Ethics are relative, it always depends on what you consider to be right or wrong. You can construct an ethical system where the wellbeing of the state is more important than the wellbeing of a few individuals. Kinda like Spock did (or Machiavelli).
_________________
That is not necessarily correct. Ethics/morality cannot be subjective relativism, for it goes against the purpose and definition of morality. Limited Objectivism (not absolute) is the only right methodology. (This includes utilitarian aspects based on situation). Right and wrong are far from subjective. The idea of well-being for the state is very similiar to Conventional Ethical Relativism.
1 Morality is defined as what should be, and not what is. For something to be ethical, it must be a mix of total and limited objectivism, good both on its own, and due to circumstances. Subjectivism (relativism) in morality only focucuses on what 'is' and not what should be.
Ethics and Morality's purpose is to help society prosper and function for good, protection, and civilized survival.
Relativism in action:
General concept: Subjectivists would say, "What I believe to be moral is just as correct as what you believe is moral." This is incorrect because it can be broken by reductio ad absurdum. If you believe what I say is moral, and I believe what you say is immoral, and our moralities are "just the same" or "just as correct, right, or good" then you would ALSO have to agree with my morality...since it is just as correct.
I.E. My morality says it is ok to kill people for pleasure
Your morality says it is immoral to kill people for pleasure
Both of our systems are subjective and therefore just as good/correct.
Ergo, we both must believe it is both moral to kill people for pleasure and to not kill people for pleasure at the same time. That makes no sense.--Reduction ad aburdum
A I.E. Conventional Ethical Relativism:
You cannot judge my nation's actions because we believe it morally correct to slaughter millions of innocent people, steal from you, and bomb your cities. To us, it is ethically correct. Our ethics is just as good as yours. This follows the same logic.
1.. This creates a problem: First and foremost, it is horribly unproductive and produces needless pain, suffereing, and power over others. It is not acceptible to a healthy society or the definition of morality. As well, it forms the same contradiction listed above. If you believe it to be right, and i believe it to be wrong (morally) we must both accept each other's morality as correct.
- An example would be a small tribe discovered by Anthropologist Ruth Benedict. She noticed that memebers of the tribe would randomly go around killing people because 'someone' in the community had died. They believed, according to their culture, that it was morally right to slaughter one person for the death of another even though no one did anything wrong. This is harmful again to society because it causes fear, depression, unproductive natures, and sickly people who must watch their backs, lose family members, and even lose potential workers for the society.
- You would also have to agree then, that the nazis were morally correct in their actions for killing millions of individuals unjustly, stealing their wealth, and making war. After all, morality is subjective and we cannot do anything about it.
2. Another problem. Strick self-relativism:
- I believe it is morally right to punch my friend, and he believes it is morally wrong to do the same thing to me. In addition to the mutual unproductivity caused by the matter, it is contradictory on one level. One cannot have two equally correct moralities subjective to societies and people. If I hit him I am breaking his moral code, and if he hits me, he is breaking my moral code. That effectively makes the codes useless.
Now, I am not advocating complete and blind adherence to Absolute Objectivism, because that too is wrong. The situation which forces upon individuals cercumstances is the key factor many times--that is an element of objectivism, not subjectivism. It may seem subjective, but they follow "subjective" practices in the pursuit of the same goals as other societies.
Inuit ( in the past) frequently kill off babies that are not very healthy, sickly, or cannot be taken care of. They also get rid of the elderly. One might use Objective morality to say this is wrong, but that would be incorrect. One would also be incorrect to say that what they do is conventionally relative--its not.
The Inuit use this practice of selective survival to ensure the survival of the entire tribe. People whom cannot be cared for do not belong in a society subjected to such harsh environments/circumstances. The elderly and the very sick--in some instances too many young, are burdon on society. (Note: the problem of too many young is easily solvable and is therefore now considered immoral due to contraception techniques).
Objectively, they are only doing what their environment allows. As well, they are still trying to attain the same basic principles
1. Survival of the society
2. Love for family (young and elderly) and the self
Another example would be the two individuals on a boat. If one doesn't eat the other, they both will die. In response, the man hits the guy over the head and eats him. Is it moral? Yes. The circumstances would have caused them both to die. They did not have enough food, no adequate shelter, and not enough time to survive. It was moral to wait till the food ran out, then kill the person as a last resort due to circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
That is the product of subjectivism. Do YOU want to live in that society?
