Ethics is concerned with rights, responsibilities, use of language, what it means to live an ethical life, and how people make moral decisions. "

 

[McBell]

"To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person’s choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the individual to include what is determined to be right, and wrong, for a community or society at large.

Ethics is concerned with rights, responsibilities, use of language, what it means to live an ethical life, and how people make moral decisions. "

Ethics, also referred to as moral philosophy, is the study of moral phenomena. It is one of the main branches of philosophy and investigates the nature of morality and the principles that govern the moral evaluation of conduct, character traits, and institutions. It examines what obligations people have, what behavior is right and wrong, and how to lead a good life. Some of its key questions are "How should one live?" and "What gives meaning to life?".[3]​

​

The domain of morality is a normative field governing what people ought to do rather than what they actually do, what they want to do, or what social conventions require. As a rational and systematic field of inquiry, ethics studies practical reasons why people should act one way rather than another. Most ethical theories seek universal principles that express a general standpoint of what is objectively right and wrong.[4] In a slightly different sense, the term "ethics" can also refer to individual ethical theories in the form of a rational system of moral principles, such as Aristotelian ethics, and to a moral code that certain societies, social groups, or professions follow, as in Protestant work ethic and medical ethics.[5]​

​

The terms "ethics" and "morality" are usually used interchangeably but some philosophers draw a distinction between the two. According to one view, morality is restricted to the question of what moral obligations people have while ethics is a wider term that takes additional considerations into account, such as what is good or how to lead a meaningful life. Another difference is that codes of conduct pertaining to specific areas, such as the business and environment, are usually termed "ethics" rather than morality, as in business ethics and environmental ethics.[6]​

​

As a philosophical discipline, ethics is usually divided into normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics. Normative ethics tries to find and justify universal principles of moral conduct. Applied ethics examines the consequences of those principles in specific domains of practical life. Metaethics is a metatheory that studies underlying assumptions and concepts, such as what the nature of morality is and whether moral judgments can be objectively true.[7]​

​

The English word ethics has its roots in the Ancient Greek word êthos (ἦθος) meaning "character, personal disposition". This word gave rise to the Ancient Greek word ēthikós (ἠθικός), which was translated into Latin as ethica and entered the English language in the 15th century through the Old French term éthique.[8]​

​

Ethics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

I suspect the OP does not understand just how deep and complex the subject matter gets...

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am assuming the position that ethics is objective.

I think in scripture we'd say it is God's will in heaven, but we are trying to make it real here among people. I think this is creating reality rather than measuring reality. That is why I'd say in the current reality or current situation there is not a way for people to have objective ethics. Actually I think as long as we are humans its impossible for us to live up to an objective ethical standard. We have terminology for this: 'New creation'. Outside of the new creation there is confusion. Inside of it is one clear ethical standard, but also inside of it there might not be anything of the human being left.

Humanity has a problem with perfection: not God. Humanity has a problem with standards. Humanity gets tired, can't do everything that would be ideal. Humanity is what Jesus leaves on the cross and calls Christians to do the same. Therefore I think that in the new creation it becomes possible to have objective ethics only because (and to the degree that we) cast aside our humanity. This is what I think Jesus refers to when he repeatedly says to deny one's self. It would indeed make an objective ethical standard possible.

Outside of the new creation? That is where human weakness prevents perfection. If you like the apostle Paul words it this way:

[Rom 8:3 NIV] 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,​

 

[Heyo]

I am assuming the position that ethics is objective.

Ethics, in contrast to morals, which are personal, is communal. Any group can have a code of ethics, many organizations and corporations have a (written) code of ethics. In that way, ethics are neither subjective, as they don't depend on a single subject, nor are they objective, as they don't apply generally.
Ethics are intersubjective.