Ethics

Is ethics created/invented, or is it discovered? This is a very difficult question, one to which I?m not sure I have an answer, or even whether there is one. If ethics is discovered then that must mean that it exists independently of what we think or do, that there is a right and wrong, and all we need do is reason our way to it. This would imply that one must reason rightly in order to find the right ethics, but isn?t the question of right reasoning an ethical question? So how do you decide, a reason arrives at an ethics. Question those ethics. Are they right? Another question of ethics.

I think ethics is discovered, not because its simply out there, floating around waiting to be landed upon, but that it comes out of the course of life, as an answer to human needs. I agree with Protagoras that ?Man is the measure of all things?, that the question of ethics is relative to a person?s needs. For example, we treat murder in self defense differently than we treat murder in cold blood. Life is a fundamental need, so it is ethical to act in any way necessary to provide that need. In this light, I can see the meaning of the statement that who ever knows what is right will do right. If you know what you need, and you get what you need, then you will be doing the right thing. Reason will hopefully show a person that he or she actually needs some things, not others, and will help show the difference between needs and wants.

When humans act wrongly is it because they are ignorant of good/right, or is it because they are perverse? I think there are people out there who would say that the inability to tell right from wrong, or a continual ignorance on the subject, is in itself a perversion. You can enlighten or punish that perversion away, I guess. I think it is easiest for a person to know their own needs, and easiest for them to be ignorant of the needs of others. Someone is going to call the actions of another ?wrong? when those actions are contrary to the accusers needs. What about the actor? Should meeting other?s needs be a need in itself? In that case, being ignorant of what is good/right becomes suddenly a lot easier. You must be aware not only of your own needs, but of the needs of everyone involved with every action which is to be right. What do you do when you can not reconcile your needs with the needs of others? Do you act toward your needs anyway, and inflict a wrong on others? Is that a perversion? Or, do you act toward the needs of the others, and inflict a wrong upon yourself. Is that a perversion? Or, do you avoid the difficult question, remain ignorant of the fact that everyone?s needs are different in some way, and fail to act decisively? Does this ignorance inflict any wrongs on anyone, everyone? Is that ignorance a perversion?