Your ethics.....

Grayson wrote: »

How do you work out if something is right or wrong?

Too general a question to answer with anything but too general an answer. Because for me most morality and ethics is contextual.

If a generalised answer is what is required though - I guess what many people - myself included - would say is that we try to maximise well being and reduce suffering.

As you say this sometimes involves "totting up" in a way that you simply do not have the time or wherewithal to do "in the moment". But most of us have ideas and reflexes conditioned over a life time of thought and experience which do a lot of that "on the fly" and "in the moment". Not perfect by any means - but I would say it tots up the correct result more often than not.

When you see someone drowning for example you generally feel compelled to jump in and save them. You do not tot up the probability that maybe he was on a murderous rampage and he is now in the water because someone knocked him there in self defense and your saving him will enable him to continue his rampage. Thankfully in the majority of cases this will not be the case and your saving someone is the right thing to do.

But I know what you mean about the thought experiments. For example some people say it is never a good thing to lie. Then in answer to this some people say - you are sitting having a meal with Joe and someone comes to the door saying "do you know where joe is - I want to kill him". So they think that lying in that context is the right thing to do.

But then someone furthers the thought experiment saying that _overhearing_ the conversation joe tries to escape out the back door - but due to your lie the would be killer leaves your door and happens then to bump into and murder joe. So perhaps lying is _not_ the right thing to do.

The "train" problem has always humored me too. If you have a train going along a track towards three people - while on another track stands a single man - would you flick the lever that will redirect the train away from the three in danger and towards the one who is currently not in danger - thus killing him. Most people - it turns out - would flick the lever.

However you put the identical problem thusly - that the train is hurtling towards the three people and you have a fat man beside you of sufficient mass to stop the train. Would you push him in front of it - killing him but saving the three. Most people - it turns out - say no. Even though the results are identical - one man not in danger is killed in the process of saving three people who were.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I generally choose what I reckon would result in the most average happiness.

Average happiness is an interesting one if not articulated right

For example if I walk - as a relatively healthy human being - into a doctors office with a small complaint - and that doctor happens to have 5 patients who require organs that I have - would he increase "average happiness" to just kill and eviscerate me for my organs on the spot? You would go from 6 people - 5 of whom are miserable - to 5 people who are happy and healthy and one who does not care - because he is dead.

Shenshen wrote: »

That's a very interesting question. I'm not sure I can actually put my finger on mine - I've got a few general guidelines like the Golden Rule, along with an emotional desire to help and not to inflict harm.

The main problem with the Golden Rule is that it is only as good as the person saying it. The idea of treating other people how you yourself want to be treated - for example - is not something you would want to hear uttered by a masochist.

Further if you play your words right the Golden Rule can be used to justify just about anything. I could - if you want - use it to justify murdering homosexuals and pedophiles. All I would have to say is "If I ever found out I was gay - I would want someone to kill me" and then saying "Treat others like you want to be treated" I would instantly have justification for murdering homosexuals.