Do you think ethical boundaries change according to context? Or are they in an unchanging nature no matter what? If it changes, does everything have the potential to one day be ethical, perhaps in different contexts?💜
All ethics were at one time applied ethics - there was no sense in which it was a purely academic theme. The Greeks certainly explored the themes of ethics and thinkers like Plato and Aristotle were absorbed much of the time in such considerations. Later, in Stoicism and Epicureanism, you'll see the roots of ethics.
Ethics was wrapped up in the question of how to live a good life. However with the proliferation of religious ideas, people allowed ethics to become a theological consideration and submitted to senior theologians to decide what could be considered 'moral' and ethical.
With the advent of the enlightenment and thinkers like Bacon and Hume, a new branch of ethics arose one concerned with 'humanism' and how the individual might decide on how to live ethically whilst maintaining social responsibility.
In modern-day contexts of ethics, the field is indeed trying to escape dry philosophy and become more applied once more. In almost all branches of science, you may find an ethical department, in psychology we have the influence of the Nuremberg code which facilitates the proper use of experimentation involving participation.
Indeed as psychological research continues we are becoming more refined and skillful in understanding not only the human impact of psychological research but how to involve non-human animals. For instance, some of Harlow's experiments on primates could never be carried out today for good reason. In the same way as informative and interesting as Milgram's research was, this also could not be carried out using the same methodology. So replication of this research now utilizes VR technology.
Nowadays researchers have a clearer understanding of ethical guidelines and over time science gains a clearer understanding of the cost/benefit ratio of research.
Sorry for the length of the reply, my mind went off on a tangent😂
Hello, @Burçak Öktem, I like your questions, both for their ethical as well as philosophical considerations. I agree with @Emily M that ethics tend to change with society and our moral reasoning. Ethics also change according to context, and the ethical code in the US for psychologists includes many exceptions to certain rules because of this. As far as where the limits of the temporal, context-specific, or shifting nature of ethics are, I believe one hard line is that of harm. I do not believe causing intentional harm to others will ever be judged as ethical. As an example, the Hippocratic Oath (to do no harm) is thought to have been written around the 5th century BC and is one of the oldest known documents. Today, doctors and other clinicians still maintain this standard. The way in which this applies may shift, but the core of the value has lasted over 2,500 years and I expect it will last another 2,500 years as well.
Thank you for your answer Emily=) What is sacred, valuable or moral can change over time. If there is something that will never be separated from ethical boundaries, what characteristic of it is it? Would something necessarily remain ethical even if the duration of human history was much longer than it is now?
It wouldn't surprise me if the real answer is 'no' because life is full of uncertainty and change. If the answer is 'yes', it makes me feel meaningful and purposeful. maybe it would still seem silly to me even if I knew the real thing =). It's fun to think intertemporal and ask questions. If you have different questions, I look forward to your sharing.
Ethical considerations are ever-changing, there are certainly things that used to be commonplace and are now considered ethical violations. As a trend, more things are considered unethical now compared to the past. I definitely do not think everything has the potential to be ethical, but standards are fluid.
All ethics were at one time applied ethics - there was no sense in which it was a purely academic theme. The Greeks certainly explored the themes of ethics and thinkers like Plato and Aristotle were absorbed much of the time in such considerations. Later, in Stoicism and Epicureanism, you'll see the roots of ethics.
Ethics was wrapped up in the question of how to live a good life. However with the proliferation of religious ideas, people allowed ethics to become a theological consideration and submitted to senior theologians to decide what could be considered 'moral' and ethical.
With the advent of the enlightenment and thinkers like Bacon and Hume, a new branch of ethics arose one concerned with 'humanism' and how the individual might decide on how to live ethically whilst maintaining social responsibility.
In modern-day contexts of ethics, the field is indeed trying to escape dry philosophy and become more applied once more. In almost all branches of science, you may find an ethical department, in psychology we have the influence of the Nuremberg code which facilitates the proper use of experimentation involving participation.
Indeed as psychological research continues we are becoming more refined and skillful in understanding not only the human impact of psychological research but how to involve non-human animals. For instance, some of Harlow's experiments on primates could never be carried out today for good reason. In the same way as informative and interesting as Milgram's research was, this also could not be carried out using the same methodology. So replication of this research now utilizes VR technology.
Nowadays researchers have a clearer understanding of ethical guidelines and over time science gains a clearer understanding of the cost/benefit ratio of research.
Sorry for the length of the reply, my mind went off on a tangent😂
Hello, @Burçak Öktem, I like your questions, both for their ethical as well as philosophical considerations. I agree with @Emily M that ethics tend to change with society and our moral reasoning. Ethics also change according to context, and the ethical code in the US for psychologists includes many exceptions to certain rules because of this. As far as where the limits of the temporal, context-specific, or shifting nature of ethics are, I believe one hard line is that of harm. I do not believe causing intentional harm to others will ever be judged as ethical. As an example, the Hippocratic Oath (to do no harm) is thought to have been written around the 5th century BC and is one of the oldest known documents. Today, doctors and other clinicians still maintain this standard. The way in which this applies may shift, but the core of the value has lasted over 2,500 years and I expect it will last another 2,500 years as well.
Thank you for your answer Emily=) What is sacred, valuable or moral can change over time. If there is something that will never be separated from ethical boundaries, what characteristic of it is it? Would something necessarily remain ethical even if the duration of human history was much longer than it is now?
It wouldn't surprise me if the real answer is 'no' because life is full of uncertainty and change. If the answer is 'yes', it makes me feel meaningful and purposeful. maybe it would still seem silly to me even if I knew the real thing =). It's fun to think intertemporal and ask questions. If you have different questions, I look forward to your sharing.
Ethical considerations are ever-changing, there are certainly things that used to be commonplace and are now considered ethical violations. As a trend, more things are considered unethical now compared to the past. I definitely do not think everything has the potential to be ethical, but standards are fluid.