So what happened?.

[Altair]

I would argue that ethics are based on the lack of morality of the individual due to fear or complience.
I dont like the simplistic terms which we are given concerning either ethics or morality.
Ethics as guidelines, the obvious example, first do no harm.
Morality however, is different, what if ethics is harming society as a whole?

If one views the ethics of society as doing harm, then does one not have a moral imperative to make a stand against it.
There is a long history of ethical violations against humanity in the 20th century, it was only those of moral fortitude that stood against it.

Which is why I fear AI will be "Ethically" correct to whoever programs it.
Without the "Morality" of context.

Ethics are not based on the absence of Morality. Doesn't matter who or what.

Ethics are Ethics.

Morality is subjective.

 

[Moriarty]

Ethics are not based on the absence of Morality. Doesn't matter who or what.

Ethics are Ethics.

Morality is subjective.

Yes but Ethics are based on the subjective morality of the masses of which society is based.

 

[Altair]

Yes but Ethics are based on the subjective morality of the masses of which society is based.

Ethics are not based on anything. As i said...Ethics are Ethics.

Why would Ethics be based on the Subjective Morality of the masses?...That makes zero sense.

The Morality of the masses is the peoples own choice. Nothing to do with Ethics.

Back to the drawing board for you old boy.

 

[Moriarty]

Ethics are not based on anything. As i said...Ethics are Ethics.

Why would Ethics be based on the Subjective Morality of the masses?...That makes zero sense.

The Morality of the masses is the peoples own choice. Nothing to do with Ethics.

Back to the drawing board for you old boy.

Who's ethics?

Ethical beliefs change depending on which country your in, religion you follow, propoganda one listens to, ideology one follows.

Ethically Fascist Italy had no anti semitism.
Both National Socialist Germany and Communist Russia did.

So Ethics are far from universal.
Morality fought internally against the authoritarian "Ethics" passed down to them by decree.

Take, for example, Climate change.
Would it not be ethical to limit or reduce the population?
Thereby saving the planet for the generations to come?
Would those people who believe that be the first to sacrifice themselves, or would they put that burden on the old?

Is that moral?
Does that morally align with the democratic values of freedom of choice?

Nor does that Climate change ethical choice align with logical thinking, surely the more people on the planet, given a free market economy and the invention it provides, actually help to solve the problem as there can be more invention which could solve the problem?

Ethical and moral arguments are based on the idea of what is good for the individual or good for the collective not being the same thing.
In many cases they are not.
The "West" believes (well it used to) in the sanctity of the individual, the ability to allow unfettered access to the market of both goods and ideas.
Intellectual debate is what drives technology, which drives change, which drives opinion, which drives ethics.
Ethics is simply "Where we are now", Morality drives "What we wish to be".

Which is why I think Intellectual debate is lacking, it thinks ethically, not morally these days.

It's the old addage, just because one can do a thing, does not mean one should.
To little thought is given to the philosophical, psychological and "butterfly effect" changes that technology has brought us.
We have seen life changing advancements that people, especially the young, have difficulty coping with in social media, where is the "Ethical" or "Moral" argument for that?
There isnt one, because the same argument that people should be free to do as they wish, does not take into account that what they do can be harmful to them.

Based on pure Ethics, social media should be banned due to its detrimental effects on society as a whole, yet morally it is up to the user.

Ethics and morals are very different things, to often misused.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

When there are too many trolls or ridiculers, one may not want to leave comments. Sharing our thoughts and feelings is a privilege shared with others. Not an obligation to do so. So to be harassed in doing so means that the person doesn't deserve the input. "Don't cast your pearls before swine" is a scriptural saying. Because they will only disparage what is valuable.
So some comments were deleted because of the recipients who didn't deserve it. They ruined it for anyone else, as they do in life in general, as the very nature of what a troll is.