What are Ethics?

 

    I think it is interesting that so often when responding to the possibility of there being an ultimate absence of some sort of absolute moral system, whether that be religious or legal, the initial reaction tends so often to be one of despair in the face of vacuum. Whereas, I tend to have proportionately the inverse reply, which is one of hope of the possibility of actual ethical tension. The idea that I would like to explore is whether or not religious and legal systems actually act in such a way in which both society and the individual abdicate living ethically in consideration of the other. 

    One of the classical philosophical questions has been; how do you define justice. Or rather what makes something just or unjust? What defining quality unites all things just and inversely its opposite: injustice? Many philosophers over the centuries have debated this and have yet to come to a consensus. However, one thing indeed has been, I think, made clear; namely that something cannot be just merely by virtue of being legal. There exists a parallel relationship between the religious and the ethical. This is an incredibly important delineation due to the fact that the fallacious conflation of these two are so common. This distinction was beautifully explored by Soren Kierkegaard in his seminal work Fear and Trembling. Regardless however, these systems, legal and religious, in the minds of the masses are all that constitutes living ethically in so far as their mandates are strictly adhered to. 

    In the presence of such systems as absolutes, ethics are reduced to precisely following the letter of religious or legal code. This requires the banishment of living within the tension between what is legal and ethical or what is religiously pious and ethical. Inversely, in the absence of these systems, as absolutes, in the presence of the alterity of the other we are forced into the dialectical tension of how to relate ethically. There are undeniably sacrifices that accompany this symbolic move; namely the feeling of having a peaceful conscience void of existential turmoil. 

    This move in many ways signifies the grasping release of holding what is ethics and in turn opting for always pursuing what is ethical. This means that we no longer know but are on the path to knowing. Furthermore, the most unethical thing to be done is to get off of the path. 

Comments

[Theagnosticpentecostal]

I think all of us have a subjective knowing of a "better." Whether that is an absolute or a relative makes no difference. This inbuilt notion of a "better other" informs our own internal standards of behavior, regardless of laws or religion. For example, I may be trying to live by my own laws, but I will always be somehow aware of a better way, even if I have no information from laws or religion. Some are more aware than others, and some are motivated more by external laws, and therein lies the tension: a tension between internal and external standards of this "better."

That's my take anyway.

[Thomas Just]

Dave, thanks for the insight! I agree that in many ways this can certainly be framed as an internal versus external struggle as to what is ethical. What I wonder though is in what way are these internal tacit assumptions and unarticulated presuppositions in fact formed by social conditioning. In other words where do these internal ethical views come from? Surely they are not formed in a vacuum? Supposedly it would appear that their is some sort of internal matrix whereby differing values are given varying weights and subjectively applied in diverse situations. Then, for me, other questions arise such as what is the best way to live? Is it better to suffer injustice than to commit it? What does it profit a man to live justly? Is the goal happiness? How do we define happiness? The questions are endless for me! But for better or worse this is the path I have chosen! Thanks for traveling it with me!

[Joe Bumbulis]

Dang it! I had a comment, pushed publish and lost it. grrrr.

Well, to summarize what I said. I agree with what you are saying but I also think this brings up ethical questions. I think that the universal, absolute ethic creates the problem of domination and is born out of an imperialistic mode of thought. Thus if someone's ethics weren't the same as mine, then obviously they were barbaric and it was my (manifest?) destiny to force the correct ethics on them. Much of this stems from the enlightenment project of liberalism, secularism, and absolutism.

Nevertheless, the question must be asked about the value of being able to point to absolutes in defense of moving toward a more dialogical approach. For example, minorities around the world, especially women, are now clinging to the idea of "human rights" to put an end to their oppression. Obviously the goal I think is to be faithful to the continual struggle with what is ethical, they way many oppressed people are doing that is by pointing to absolutes. So what is the role of absolutes? Can there be any?

Also, what about killing? Is in categorically wrong to kill, ie pacifism? If so, is this an absolute?

Also, can a system be created that fosters the space for continually struggling with what is ethical? Who decides what is ethical (a very important question for those w/o the ability to choose for themselves)?

Last, is your reference to the "void" derivative of Zizek's "Real"? (I think that's all I wrote, except better and less rushed, ha).