This instantly reminded me of my own perception of ethics which as vast as it is, I'm going to draw in a specific idea and use it to illustrate a point in relation of Meths blog what it is and how it works.
Firstly you have to understand that I'm opposed to the idea that ethics or morals exist as an idea within themselves. They don't exist independently and within themselves. They only exist as a perception of action and conduct between people.
Ethics as a concept which we talk about have emerged from social norms as we're social creatures. Being nice to one another surprisingly is how we learnt to survive as a species. Being nice to others was an evolutionary advantage to us, among side plenty of other creatures, even within bacteria. Those things we're inclined to think as being good, which is further emphasised as a learnt conduct through generations. We've learnt them as being ethical, and we've even rationalised these ideas in language as our language has developed, advancing those things from survival techniques made into inclinations into fully rationalised and thought out ideas. It's not just learnt behaviour.
How ethical a person is when we rationally judge them is down to a coherentism-esque method.
Let's step out and define coherentism first; coherentism is the idea that beliefs are better supported if they tie in with other beliefs. The more beliefs it ties in with, the more justified a belief is to us.
Now imagine ethics. The more someone adheres to our perception of what is ethical in action and conduct, the more they fit into those beliefs or ideas or inclinations of what is ethical, the better of a person they will seem to use when we judge them.
Because ethics is not a personal thing and also operates on a collective level though because of how they generated, there is also a collective idea of what is ethical which is emergent. Those who appear more in that ethical framework to the community will seem more ethical. However, if they don't, the person overall is less ethical on the basis of judging how well they fit into the ethical frame work. The less he fits into that framework, the less ethical they will appear.
This works with ideas. Moderation is that framework as we perceive it. Those with extreme politics, or extreme ideas, or even extreme art, it will be less socially accepted because of the framework they're in. It's less socially accepted as it doesn't seem as rational to those people.
However, someone may be completely outside of that framework, but it doesn't make them bad. It just makes them completely different, and the community will seem less rational by that person's own framework ironically enough. Because there's nothing absolutely set into stone, extremism of any sort is only understood in relative terms which can be understood loosely in this way.
It's 6.36am. I haven't slept. I will edit this for spelling and grammar making sure it makes sense tomorrow. I just wanted to get this done and out of the way quickly though I'm not the most coherent after little sleep.
| My Profile
Relativity in ethics, plus more blog
