What is your life

Ethics based on Philosophical Thought

The philosophical and analytical approach to ethics addressed some fundamental questions:

* Are ethical rules of absolute value or of demographically relative value (as in different cultures)?

* Are ethics determined by process or by goals (the importance of acting ethically or to justify acts by their goals)?

* What is the fundamental basis for ethics (for example, rationally: the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people – as opposed to the human rights of each individual)?

The Greeks began their intellectual approach to ethics with a discussion of the absolute versus the demographically relative value of ethics (Aristotle versus the Sophists). In trying to arrive at absolute rules of ethics, Aristotle defined virtue as lying between two undesirable extremes. Stoics and Epicureans were more concerned with personal happiness than with ethics.
Beginning with the Scholastic period and the first stirrings of the Renaissance, rational thought was introduced into religious and theological teaching (Maimonides, Abelarde, Aquinas). Finally, a clear separation occurred between “ethics” as a branch of philosophy different from theologically based moral exegesis and teaching. The study of philosophical “ethics” resumed the Greek discussion regarding the relative or absolute value of ethical standards. The difference was seen as one between a circumstantially learned concept of ethics and one of intrinsic, absolute, and general value.
In later centuries, utilitarian considerations prevailed over idealistic ones. The difference was that between a strictly rational interpretation of ethics and an idealistic and emotional one.
The maturing of the human mind in the West through the Enlightenment and, later, as a human reaction, through the romantic and humanistic period, brought a reassessment of ethics in the new setting of modern society. The results were humanistically formed values, the American Bill of Rights, Communism, and the abolition of slavery concluding with civil rights, and, finally, environmentalism today. The clergy and its religious exegetic effort was often in the forefront of these movements.
Four developments changed the intellectual discussion and brought it to its present state:

• 
  The Nazi and Communist abuses of utilitarian ethics in the elimination of “undesirables”
  
• 
  Recognition of the genetic base of ethics
  
• 
  New and almost Darwinian territorial drives of some ethnic groups and the survival threats experienced by various nations at the hand of the more powerful ones – or in consequence of climatic change
  
• 
  Fundamentalist religious movements on one side, and liberal extremes on the other
  

The Nazi and Communist abuses of utilitarian ethics led to the killing of members of society who were declared “useless” (for example, Gypsies and the mentally handicapped) and the enslavement or killing of large ethnic segments of the population for the pretended benefit of society at large (the killing of the Jews). These horrors indicated the horrible dangers of utilitarian ethics. This brought a return of the demand for idealistic ethics without utilitarian limitations (with consequences in the American civil rights movement, international aid, and the environmental movement).

The scientific recognition of the genetic base of ethics brought an end to the centuries-old discussion of the absolute or relative character of ethics. The common genetic base of all people made caring for offspring, reciprocity, and clan loyalty an absolute base of human emotions and, consequently, of universal ethical judgment. Everything else turned out to be either learned or a cultural habit (for instance, to what degree all children were perceived with as much affection as own offspring – who all would be comprised in reciprocity – and who all would be included in or excluded from loyalty).
New Darwinian territorial drives and the threats experienced by various nations are visible in many of the small wars and civil devastations in recent times – for example, in the Balkans, between Israelis and Palestinians, on Sri Lanka, and in Rwanda. Also to be included are the waves of immigration into the developed countries and the resulting reactions. In every case, international ethics were violated by people claiming ethical motivations in loyalty to their “own people”, whether family, religious, or ethnic group. It was found that people are not ready to surrender their national territory, culture, or religious homogeneity to others, whether or not the others are in need. The resulting struggles are not decided by wise judgment based on ethical norms, but by the Darwinian force of the fittest in the modern world.
The resurgent fundamentalist movements of our times are directed specifically toward the strengthening of ethical standards (or, quite often, merely moral taboos). In the process, some adherents of such movements feel entitled to severely punish all those who are opposed to their movement (see the Muslim radicals). This is no different from the behavior in the times of the Inquisition and religious wars in Europe (and, to some degree, the Nazis). In our day, this modern phenomenon, long thought to have been overcome, can be found among Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. Can the world never be cured of these types of ethics-disease?
In contrast to fundamentalism, liberal thought attempts to liberate people from irrational traditions and taboos. In the case of sexual liberalization, however, liberal thought contributes to the weakening of the family. Single mothers and children are the ones who suffer. In another example, gender liberalization finds its limits in the obligation for child-rearing.
Global coherence expands ethical concerns to the behavior of nations, tribes, and clans. It can no longer be acceptable that such subgroups of mankind abuse their power to overrule or exploit other groups in any unethical way, where “legal” is not identical with “ethical”.
Environmental limitations impose a responsibility for nature upon mankind. This responsibility should be seen not merely in the interest of mankind, but as a natural responsibility in itself. On the other hand, nature could not have been left where it was when mankind first appeared. This is a typical gray-zone problem. As with all such problems, especially those in ethical dilemmas, it is not easily treatable in intellectual terms.
In summary, the philosophical dilemmas of times past may be resolved. However, the practical dilemmas are not resolved. Neither utilitarian nor idealistic ethics works; nor does unlimited intellectual liberalism. In addition, the new ethical problems of our time have found no solutions in mature philosophical thought.