Is there objectivity in ethics, or is ethics simply a matter of social convention? Does the wrongness of some acts - such as genocide, torture, terrorism, murder - transcend social convention?
Read some of these definitions of ethics.
http://www.google.com/#q=ethics+definition
What do you think?
Ms. Sue. I think there is objectivity in ethics
OK.
What about the second question?
Ms. Sue,
Can you let me know what you think. Here is my full response to both questions: I think in some ways there is objectivity to ethics and in some ways it is more related to the person and their individuality. Yes I understand that many cultures have different viewpoints on what they think is right and wrong. I also think the way our parents raise us influence how we view things on being right and wrong. However, not everyone is going to have the same desired outcome they base their ethics on, but for specific outcomes there are ethics that objectively are the best route to take you there. One example of this where different cultures have different viewpoints is in India, they have a baby dropping ritual where they drop a baby over a cliff. As Americans, many of us would think that this is wrong, however people in India don’t find anything wrong with this. Another example of us having different viewpoints, would be eating dog. We love our dogs as pets, however, in some countries there are people who eat dogs. Objectivity really depends on the person and the way they were raised and their culture, although not everyone will have the same outcome. This is where we would need to tolerate, so accept the different viewpoints even though we may not understand them, understand the differences of different cultures and their traditions and behaviors and realize that non are better than others, and then we would also need to respect the other cultures viewpoints.
In regards to extreme wrongness of some acts such as genocide, torture, terrorism, murder, etc. transcend social convention. Not everyone in a group of people who decide to do a mass murder, genocide, terrorism, etc. are going to agree that it was right. We cannot group everyone into the group that did the mass killing, just because they live there. An example could be the apartheid or ever the Nazis during World War 2. Another example could be from Hitler’s perspective: Hitler isn’t a bad leader because of his murderous tyranny or massive invasion plans, he is a bad leader because he didn’t accomplish what he wanted. We think he is a bad leader and person for his plans to kill as many people as he did. Only people who have something wrong, would truly commit such horrible acts. People in their right minds would never do something that hurts a lot of people. Only those people who have done something wrong would be the ones who do not see that what they did was considered wrong and will think that they are benefiting from what they did and that the rest of society should be benefiting from what that person did.
I agree with your ideas.
Consider this though. Most cultures have some variation of what we call the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But that didn't keep Americans from owning slaves or discriminating against minorities.
The question of objectivity in ethics is a topic that has been debated among philosophers for centuries. Different ethical theories propose different perspectives on this matter. Let's explore two main positions: moral objectivism and moral relativism.
1. Moral Objectivism: Moral objectivists argue that there are objective moral truths or principles that exist independently of social conventions. According to this view, certain acts, like genocide, torture, terrorism, and murder, are inherently wrong and universally applicable to all individuals, regardless of cultural or societal norms. This perspective suggests that standards of right and wrong exist outside of human opinions and are discoverable through reason or intuition.
2. Moral Relativism: In contrast, moral relativists hold that ethical judgments are solely products of social or cultural conventions. They argue that moral values and principles are subjective, varying across different societies, individuals, or historical periods. For relativists, the wrongness or rightness of acts like genocide, torture, terrorism, or murder depends on the specific cultural or societal context in which they occur. In this view, there are no universally applicable moral standards.
To understand where you stand on this issue, consider exploring different ethical theories and their justifications. Learn about theories like utilitarianism, which focuses on maximizing overall happiness, or deontological ethics, which emphasizes duty and universal principles. Additionally, reading up on various philosophical arguments regarding ethics can help you form your own perspective.
Remember that ethics is a complex and multifaceted subject, and there is ongoing debate regarding the existence of objective moral truths. Exploring different theories and engaging in thoughtful discussions or reading works by renowned ethicists can provide you with more insights and help you develop a well-rounded perspective.