Are You Ethical?

What do we mean when we say ‘ethics’ or talk of things as being ‘ethical’ or ‘unethical’? And how is this different from ‘morals’ and ‘morality’? What is the game of ethics about?

Let us begin with my standard premise that to ask what a word means, is to ask how it is used (from Wittgenstein). Both ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ refer to the same basic concept but, alas, so vague are the boundaries of this region that the two terms are not guaranteed to be synonymous in any one individual, nor for any distinctions made to be shared by a third party. However, we can in broad strokes say that the general flavour of ‘ethics’ is the study of the relevant phenomena, while the flavour of ‘morals’ is rather the practice of it.

A person’s ethics (or morality) consist in general of their values and customs, in particular those which are the most emotionally charged. Value terms of almost all kinds can be associated to ethics – good and evil, right and wrong, duty (or responsibility) , sensible or stupid, cruel or kind, entertaining or dull. Which value judgments are in play depends essentially on whatever criterion has been chosen as the focus of the ethics in question - the ethical criteria - while how those value judgments are interpreted  depends upon the individual’s frame of reference (their beliefs or culture).

Ethical situations (that is, circumstances where the game of ethics can be played) entail an agent acting in a particular manner with certain outcomes. One can build a system of ethics from any element of this situation; centring upon the person in agent-focused approaches (such as virtue ethics, represented by Aristotle), upon the actions taken in rights-focused or rules-focussed approaches (such as deontology or duty ethics, represented by Kant) or upon the consequences of the actions in outcome-focused approaches (such as consequentialist ethics, which include utilitarianism, usually traced back to Hume). Since nothing else is involved in an ethical situation but people acting, actions taken, and outcomes that result, this should be a full description, although the number of ways these three elements can be interpreted (and entangled!) leads to infinite possible ethical systems.

To accuse someone of being ‘unethical’ can mean in essence three different things. Firstly, it may mean that the person has no system of ethics at all, which is usually referred to as amorality. Alternatively, it may mean that we are accusing them of not following their own system of ethics, which is usually referred to as hypocrisy – but which requires us to know their ethical criteria at the very least before we can reasonably comment. Alternatively, ‘unethical’ may be in reference to a deviation from a particular shared (cultural) system of ethics, which is to say, the commonly perceived congruence of a community’s ethical system. This is usually referred to as immorality in respect of that system of ethics, but if the individual in question does not embrace the ethics in question, such allegations are simply an expression of dislike towards the person thus accused (unless they also happen to be illegal).

To be ‘ethical’, therefore, is the contrary state of affairs and has three elements: to have a system of ethics (and thus avoid amorality), to practice and adhere to that system of ethics (and thus avoid immorality) and to make your ethical position sufficiently clear to other people (and thus avoid hypocrisy).

The question that lays before you, then, is nothing more than this: are you ethical?

Addendum

This piece caused some confusion, which was to a certain extent deliberate, but did not pan out as hoped. I intentionally set out this piece with some legerdemain at the end to obfuscate the definition of 'ethical' in the hope that this would provoke debate. Alas, it didn't happen. Here is why this piece does not, in fact, deliver a useful definition of ethical.

Firstly, I set out a definition to 'unethical', which has three parts. Then I implied that the definition of 'ethical' must contain the same three elements. In effect, I invite the reader to invert 'unethical' to get 'ethical'. But this isn't actually guaranteed to work! When we talk of the meaning of a word being how it is used, we can't use logical manipulations to acquire meaning - certainly, one cannot take a family resemblance word and expect to manipulate it logically.

Here's an example. Suppose I define 'untalented' to be a list of things one would have to be poor at: 'poor at playing musical instruments, poor at drawing, poor at poetry...' etc. If I expect to negate this to get a meaning of 'talented' I will be in a strange place - as then 'talented' means 'good at playing musical instruments, and drawing, and poetry...' etc. The result is nonsense! (Although in this instance, we might rescue the meaning by using 'or' instead of 'and' in the result...)

In essence, then, the implied definition of 'ethical' in this piece was something of a straw man to invite criticism. I was hoping in doing so to tease out a stronger definition of ethical. I apologise for the confusion thus caused!

So the alternative question to the one mentioned above is: what does it mean to be 'ethical'?

Comments

[Michael Mouse]

No, I'm not ethical - at least, not by that definition. Which tends to make me reject your definition, since I like to imagine myself a very ethical person. But I could be wrong - and indeed believe that I have been profoundly wrong on matters of ethics in the past - so it's worth exploring point-by-point.

1) to have a system of ethics

I have a number of strongly-held and clearly articulated ethical principles and beliefs, and a greater number of fuzzier ones. However, I am aware that my beliefs are somewhat diverse and - in places - inconsistent in ways that I see as important. So I wouldn't describe it as a system of ethics.

2) To practice and adhere to that system of ethics

My ragbag of ethics calls for conduct of a rather higher standard than I am able to achieve at all times. But I count that a valuable feature in my ethics: it helps me strive to be better.

3) to make your ethical position sufficiently clear to other people

Abject failure here, since - as I mention above - my ethical position is not sufficiently clear even to me! *grin*

How ever can one tell if one has been sufficiently clear? How much time can one reasonably require from one's audience? Obviously there can't be a blanket requirement on all people to spend the time to be fully aware of the system of ethics of all other people - or even merely of the other people one deals with regularly.

On a slightly different tack, I'm not sure that the avoidance of hypocrisy is a well-constrcuted requirement for ethical conduct. Surely one could imagine a system of ethics which doesn't have this as a requirement? For instance - and topically - the Church of Scientology allegedly regards it as something of a duty on senior adherents to be misleading to those it regards as enemies. I worry that you've elevated hypocrisy as a meta-level variable when in fact it's properly seen as a concept that lies firmly within a moral system, not outside it.

Fascinating stuff this, though. Looking forward to the rest of the campaign.

[Chris]

Michael: I'm going to bite my tongue for now and let this one run over the weekend before responding. Nice comment, though - I look forward to replying to it properly. ;)

[Peter Crowther]

By that definition, I am undoubtedly unethical. I would expect there to be very few people who could tick all the boxes.

My system of ethics is incomplete in several places (though is, I hope, internally consistent where it is defined). Partly because it is incomplete and partly because there is no current society where at least some of its tenets are not illegal*, I do not communicate it sufficiently clearly. Because I gain major benefits from living in a modern technological world and partly because there's not really anywhere sufficiently remote and yet still habitable, I have elected not to try to separate myself from society and live entirely according to my own beliefs; therefore I do not follow my own system in some important areas, making me a hypocrite.

I think that definition is (should be) a good stimulus for discussion. It's a very stringent definition, however.

* For example, I believe that killing another human is not a crime, merely a datum that should immediately be made public by the killer or as soon as anyone else discovers it.

[Chris]

Let me begin with a brief confession. I intentionally set out this piece with some legerdemain at the end to obfuscate the definition of 'ethical' in the hope that this would provoke debate. However, with only two respondants, apparently this wasn't enough. ;) Likely by taking such a rigorous approach I scared some people off. No matter.

Anyway, here is why the above piece does not, in fact, deliver a useful definition of ethical.

Firstly, I set out a definition to 'unethical', which has three parts. Then I suggest that the definition of 'ethical' must contain the same three elements. In effect, I invite the reader to invert 'unethical' to get 'ethical'.

But this isn't actually guaranteed to work! When we talk of the meaning of a word being how it is used, we can't use logical manipulations to acquire meaning - certainly, one cannot take a family resemblance word and expect to manipulate it logically.

Here's an example. Suppose I define 'untalented' to be a list of things one would have to be poor at: 'poor at playing musical instruments, poor at drawing, poor at poetry...' etc. If I expect to negate this to get a meaning of 'talented' I will be in a strange place - as then 'talented' means 'good at playing musical instruments, and drawing, and poetry...' etc. The result is nonsense! (Although in this instance, we might rescue the meaning by using 'or' instead of 'and' in the result...)

In essence, then, the implied definition of 'ethical' in this piece was something of a straw man to invite criticism. I was hoping in doing so to tease out a stronger definition of ethical. Unfortunately, only two respondants, so this plan rather falls flat. :)

Never mind! Better luck next time....

-----

Michael: I think you are absolutely right to reject my definition! You certainly sound ethical to me, although I suspect your position has its weak points. You are essentially stating that the foundation of your ethics is your own intuition.

This is not really ethical intuitionism, as the term is usually used, as this implies using intuition to support objective moral values of some kind. I'm not sure the moral philosophy community has a name for this kind of intuitionism - which is odd, as I suspect it to be quite common.

I don't see that the inconsistency or vagueness of your ethics necessarily means that you don't have a system of ethics, any more than the vagueness or inconsistency of government means that we don't have a system of government. :) I have no problems with systems being incomplete, inconsistent or vague - indeed, I rather expect it. :)

"I'm not sure that the avoidance of hypocrisy is a well-constrcuted requirement for ethical conduct."

Neither am I! In fact, I have spent most of the weekend considering this point and concluding that it is nonsense to even imply that one has an obligation to explicate one's ethics to other people. I plan to dig into this in a post so I shall say no more for now. :)

Many thanks for your comment!

---

Peter: as by this point is clear, I too am doubtful anyone can "tick all these boxes", and I certainly don't think one needs to do so to claim to be ethical.

That your system of ethics is incomplete is inevitable, isn't it? There are infinite possibile situations, but only finite resources with which to construct ethical systems. Aren't all systems of ethics incomplete in some way?

When you don't follow your own ethics, you presumably follow society's ethics (or something akin to it). I don't feels this is grounds for an accusation of hypocrisy. Rather, it means that you are willing to accept society's ethical code in place of your own... this is a sacrifice you are making on behalf of the society you live in, and therefore I suggest this is actually a noble approach.

It seems clear to me that there's a bugbear hidden in this idea of 'hypocrisy' that we shall have to look at more closely.

Best wishes!

[zenBen]

For anyone currently feeling inconsistent or vague in their ethical position, there is a website (when is there not) which proffers a few simple self-report tools that might help to focus thinking.
http://www.yourmorals.org is the work of psy­chol­o­gist Jon­a­than Haidt of the Un­i­ver­si­ty of Vir­gin­ia in Char­lottes­ville, Va. Found out about him from here.
Most surprising thing I found out about myself - I have a slightly higher sense of disgust than average. Students these days - what are we coming to?!

[Chris]

Thanks for the link! I found some of those questions contained dubious assumptions and that answering them was problematic.

In the soldier example, it is not sufficient to ask whether I agree with the orders, I must know what I am being ordered to do - at least in broad strokes. Hypothetically, if I were a soldier, I would obey orders that I did not agree with but that does not mean that I would violate human rights or the articles of war. I found many of the questions similarly woolly.

Also, although I haven't read these people's research papers, they rush to 'evolution' as an explanation rather too readily. I would love to know where they pull this rabbit from. Until the scientific mind-body problem has been addressed, evolutionary explanations for behaviour are surely premature. They should have focussed on the emotions involved without rushing to 'big picture' explanations which are tangential to the issue at hand.

I dislike scientists who turn to evolution as an explanatory device as if it somehow lends weight to their arguments... Rather, when I see evolution invoked in this way, I suspect a lack of clarity of observation on the part of the scientist involved.

Still, an interesting link. ;)

[Neil]

How about writers who makes themselves rich by writing some rehashed ideas into a new book, then hoodwinking people into thinking it is part of a New Way, and then fleecing them for decently large sums of cash...?

I believe the explanatory device used in this case is the best ever, as it is only meant to be told to people long after they are indoctrinated into the society those writer's books turned into. And then they are sworn to secrecy.

I won't name the group or anything to do with it or this blog might get subjugated by followers, who think it fair game to eliminate all opponents to their way of thinking.

Suffice to say that hypocrisy is being used by some as a self-defence mechanism, which is a shame as I believe hypocrisy is an essential component of human interaction.

It would be nice (maybe - hard to tell) if we lived in a society where that wasn't the case, but it isn't. We aren't all strong enough to hear the truth all the time, and so telling people what they want to hear can be a good thing. But like everything it has to be selective and judicious.

Not something we can all claim to be, and those that can, I suggest not all the time.

My morals and ethics have altered as I move through my life (I think I would be worried if they had not). Though I sometimes wonder if I have been cowed into subservience to a society that imposes morals/ethics upon us so that the people who can happily ignore them get to pass the rest of us by as we wait in line.

If we can work towards a world where it pays to be what is collectively thought of as "good" or morale or whatever, then surely that is something that we should all try to do.

[Michael Mouse]

In effect, I invite the reader to invert 'unethical' to get 'ethical'.

Aha! The old not-not-A is not equal to A bear-trap. And I walked straight in. *grin*

I'm certainly comfortable with a degree of inconsistency and incompleteness in a system of anything. (Although I do think those often suggest areas for further work.)

However, how much inconsistency and incompleteness in a system of ethics we're prepared to tolerate before we feel compelled to say it's no longer ethical is problematic, I think. So I'll be very interested to hear you explore hypocrisy - it's an idea that I've not seen dissected in a rigorous way before.

[Chris]

Neil: "Though I sometimes wonder if I have been cowed into subservience to a society that imposes morals/ethics upon us so that the people who can happily ignore them get to pass the rest of us by as we wait in line."

This is an unfortunate thing to worry, and I have been there myself - I have certainly been penalised for my ethics, when others willing to conceal facts have been rewarded. It made me less willing to be upfront about information. I'm not sure that honesty is entirely the virtue we think it is.

But, the plus side of it all is that while we have a media which over-reacts to the slightest perceived violation of some presumed ethical norm, the people jumping ahead in line usually get their comeuppance sooner or later - or so I choose to believe, at least. ;)

---

Michael: I agree there's an issue here - how inconsistent can one be before any illusion of an ethical system vanishes? I hope to be exploring the boundaries of "minimum ethics" in the next few weeks if all goes well.

---

Thank you both for the comments! I have a post on hypocrisy to put up on Thursday that should continue this discussion. I'll be interested to see people's thoughts on it.

[translucy]

zenBen, thanks for the interesting link

[zenBen]

"the plus side of it all is that while we have a media which over-reacts to the slightest perceived violation of some presumed ethical norm, the people jumping ahead in line usually get their comeuppance sooner or later"

Try living in the republic of Ireland, where being a scurvy shyster S.o.B. seems to be regarded as a virtue, at least in the public domain, and rewarded with accolades and/or votes.

For the link, one is welcome.

[Chris]

zenBen: my earlier comments made it look like I didn't glean anything interesting from the link. On reflection, I wanted to stress that I found the piece interesting but had my usual niggling nit picking to work through before I could get to anything more substantial. ;)

This should feed nicely into a piece which will go into the hopper some time shortly, I'm sure. :)

(And as for Éire, perhaps the inhabitants recognise the most useful qualities in a politician? >:D )

[Peter Crowther]

"Rather, it means that you are willing to accept society's ethical code in place of your own... this is a sacrifice you are making on behalf of the society you live in, and therefore I suggest this is actually a noble approach."

Er... no, it's mostly selfish. I prefer to live a long life with rich experiences, preferably well-fed and mostly pain-free. It's difficult to get rich experiences, good food and freedom from pain in a society of one person on a desert(ed) island; it's difficult to live a long life with rich experiences when hunted down by the current society's enforcers (police/army/blue rinse brigade/whatever) and executed or incarcerated for killing or maiming some feckwit because it seemed ethically appropriate by *my* system.

[Chris]

Well, it may be self-interested to you, but I still find it somewhat noble, despite its very practical underpinnings. :)

[Peter Crowther]

As an aside, posted here because it is marginally more relevant than other posts: http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=12329664105851252173 is tagged as a "basic epistemology/ontology test". I can provide one datum: it identifies me as a Skeptic, and it appears to be quite convinced about that.

[Chris]

Neat. :) It seemed to struggle with me somewhat... It decided I was a Pragmatist, on the basis that I had a tiny trace of Materialism and a tiny trace of Dialectic (but 0% Objectivism!) Ironically, the picture it showed me was of John Dewey, who I'm just about to start reading.

Best wishes!

[Theo]

Playing catch-up here. I should probably read the post on hypocrisy before posting this, but just wanted to point out (as others implicitly have) that inconsistency is sometimes a virtue.

A few years ago I read a book called "Fuhrer-Ex", the memoir of former leading neo-nazi Ingo Hasselbach (a book I would recommend to anyone, btw). It describes how and why he became a nazi, and how and why he stopped being one. The tipping point came when a Turkish family was burned to death by some neo-nazis - not people Hasselbach knew personally - but he had a crisis of conscience. In fact, his conscience overcame his principles. He had an ethic - a nazi ethic - but found he could no longer follow it or believe in it. (And he showed great courage in the very public way he repudiated nazism - his life has been in danger ever since.) This is one example. I can think of others, where being inconsistent, even hypocritical, may be a positive virtue. I don't think an ethical system is an end in itself. It can become a way of imposing on others, as someone above suggests. And I suspect that any ethical system that is entirely consistent will turn out to be fascist.

As human beings, we are naturally inconsistent. If we become 100% consistent, do we become inhuman?

[Chris]

Theo: back to the very beginning, almost. :) Happy to revisit this earlier material at your leisure...

Is an ethical system "an end in itself"? Ideally, no. Ethics are supposed to guide the decision making process of the individual - if the ethical system is raised in importance above the lives and choices of people disasterous problems can result.

However, I believe that it is perfectly possible to have a consistent ethical system without it becoming fascist - consider the hermit! :)

"As human beings, we are naturally inconsistent. If we become 100% consistent, do we become inhuman?"

That human beings as a species display inconsistency is not enough for me to conclude that a consistent human would be "inhuman". They might simply be rare. ;)

Thanks for the comment! It is interesting to consider ethics from the flipside of one who has adopted (for want of a more measured phrase) "Evil Ethics". That people in such a situation often manage to break free of such a system speaks highly to me of the tremendous potential of our species.

Best wishes!