Is ethics about one thing – what is good?  Or do we also need to define concepts such as duty and virtue?  How are these related to each other?  Is ethics just about love? Do we judge whether behaviour is ethical based on our intentions, or the outcome or both?  How hard can it be?

Jesus, about 2,000 years ago, said his core message was to love God and love your neighbour.

In Islam, from about 1,300 years ago, the core message is to submit to God and follow the Prophet.

The Bhagavad Gita, written nearly 3,000 years ago, explains we should do our duty, according to our station (job, position or role in society), in a selfless way, without focusing on the consequences.

Jesus said that to simply look at a woman lustfully is to have already committed adultery (Matthew 5:28), implying that just imagining something ‘sinful’ is the same as actually committing the ‘sin’.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  [Origin unknown]

To simply look at another person and realize they are attractive, could be more complimentary than harmful.  Most heterosexual men will notice when they encounter an attractive woman.  Aspects of such an encounter can reflect wonderful components of our human nature: some women are pleased that men find them attractive; and seeing an attractive women can lift a man’s spirit – thanks to our psychological nature and hormonal responses. 

These positive potential outcomes can occur in other gender combinations: when a woman finds a man attractive, or same sex attraction, or a non-binary person attracted to another human. 

The problem arises not with the look or attraction, but with inappropriate behaviour that might follow.  In social situations it may be appropriate to flirt, but in most other situations, such as work, it probably isn’t.  Unwanted comments or touching is intrusive and offensive.  Treating anyone simply as a sexual object is dehumanizing.  Coercive sexual behaviour is immoral and mustn’t be tolerated. 

Perhaps Jesus’ comment hinges around the word lust, and the rule applies only when there is an inappropriate, ie lustful, dehumanizing response, and doesn’t apply when we simply feel joy at being with others.  Feeling or showing disrespect is actual bad behaviour – in Jesus’ words a ‘sin’. 

But if our emotional responses to a situation, including anger, envy, lust, greed or whatever, are not acted on, because we don't intend to actually do anything, then it is not bad behaviour, because there is no overt behaviour – we’ve done nothing.  In most circumstances to just think of behaving badly is not the same as behaving badly. 

However, to plan to behave badly, to consider over an extended period how to do it, is stepping over a line, for which we assign responsibility, and actually taking action, arranging things, steps over another line, because it confirms an intent to do harm, which is probably criminal.

Personal:  Example TBA.

Social:  Example TBA.

Political: Even if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction in 2003, was it appropriate for America to invade, given that perhaps half a million people died as a result and millions more were displaced or traumatized in other ways and since 2003 Iraq has been unstable and violence is rife, the Islamic State arose as a result, and America’s military and moral reputation around the world is shot?

If we suggest that promoting happiness is good (ie acting to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number) some philosophers seriously suggest that this means we could breed billions of rabbits, in merely tolerable living conditions, and that the small amount of happiness each rabbit has, multiplied by billions, means the world is a vastly happier place.  Of course it is a ridiculous suggestion, but there is no need to apply the rule so literally: utilitarianism is still a useful approach.

1.5.1   Many philosophers suggest that the “good�, the subject matter of ethics is essentially a single topic.  Our duty is to be good or behave in good ways.  Virtue is being good. 

          In REALigion, we have separated out key components of goodness into core ethical values of Love, Equality and Responsibility, because any one of these doesn’t imply the others.  Our other core value of Life acquires an expanded ethical meaning to include the lives of others.

          There is also disagreement on how much we should focus on a person’s good intentions and how much we look at the expected or actual consequences. 

          In REALigion we say we must look at both intentions and expected outcomes.  Simply having a thought, or a rush of desire, is not behaving badly, but planning to act out our desires or arranging things so we can, crosses lines.

          Acting with good intent, but blindly or negligently is not an excuse for causing harm.  We must take into account expected consequences when choosing to act, and must take into account our competence and our ‘right’ to take action.

          Finally, we need to develop ethical guidelines for action, because we have to make ethical choices.  No guidelines are perfect.  Not having any guidelines is worse.  We must be prepared to accept imperfect guidelines and adapt them, based on all our core values, to avoid unforeseen or extreme consequences.

  more