[Area12]

So does morality/ethics boil down to numbers/metrics? I'm not being sarcastic; I don't know the answer myself ... and I'm not entirely sure that I would want to "know".

Humans have gained great powers of number calculation, but I suspect that our greatest power and obsession has always been story-telling. We tell stories to each other and ourselves, and those stories form the basis of our ethics and morality.

Which is why I think utilitarianism always feels cold and unsatisfying; it doesn't play well as a story.

[blattimwind]

> So does morality/ethics boil down to numbers/metrics?

The field of ethics essentially considers how to build and analyse arguments. Ethics generally does not make decisions; and it's not a flowchart you can follow to get a yes/no answer, either. People often use the world "unethical" as-if it is a proper adjective, meanwhile it actually refers to themselves having concluded that the act/object is not ethical within their reasoning; it's not an actual property of an act or object.

Much like broad philosophy, it's a language for expressing thoughts. It doesn't think for you. Or, if you like, mathematics is a language for expressing some other thoughts. Mathematics doesn't solve problems for you, or prevents you from writing 3+1=5.

[JamesLeonis]

There is a distinction between Ethics and Morals. Morals are the things you value, like liberty and happiness. Ethics are decision-making systems that you configure with morals. They are designed to aid you in situations where two or more of your morals/values are in conflict.

Before talking about Utilitarianism, we first must talk about it's parent Consequentialism. The basics are this; Consequentialists state that the outcomes of an ethical decision should leave the outcome in a superior moral position. This is opposite of such systems like Kantian Virtue Ethics that state a more a priori value on the decision, even if the outcome is negatively affected. Honor might be a Virtue Ethic, since you would always act honorably even if the situation makes that a bad course of action.

Utilitarianism is a balance point between two Consequentialist children: Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism. Both (respectively) examine the outcome based on the individual making the decision, and the rest of the situation outside of the individual. Combining both Utilitarianists examine the outcomes of both the individual and the surrounding environment when determining which course of action to take.

tl;dr: Ethics are amoral systems of decision making that tell you where and how to apply your morals.

[tisdy]

> Morals are the things you value, like liberty and happiness

I disagree, the conventional and I think the more widely understood meaning of 'morals' would be 'principles' or 'standards of right and wrong'. I think the term 'values' would do just fine.

[noir-york]

Not sure why your comment was downvoted. Its an informed comment that adds to the discussion.

[golergka]

Any moral or ethical system will have logical inconsistencies and fallacies because they are based on instincts developed by human evolution, not mathematical axioms. Those instincts were developed in groups of 100-200 people, directly depending on your ability to see other human being face to face, know him and emphasize with them. They break down when you try to extrapolate them to millions of people.