What is Ethics

[Blodwen0404]

I have an ethical dilemma! The adverts to my right of vision are annoying me no end! Solution! Extend the screen size of the professors excellent video and they magically disappear! Oh! It also helps if you scroll the video to eye level of non-existent adverts! As David Icke puts it, Problem, reaction,solution! Genius!!

[streetwarrior31]

Hello from Portugal.

I´ve read you´re a theology studier and professor

I would love to know your understanding on this matter

Being Freemasons well educated people (the majority ) with all the knowledge that they have about sacred teachings, theosophy, theology and understandings about human behaviour, after all they are responsable of a lot of moral and ethics ideas that bringed society forward...why theres a lack of moral and ethics in today Government politicians being them most fremansons?

[wmiller24]

@GusGrizzwald I originally studied science, (Chemistry, Physics, etc.) but wanted to do something which was more involved with people, so I switched to English Lit. From there I moved to the study of religion and theology, and finally philosophy and ethics. I eventually decided ethics was the most useful discipline because so many problems in our world come from a lack of ethics. Furthermore, if religions would focus more on ethics than on theology, we would have fewer religious conflicts.

[blabblab1212]

What is Ethics? Shouldn't it be "What are Ethics"? That is like saying "What is cars?" Cars is something you drive.

[andrew32cute]

@blabblab1212 if you look in encarta dic you'll seethat ethicsand ethic doesn't have the same meaning, Bot just because it has 's' in the end means that ut's plural, read about 'morphology' and you'll understand.

[TOOLSTER88]

@blabblab1212 Well, in my opinion, "ethics" is not a word that can be pluralized.

[bhigr]

"Behaviour of serious consequence to the well being"? That is one way to ponder this question. However, consequentialism is only one way of thinking about moral questions. Deontology is not a consequentialist theory. Therefore, your definition excludes a whole branch of philosophical ethics. I prefer the following definition: Ethics is the study of the question: What shall I do?

[wmiller24]

My definition is not simply consequentialist. All ethics is concerned with behavior and the effort to determine what kind of behavior is good and what kind of behavior is bad. The difference between consequentialism and deontology, is that deontology is concerned with the long-term view. In other words, both the Ten Commandments and Kant's Categorical Imperative oppose lying, because lying is bad for people. So, according to Kant, lying is prohibited, under any circumstances.

[wmiller24]

Kant (and the Ten Commandments) want people to live in a way which is helpful to human society in general, without regard for immediate consequences. But that does not mean that Kant is not concerned with ultimate outcomes or for the well-being of society. If you say that your version of ethics is not concerned with human well-being (be it physical or spiritual well-being), then I cannot quite see what the basis is for making any kind of ethical judgment.

[bhigr]

@wmiller24 "...without regard for immediate consequences." I completely agree. "Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will". But, the way you phrase it "behaviour of serious consequence to the well being" is slanted. behaviour-> serious consequence->well being? It really sounds like act utilitarianism to me and many other people could misunderstand it in the same way.

[kendraavie]

please prof, will like to know why we study ethics.

[kendraavie]

pls prof can you please tell me why we study ethics?

i believe ethicss is suppose to be inherent but some people still cant differentiate the good from the bad.

is that a good reason for studying ethics?

[Jcolinsol]

@kendraavie

Well, I suppose it's worth studying ethics if you enjoy studying ethics. That's the only reason I can think of.

[cthespot]

Please define Deotoligical Ethics and ethical thinker associated with theory, decision making process, and workplace examples. trying to get a total understanding.

[GodOfTheInternets]

Businesses are unethical.

[Jcolinsol]

@GodOfTheInternets

Governments are unethical.

[GodOfTheInternets]

@Jcolinsol

Indeed. The answer: Anarchist Communism.

[Jcolinsol]

@GodOfTheInternets

Well, let's just say Anarchy without adjectives. A relinquishment of the compulsion for domination of others.

[GodOfTheInternets]

@Jcolinsol

Of course, if people desire to live in a mutualist society or even a capitalist society they would be free to do so.

[PSGs213]

i think if it is good , it is good; and whatever is bad, is bad. If you philosophize through this you will figure that there is no such thing as too much good, because there is no such thing as to much bad, it's just bad. if a parent thinks she's helping her daughter by buying all the things she wants and spoils her; her mother would think of it as good but if we philosophize about this we would agree that the mother is wrong and would be labeled as wrong.

[FREEBUTERFLY2010]

Thank u so much it was a wounderful lectuer

Dr.Dina Elshafey

[myang0101]

This is very interesting. So, should there be different ethical standards for individuals and corporations? 

[daletheelf3]

Ethics means to be indifferent to evil yet to know evil in order to avoid evil. That is the most simple way I can say what ethics is. I could go over many different virtues now but I do not have the time.

[ampleoppourtunity]

Prof, thanks for your time. I really appreciate the videos.

Please can u adopt me?

Really want to learn more from the professionals.

[dostanden74]

So according to this "serous consequence" theory it's not immoral to steal something of low value, or to tell a "white lie" that does not have a drastic result. This doesn't sound very thought through...

[wmiller24]

If you steal and get in the habit of stealing, don't you think that such behavior could be "of serious consequence." Stealing and lying are always of serious consequence, not only because of what they do to others, but because of the consequences to the character of the one doing the stealing and the lying. There may be times when stealing a small item, or telling a "white lie" might not be unethical (depending on your moral theory), but such behavior always has serious ramifications.

[sweetlapaz]

google Doe's Account.

[sov19871987]

Nice

[paulagib04]

Can you tell me which university you teach at? I really enjoyed your videos, and I would really like to quote you in a paper I am writing.

[wmiller24]

I teach Philosophy and Ethics at Widener University in Chester, PA. If you want to cite my videos, you need to include my name, which is Wayne Miller, and the URL of the video you are citing.

[HPPC]

Would "Loyalty" streamline right and /or wrong? Would "self interest" influence right and/or wrong too?

[wmiller24]

Your question is a good one. Loyalty is usually perceived as a positive virtue, and self-interest as something negative. However, it often depends on the circumstances. The value of loyalty actually depends on where your loyalty lies, i.e., to whom or to what you are loyal. If you are loyal to Hitler or the Mafia, most people would consider that to be bad. So, ethicists generally speak of "proper loyalty" when they are trying to identify positive virtues.

[wmiller24]

With regard to self-interest, the rightness or wrongness depends upon your theory of ethics. In a Kantian view, good will and devotion to duty is everything. For Kant, even if a selfish person accidentally does something beneficial, the result may be good, but the action is still bad because the intention is bad. For a utilitarian, however, consequences are everything. From this perspective, if the results are good, the action is good, regardless of the intention.

[postorm]

Isn't "loyalty" inherently wrong, or at least redundant? If being loyal to someone means only "supporting them when they are doing the right thing" ... then it is hardly worth saying. If it means anything more than that, it must include "Supporting them when they are doing the wrong thing". So the loyalty is wrong too?

[philnoll]

Do you mean loyal as in faithful to a partner, or like loyal to a charity, like I am a loyal supported of NPR. I'm guessing you mean loyalty or allegiance to a king or government. The great thing about democracy is that if we are loyal to the ideology the country is built on, we have an obligation to disapprove when the leaders are doing the "wrong thing."

[postorm]

Professor, Your definition nets to 'Working out what is good or bad for people'. I find it to be curiously scoped. Why shouldn't it be broader? "... for all living things" or "... for mammals" or "... for the universe"?

Or narrower? '...for white people", or "... for my tribe", or "...for me"?

For example, by your definition, a discussion about the ethical treatment of animals must be about what is good or bad for people, and has nothing to do with what is good or bad for (non-human) animals?

[wmiller24]

I understand your point, and it is true that I could expand my definition of ethics to include animals and the environment, etc. However, what you are asking me to do is to put the content of ethics into the definition of ethics. Animals and the environment do not act ethically or unethically. Ethics is a question of what is important to rational agents and how they should therefore behave.

[wmiller24]

What happens to animals and the universe around us only matters to us ethically in so far as we care about it. If you do not make a rational argument as to why we should care about a particular issue, then it is simply begging the question to include that issue in the definition of ethics.

[postorm]

Shouldn't ethics tell us what we *should* care about? If I don't care about you, does that relieve me of any ethical or moral obligation not to kill you? Is it ethically acceptable to say "I don't care about animals therefore I can torture them with impunity"?

I'm inviting you to provide an argument to justify where you drew that line. Surely you have a better argument than "nobody has argued that it should be drawn elsewhere"?

[philnoll]

Yeah. Well you've got to draw the line somewhere, or you'll be outnumbered. Ethics are for people (rational people), and they draw the line wherever it affects us. If you want to criticize the beef industry, you've got to say that bovine growth hormones are unhealthy to people. If the environment is an ethical concern, its because we face mass extinction. The American buffalo slaughter was only unethical because it deprived the natives of a vital food supply.

[postorm]

I agree with your comment except for the "(rational people )". Would the slaughter of tens of millions of Americans (people not Buffalo) be ethical (by European, for the sake of argument)? Apparently it was if the Europeans were our ancestors and the Americans were the "native" Americans?

Are you saying that rational ethical people "draw the line" so that they can win the argument by weight of numbers? I fail to see how that is ethical or rational.

[philnoll]

haha. Yeah the (rational people). That was sort of a joke. But clearly we still think in terms of civilized vs. uncivilized, and the ethics are meant for those who are civilized.

Sure we're moving into a new age, and more and more people are thinking about the other folks on the other side of the globe. That's why they had to call the Iraq war operation Iraqi Freedom to make it seem ethical.

You're right postorm, The only thing rational about ethics is that they have to be rationalized.

[postorm]

Sorry, I didn't get that you were joking. Sadly it does seem that Ethics is primarily about rationalizing and justify a choice that has already been made. Like the rest of philosophy it is able to prove that an argument that appears to support some conclusion is an invalid argument (which is not the same as proving the conclusion is false), but seems devoid of any positive conclusion. Relative Moralists just have opinions, and Absolute Moralists hold that their opinion is better than others.

[philnoll]

Yes, although it was sort of a joke, it is also sort of the truth. The distinction between rational and irrational people is what free market economics and foreign policy is based on. Its ironic that the "free world" would not be possible without ruthless imperialism.

But the study of ethics (notably bioethics, global ethics, business ethics, journalism ethics, and human rights issues) is the only way we can overcome accepted practices that are clearly unjust.

[postorm]

Let's not confuse the actor with the entities on whom the acts have consequences. I am not suggesting that ethics should work out whether an animal's or a rock's action is good or bad for humans. I'm asking whether ethics should work out whether a human's action is good or bad for an animal or a rock. I'm asking you to justify drawing the "consequences" line at at the human species boundary -- bearing mind that it has frequently been drawn more narrowly in the past ("white people") .

[wtfAvailableUser]

What ethics in general is irrelevant for business. Being ethical and beeing good businesman contradicts each other.

[MetalBassjunkie420]

@ wtfAvailableUserEthics kicks in with laws like minimum wage. I don't think you make sense.

[VarykGerai]

minimum wage law has nothing to do with business ethics. its just politics.

[BobarTheBarbarian]

I really have to say "the nature of the free market and capitalism" is halfway an illusion. They are just concepts we are taught in classrooms that have little real world applications.

[AnimusTheLocke]

Thank you for uploading this. Basic ethical theory really should be taught to people at a young age, but instead it's relegated to the dusty corners of post-secondary education.

[winniele710]

ethics

[jaysteinbourg]

4 legs good, 2 legs bad!

[waseemakram87]

really best :) keep it up buddy..

[TESOblivion4]

this upload is simply amazing.

[scrantme]

Morality is a conception of "good" and "bad" at a social level, it dictates the general outline within which all of that society is to function. Ethics, while respecting the concepts of morality, applies the "sustantive" bases of morality to individual cases, for example business ethics or legal ethics, the ethics of any profession. For an action to be deemed ethical first and foresmost it must not consciously go against what the law (governing system of morals and mores) of society.

[chopaface]

I may not be a student of yours, but I do wish to know which institution do you present from. Please private message me with the details.

Thank you.

[abirdnamedcat]

Outside the Box: to consider purposes other than ones own?

[abirdnamedcat]

Science expresses facts, Art expresses beauty.

[KutZ89]

Art expresses many things.

[abirdnamedcat]

The possibilities are endless, indeed.

[abirdnamedcat]

Right and Wrong are relative opposites of correct and incorrect information.

[abirdnamedcat]

Good and Bad are relative opposites like up and down. Up and down are relative to elevation; good and bad are relative to purpose.

[abirdnamedcat]

To be moral is to intend to cause strength to others with ones actions.

[abirdnamedcat]

To be ethical is the consider the consequences.