What Is Ethics? (1) - The Science of What We May or May Not Do To One Another

Image credit.

Ethics - A Social Science - The Science of What We May and May Not Do To Each Other

It appears to me that ethics is a perspective on things that presupposes community and social interaction.

Ethics concerns itself with the evaluation of the consequences of human deeds that affect other human beings; its fundamental mission is to establish how far and with what degree of admissibility an action by a person furthers or damages or leaves unperturbed the interests of other persons.

Ethical questions may be discerned from questions of factual correctness ("is it factually correct that b if a?"), in so far as they address the issue of moral correctness, i.e. the relationship of an action to the demands or requirements of a community or a member or members of the community.

Factual correctness is established if an action comports with the intention it is supposed to be serving. Can I drive a nail with my thumb into the wall? Moral correctness is established if an action comports with standards that reveal whether a person's actions entail permissible consequences for other persons. 

Can I fart in the presence of my host? Well, we would rather use the phrase "ought I," rather than "can I," to mark the difference between the factual and the moral dimension. Of course, I can fart in the presence of my host. That is technically feasible under most circumstances. But ought I to fart in the presence of my host? This addresses the question of whether the interests of another person are affected? Will my host feel annoyed by my action, and are his interests enforceable in terms of a code of conduct.

I suspect, ethical issues will combine both interest (establishing relevance to the parties) and enforceability under a moral code (establishing real impact).

People will tend toward (1) a common moral idiom (code), and they will adhere to it only when it is (2) enforceable. 

The individual is restrained by (1) and (2), which force him to respect the interests of other persons.

The restraints of morality are categorical in the sense that a member of the moral community to which they apply cannot ad libitum take action contravening the common moral code.

A Diversion on Moral Lenience

Incidentally, it occurs to me that the reason why small, "primitive" communities tend to have rigid and categorical moral rules is that they are less powerful enforcers than the modern state, which may leave tremendous latitude to personally autonomous action, because the state is still stronger than its citizens, however powerful their free arrangements may have made them. A small community cannot tolerate disrespectfulness vis-à-vis the network of moral demands binding to its members, because the tightness and connectedness of these commands represent the true power of enforcement. The system is protected by severe punishment for the slightest disobedience. It is the ability to deter contravention that infuses the system as a whole with venerability and power. 

If you have means of control, punishment, and coercion as powerful as those of the modern state at your disposal, you are in a position to let people go their own ways to a far larger extent. Let them laugh at the powers-that-be and build their profitable factories; the state will be able to enforce obedience when it matters to it - on tax day, or when the payer of the tribute tries to cheat etc.

Absolute, Relative or Deliberative

Morality is absolute - in many communities. Whether absolute or categorical, the many different moralities that we encounter in different places and at different times suggest that morality is relative (to the circumstances it addresses or finds itself tied into). Some conclude that therefore we live in a world of moral relativism - that every morality is as good as any other.

Morality versus Ethics

Ethics is deliberative. It is an effort to support moral claims with reasons and persuasive arguments. Ethics is an exercise that can work as an antidote to moral relativism, because it tries to show that some arguments have more merit than others.