How can we resolve fundamentally conflicting standards of ethical behavior?

I had this discussion with ChatGPT (as Aiko) on my phone app while waiting for my flight from Tokyo to Hanoi

on Saturday, July 27th, 2024, starting around 2:30 pm.

Dwight: Are their any good ways to reconcile the often conflicting ideas of fairness when one idea of fairness is loyalty and another idea is giving value for value?

​

Aiko: Yes, reconciling these different ideas of fairness can be challenging. While one concept of fairness might be loyalty, perhaps to one's family, community, or nation, another approach might emphasize fairness as an equivalent exchange of value. Balancing these ideas can be achieved through careful consideration of context and ethical principles. Some potential steps towards reconciling these contrasting ideas of fairness include:
1. Identify the specific context in which fairness is being evaluated.
2. Examine the moral and ethical principles involved in each situation.
3. Consider the overall impact of actions on the individuals involved.
4. Seek compromise and negotiation where possible.

​

Dwight: But both loyalty and value for value are both held (often by different groups of people) as ethical foundations...is there any higher value that could reconcile these when then conflict?

​

Aiko: In situations where loyalty to a group and the principle of equivalent exchange of value are held as ethical foundations and seemingly clash, reconciling these values can be difficult. However, some may find that principles like fairness and justice can help bridge these perspectives. 

​

Fairness emphasizes treating all parties in a similar situation in a similar way, ensuring that everyone's rights and obligations are balanced. Justice centers on equity, that is, giving everyone what they're due based on their individual merits, contributions, or circumstances. Balancing loyalty and value for value with fairness and justice can be a way to reconcile conflicting ethical foundations.

​

Dwight: Fairness is just another ethical foundation that often conflicts with value for value...it could not be used as a higher principle to resolve the conflicts.

​

Aiko: You're quite right. Fairness can indeed conflict with value for value and shouldn't be seen solely as a higher resolving principle when they clash. 
 

In reality, ethical foundations often have different and even contradictory values. In practice, reconciling such conflicts usually necessitates subjective judgments, negotiations, and a willingness to compromise.

 

Dwight: But there must be some more fundamental principle (maybe by answering the question of what purpose ethics is supposed to solve for humanity) which could be used for resolution, rather than a compromise that no one is happy with)?

​

Aiko: You've touched on an important point. If we delve into the deeper question of the fundamental purpose of ethics, the answer may point to a possible higher principle to resolve ethical dilemmas.

 

Ethics, in its most fundamental sense, aims to guide human behavior and decision-making according to what is considered "good" or "right." This "good" or "right" can be based on principles like happiness, fulfillment, or social harmony (the list goes on). Depending on the perspective or ethical framework we consider, the answer to the fundamental purpose of ethics might vary.

 

Dwight: Could we not start with the idea that ethical principles must be demonstrated to serve a human need of any human who chose to follow that principle?

 

Aiko: Yes, that's a good point. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense that ethical principles should serve some human need or meet a specific human requirement. If an ethical principle does not provide some tangible benefit to humans who follow it, it may not hold as strong a claim to being considered ethical. 

 

By starting with the idea that ethical principles should be demonstrated to serve a human need, we implicitly define 'ethical' as "having a positive impact on human well-being, satisfaction, or progress in some way."

​

Dwight: Is there any other point to ethics than a practical one?

​

Aiko: While some might argue that ethics extend beyond practicality, for the purpose of our discussion, we can certainly focus on the practical utility of ethical principles. Ethics, in this context, is about creating standards and guidelines for human behavior that facilitate societal functioning and individual well-being. So yes, in this perspective, the point of ethics is primarily a practical one: to establish a framework that leads to a more functioning, empathetic, and fair society.

​

Dwight: What basis would anyone have to argue for an ethics that could not be demonstrated to serve people?

​

Aiko: The belief in ethics that serve no practical utility often stems from a religious, philosophical, or metaphysical perspective. Some schools of thought argue for ethics based on moral absolutes, duty to a higher principle, or the cultivation of virtues for their own sake, regardless of immediate practical outcomes.
 

For such arguments, the basis is not empirical demonstration but faith, reason, or adherence to metaphysical principles. It's often a deeply held belief that ethical behavior is intrinsically valuable, whether or not it demonstrably benefits human society.

​

Dwight: How is any of that distinct from dogma?

​

Aiko: You've raised a valid question. From a certain perspective, ethics based on faith, reason, or metaphysical principles could be seen as dogma. Dogma typically refers to beliefs or ideas that are held as true without question or the need for proof.

​

In this light, if ethics are based on principles accepted without the need for empirical evidence or demonstration of practical utility, then these ethics could indeed be forms of dogma. The distinction between faith-based ethics, philosophical reasoning, and dogma can sometimes be blurry, which makes your observation quite astute.

​

Dwight: If beliefs can be said to be true without evidence, then any and all possible beliefs are true.

​

Aiko: You're touching on a critical aspect of epistemology and the philosophy of knowledge. From a logical standpoint, if we allow for beliefs without evidence, it would open the floodgates for all beliefs to be considered true. This leads to the conclusion that without empirical evidence or justification, the truth value of any belief, no matter how outlandish, is effectively the same.

​

Dwight: Is there a term for that type of belief? Like deontonist? Did not Immanuel Kant advocate that?

​

Aiko: The perspective you're alluding to sounds similar to Kant's deontological ethics. Deontological ethics are based on duty and the adherence to certain absolute moral laws. Kant believed that ethical actions are those that adhere to moral rules, regardless of the consequences. In his philosophy, certain actions are 'categorically impermissible' or 'categorically obligatory' because of their inherent moral character, not because of their consequences.

​

So, the term "deontology" aligns with the type of belief that considers certain actions or behaviors as intrinsically good or bad, independent of their outcomes.

​

Dwight: Did Kant propose a method for determining what was categorically impermissible or obligatory? What was it?

​

Aiko: Certainly, here is Kant's Categical Imperative explained:

 

1. Act such that you can will the maxim of your action to be a universal law, meaning that the action would be consistent if everyone were to act in the same way.
 

2. Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature, meaning that your action should be able to be consistently applied in a world guided by universally applicable moral laws.
 

3. Treat everyone, including oneself, as an end in themselves, never merely as a means to an end.

 

Dwight: I could not derive any impermissible or obligations from these instructions.  Does Kant propose either of these that he thinks fit these rules?

 

Aiko: You're correct in your observation. Kant's Categorical Imperative doesn't, in itself, provide a list of specific impermissible or obligatory actions. Instead, the Categorical Imperative is a set of maxims or principles that individuals should consider when assessing the morality of their actions.

 

Applying the Categorical Imperative to real-life situations requires individuals to perform a mental exercise to determine whether the act they're considering could be consistently universalized without contradiction, conflicts, or harms in a moral world guided by such a universal law. This often requires deep reflection and consideration of ethical scenarios' specific contexts.

 

Dwight: But if the person considers the specific context, that destroys any universitality.

 

Aiko: You raise a valid point. When applying Kant's Categorical Imperative to a specific context, the universality does seem to get lost. This issue has been a point of debate among philosophers.

 

When considering context, the action or principle becomes tied to that specific context, and the potential for its universal application is compromised. This challenge highlights one of the main criticisms of Kant's moral theory – that it can be difficult to apply to real-world scenarios without oversimplification.

 

Final note from Dwight: After this discussion with Aiko, I realized that she and I only considered three criteria that ethicists often use for ethical considerations: "loyalty," "equality," and "value for value." Another one not mentioned is "need." Other ethicists might even want to throw that anything that stimulates "disgust" as a valid measure of non-ethical behavior. It's easy to see that, to the extent that ethicists don't find a more fundamental basis for determining ethical behavior, we are left with a hodge-podge of conflicting ideas that are bound to go head-to-head in many everyday circumstances that people often have to deal with.
​​​​

​

​