ETHICS

APPLIED ETHICS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Brief definition of Applied Ethics: “The philosophical search for right and wrong within controversial scenarios.”

      In the question of asking what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior, western philosophy approaches the topic through a dialogue that purposefully avoids first having a standard to measure right and wrong. If the topic asked if it were right or wrong that rocks fall to the ground, then the answers would rely on the first-hand observations of watching rocks fall to the ground, and thus the known laws of Nature – laws that no man nor creature can disobey – would become the judge of what is right and what is wrong. If the questions were of the topics of astronomy, chemistry, or biology, then again the answers would be judged by the known laws of Nature (physics), but within western philosophy’s question of human behavior there is no meaningful mention of physics.

      Observe, that in western philosophy's sequencing of logic there first exists the question of what is right and what is wrong, with the answer to what is right and wrong being an unknown. Without knowing the answer to what is right and wrong, western philosophy speaks of a scenario of human events – whether the scenario is real or imaginary – and then western philosophy attempts to find what might be right or wrong within the scenario.

      How is it possible for any man to judge a thing right or wrong without the man first knowing what is right and wrong? Similar to the circular dictionary definitions of “ethics are moral standards” and “morals are ethical standards,” western philosophy’s logic is circular in that it believes it can discover an unknown (right and wrong) within another unknown (scenario), and then, it is believed, the decision of what is right or wrong in the scenario will define the words right and wrong. Roughly phrased to illustrate a similarity to the circular dictionary definition of ethics, western philosophy believes “the decision of what is right is found within scenarios” and “the decisions of scenarios are judged by what is right.” The reasoning is circular, and as western philosophy has repeatedly proven time and again for over three-thousand years, the reasoning begins nowhere and ends nowhere.

      As the dialogue of Firsts discusses, proper logic requires a proper sequencing of events, with each accurate conclusion being built upon an accurate previous conclusion. The universe and all the laws of the universe existed first, man did not exist before the universe, nor before the laws, and thus it is logical to conclude that the created thing (man) cannot create laws that rule over the creator (universe). An event or scenario is never the creator of actions and laws, and never will the created thing become the law of that which created the thing. Right and wrong existed before man and man’s scenarios, and never will man or his scenarios – the created things – become the creators of a thing that existed before man.

      Correct logic dictates that it is necessary that the definition of a thing be known before the thing can be measured. If a question asks how may atoms might exist in a molecule, then it is logical to first know what an atom is, what a molecule is, and what the measurements are of atoms and molecules. It is absurd for any man to believe that he can count the number of atoms in a molecule without the man first knowing what an atom is, and yet western philosophy commits the very same manner of fallacy of logic when attempting to count right and wrong within scenarios.

      Within the scenario of the public debating abortion, one side of the debate claims that abortion is right because abortion helps to slow the problem of over-population, because a woman has the human right to do with her body as she pleases, and because abortion is legal. On another side of the debate are the claims that abortion is wrong because the unborn child is conscious, because the person’s religion forbids it, because the fetus is a separate human being, and because abortion is illegal. All of the arguments may have some validity, but from each valid statement can be drawn a difference of conclusion. Can a correct conclusion of right and wrong be decided from an argument if all arguments are based on correct information, but the person merely picks and chooses bits of data that support the individual’s preexisting belief and bias?

      Applied Ethics is given the description that it is the category of philosophical inquiry that attempts to find what is right and what is wrong in scenarios such as the abortion topic. Nevertheless, the logic behind Applied Ethics is not valid. As it is repeatedly asked; how can a thing be judged right or wrong in a scenario if right and wrong are not known beforehand?

      Applied Ethics has numerous faults, primarily those of beginning without a standard of right and wrong, of not knowing the definition of right and wrong, of attempting to find right and wrong in scenarios, of attempting to define right and wrong from scenarios, and of each conclusion being contradicted by all other conclusions.

      It is also an incorrect act to term a thing Applied Ethics without first clarifying what ethics are. How can an individual apply a thing if a person does not know what the thing is? If ethics were defined as a standard of right and wrong behavior, then the definition would be useful if a person knew what was right and wrong behavior, but if a person does not know what is right and wrong, then the lack of knowledge cannot become the judge (Applied Ethics) of right and wrong. It is not useful for the mind to use an undefined word to become the name of an action that searches for a definition of the undefined word; the behavior results in confusion and circular definitions, as are found throughout western philosophy.

      Numerous questions and observations have been raised within this short article, but no specific answers have been given. Logics Origin of Ethics, Morals, Virtue, and Quality has the answers.