1

The question is motivated by reading the discussions on veganism:
Is 'veganism' a settled issue in Philosophy and Ethics? Why is it okay to eat meat but not to be cruel to animals?

While these threads provide many interesting, logical, and convincing arguments in favor of veganism, there is one thing that caught my attention: the issue is presented
not as a matter of personal preference/choice: I do not inflict paint on animals.; I do not want animals to suffer.
but as complying with an ethical/moral requirement: It is unethical/cruel to kill animals, so I do not it them in order to act ethically.; If people saw animals killed in front of them, they would not consume meat.

The implication is that people who adopt such arguments essentially try to influence others into adopting the same attitude (because it is ethical/moral = good), which in itself is a bad thing. Hence the questions:

  • Can one meaningfully speak of ethics/morality of a single person, or is it always something attributed to (and agree upon by) a community?
  • Would (or to what extent) an ethical argument in favor of veganism still hold, given that it possibly constitutes an unethical attempt to impose one's values/choices on others?

Disclaimer: I have no personal ax to grind against either vegans or meat-eaters.

Roger Vadim
  • 1,515
  • 1
  • 19
  • 2
    Ethical & Moral are not interchangeable in Philosophy. So that can prevent some of these arguments in the first place. Do not use the dictionary or wikipedia to look up terms & roll with it. Many words have multiple contexts & not just one. Morals need to be universally applicable to all humans on EARTH. Ethics is not universal. Ethics has sub categories. What most people think of ethics is called descriptive ethics which is NOT Philosophy. This confuses many people. NORMATIVE ETHICS is part of Philosophy. Descriptive ethics is authoritative. Who you are & who you know make a huge difference. – Logikal Sep 15 '22 at 12:51
  • @Logikal thanks, I suspected that my use of terms is incorrect... but I hope to learn bit by bit. – Roger Vadim Sep 15 '22 at 12:53
  • 2
    Few consider influencing others to be a "bad thing", that is how persuasion generally works. *Coercion* into acting according to values one does not share may be "bad", but that goes beyond "influencing", and even then it is not necessarily "bad". Just replace veganism with refraining from murdering humans and think if you wish to leave *that* to "personal preference". So the question is not "is it" but rather under what conditions it is. And answering it requires specifying an ethical framework in your post. "Is it ethical?" is not a completed question, there is no standard ethics. – Conifold Sep 15 '22 at 13:23
  • @Conifold Thanks for these clarifications. Still, there is a difference between making a personal choice and trying to influence others. I didn't want to use the word *proselytism* in order not to offend vegans, but it is more appropriate here than *coercion*. – Roger Vadim Sep 15 '22 at 13:27
  • Usually want only one question at a time. – BillOnne Sep 15 '22 at 14:53
  • "Impose" and "influence" are not synonyms. I think that rather than assume that influencing others is a bad thing (a position that is, frankly, unlikely to be held by the vast majority of SE users) you should perhaps be asking *whether* it is a bad thing to try to influence others. – philosodad Sep 15 '22 at 15:42
  • It's reasonable to suggest that it would be unethical to hold an ethical position and _not_ try to persuade others of its merits. As to imposition, I'm not sure it's possible, outside of extreme coercion, to impose one's ethics on another, unless by 'impose' you mean something like 'expose to', as opposed to 'force upon'. – Futilitarian Sep 15 '22 at 16:12
  • 1
    Contrary to Logikal's comment, "ethics" and "morality" are indeed used interchangeably in much of philosophy. It may be that the relativists are more likely to use the term "ethics" while the realists are more likely to use the term "morality", but they are talking about the same thing. – David Gudeman Sep 15 '22 at 17:30
  • 2
    Whether something is ethical or not depends on their ethical presuppositions. If different people have different ethical presuppositions, there is no real way to say. However, if people have the same presuppositions, its a matter of coming to the bottom of what is aligned with those presuppositions between those two people that have different views on a topic. For example, a vegan and a meat-eater, if they both have the presupposition that all life is sacred, it can be argued that the vegan is acting ethically while the meat eater is not. It all depends on the presuppositions they have. – Lexipaichnidi Sep 16 '22 at 18:32
  • @David Gudeman, Perhaps to people outside the field of Philosophy they think the terms are interchangeable. In the field of Philosophy the terms are NOT the same. For instance there are different areas in ETHICS: descriptive ethics, applied ethics, normative ethics, meta ethics. All of them DO NOT refer to morality. You can look them up for yourself. How do you explain the different contexts of ethics such as medical ethics, military ethics, legal ethics, business ethics, etc as well? Surely all of those are not about morality since those do NOT tell all people what they OUGHT to do or not do – Logikal Sep 19 '22 at 11:45
  • 1
    @Logikal, I've read philosophers who said that the terms are interchangeable. I've had a professor teaching moral and social philosophy who said the terms are interchangeable. I disagree with your characterization of the different fields of ethics and the different professional ethics. They are in fact about morality, even though they may be approached from a non-realist perspective. – David Gudeman Sep 19 '22 at 17:04
  • @DavidGudeman, I doubt you have. Even if true, how do you explain the four AREAS in ethics? You do not seem to have any idea those existed. LOOK THEM UP. Meta-Ethics is not about morality at all. So you are not familiar with the concepts & it shows. Those who told you ethics & morals were interchangeable simply did not want to hold a conversation about it; they saw a quick way to end the discussion. Next, you have no idea that morals cannot be subjective. Morals that are relative is a Psychological approach & not Philosophy. Morals by definition must be UNIVERSAL & apply to all human beings. – Logikal Sep 19 '22 at 20:42
  • 1
    By asking question like "is it ethical ..." one's usually already implicitly assumed moral objectivism or a framework to judge against otherwise it seems an unintelligible question with no objective answers except some emotional wows or boos. So all this hinges on whether such moral objectivity really exists, and as descriptive linguistics hints there might be so that we can then strive to prescribe, influence or even impose such values. Mysteriously even Peter Singer converted to such objectivism from previous skepticism after co-authoring *The Point of View of the Universe* in 2014... – Double Knot Sep 23 '22 at 01:27
  • @DoubleKnot it is hard to say whether you are really onto something or whether your comment is just technical gibberish. Could you write an expanded answer, so that we could learn from you (or criticize you)? No offense, but the community rules require that I flag your comment as *rude or condescending* : *"it seems an unintelligible question with no objective answers except some emotional wows or boos"*. – Roger Vadim Sep 23 '22 at 07:29
  • 1
    Maybe you're feel personal from "*it seems an unintelligible question*" from your background but in philosophy [intelligibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligibility_(philosophy)) is a common term used to describe certain concept, and my possibility modal usage above is purely related to the OP's content not personal. Compared to above Logikal's "*you have no idea that morals cannot be subjective*" etc, seems more personal as rude or condescending per your (objective) ethical criterion which you seemed silent about. Lexipaichnidi's comment already answers and I have nothing to add... – Double Knot Sep 23 '22 at 23:49
  • Btw in fact I upvoted your OP above since apparently you did some original thought better than those questions lacking and it seems a common question and seems no one else did upvote, while you have 3 close votes... – Double Knot Sep 24 '22 at 00:02

2 Answers2

0

Is it ethical to impose ethical values on others?

Your question suggests you take ethic itself to be a sort of overarching moral code or perhaps something like absolute or true or correct morality. No.

The definition of "ethical" that apply here is as follows:

Ethical 2. Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession

To take into account how the word "ethic" is evolving, we probably have to extend this definition to say something like this:

Ethical 2. Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a (human) community

So, given this, is it ethical to impose ethical values on others?

Which ones? Which ethical values? Presumably, you mean "one's own ethical values".

So, is it ethical to impose one's own ethical values on others?

The answer is now obvious: it is trivially ethical from your point of view to impose your own ethical values onto others if your ethic system implies that it is ethical to do so.

Addendum

Can one meaningfully speak of one's own ethical values?

One is a community. However, individuals rarely formalise their code of conduct. It is not good enough to make up some strictures on the hoof. One can have ethical values, but few people actually do. You could even have a new code every time it would suit you but this would involve hard work and changing your ethic according to circumstances would make you look dishonest. An ethic is something you need to articulate, and that you need to stick to, for better or worse. No wonder few people have one.

Speakpigeon
  • 5,522
  • 1
  • 10
  • 22
  • Everyone gets to force everyone else to do things their way. Great. And everyone else gets to resist. Welcome to ancient history. – Scott Rowe Sep 15 '22 at 16:51
  • @ScottRowe "*Everyone gets to force everyone else to do things their way*" Not anything I said or that what I said implies. – Speakpigeon Sep 15 '22 at 17:38
  • 1
    I thought the last sentence said that? Anyway, I was pointing out that no part of Philosophy seems to actually answer these kinds of questions. – Scott Rowe Sep 15 '22 at 18:07
  • My first question was about whether onw can meaningfully speak of *one's own ethical values*, and your definitions seem to suggest that one cannot: *the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a (human) community* - either values are accepted by a community (in which case they are not "own", but of the community) or they are not really ethical. Thus we deal here with people pretending that they proclaim values for the whole community, before the community actually agrees on them. – Roger Vadim Sep 16 '22 at 04:38
  • @RogerVadim "*the conduct of a (human) community*" You're not going to like it but one is a community. However, individuals rarely formalise their code of conduct. It ain't good enough to make up some strictures on the hoof. One can have ethical values, but few people actually do. You could even have a new code every time it suits you but this would involve hard work and make you look dishonest. An ethic is something you need to articulate and that you need to stick to for better or worse. No wonder few people have one. – Speakpigeon Sep 16 '22 at 16:17
  • *You're not going to like it but one is a community.* - not sure why I should like it or not, and what *likes* have to do with logical reasoning. However, if ethics can be defined for one person, this could be an answer to my first question as well. How is it then different from one's opinion/preference/choice/wim? – Roger Vadim Sep 16 '22 at 16:52
  • @RogerVadim "*How is it then different from one's opinion/preference/choice/wim?*" Opinions most of the time are not principles and don't start from first principles. Your personal ethic is your opinion, but your opinion does not necessarily amount to an ethic. And again, if you change your ethic according to circumstances, it will look dishonest. – Speakpigeon Sep 16 '22 at 17:01
-1

"The implication is that people who adopt such arguments essentially try to influence others into adopting the same attitude (because it is ethical/moral = good), which in itself is a bad thing."

There are multiple disagreements between people's morality... where do you draw a line? Is it ethical to allow your child to drink alcohol, because you'll not try to influence others? Is it ethical to allow your neighbour to keep some slaves to not influence others? It is ethical to vote for politicians that impose regulation and taxes on others? If it ethical to sodomize animals, and should you prevent your neighbour? And is it ethical to tell your neighbour that he could be better of cycling rather than driving on his very short route to work?

very big cat
  • 353
  • 6
  • 1
    There's also the next iteration: is it ethical to tell your "ethical" neighbor to mind their own business? - Imposing morality/ethics on others may itself be considered unethical. Moreover, the issues from your examples are typically resolved by force - ethics of using which we can also question. – Roger Vadim Sep 17 '22 at 05:59
  • We may question ethics of social systems from different angles. Some say "property is theft", others say "taxation is theft". Yet without the dominant political organism we get anarchy which also becomes bloody so... possibly there's no utopia left for any of us. – very big cat Sep 17 '22 at 19:07
  • *property is theft* and *taxation is theft* are based on oversimplification of what property and taxation are about. E g., taxation can be a way of organizing state service beneficial to all citizens - like military, fire service, police, etc. But it also can be a way interfering with economy propping less successful, often against the will of more successful (who prefer other means of helping, like charities) And even then taxation may serve different imperatives - from helping people genuinely in need to propping 1% of the wealthiest people in the world at the expense of 0.1%. – Roger Vadim Sep 18 '22 at 06:25