Most people don't have a clear understanding of what 'Ethics' is... they think it's a set of platitudes that tell people how they should behave. In the simplest sense, this is true... the 'easy to understand' platitudes are the result of 'ethics'... which is all the well-argued and logical reasons that the platitudes are
true, (or false) for SOME people, who happen to share that particular philosophical outlook.
People view life differently... for some, it's ALL ABOUT what pleases them..."Egoists' Others believe "Everything that you do, is gonna come back to you".
.. Altruists. "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you"
... Kantian Moralists or 'Golden Rule' (which BTW is contained in every major World Religion). 'Whatever serves the greatest good'.
.. Utilitarianists. 'Moderation is the key to life'..
. Virtue Theorists. And there's roughly another 1/2 dozen other major 'stances'...
So when people with differing basic outlooks come together to discuss whats right or wrong regarding ANY behavior... there are going to be differences of opinion, because they don't all view things
the same way.
The true job of an ethicist is to clearly, impartially and comprehensively detail ALL the REASONS a given action might be right or wrong, by either one, several, or all the existing perspectives.... and ONLY THEN, possibly suggest which one he/she might find the most logical or 'morally correct' way of seeing things and/or addressing specific behaviors.
So... in order to get these simple 'platitudes' or even ethical 'guidelines' that can be easily understood by everyone... A TON of work has to be done, at a very high level, to insure that what we recommend, as 'guidelines' can be supported as logical and morally correct, by AT LEAST, one moral perspective.
This is why, as moderator, I had suggested (back on pg 12):
Our opinions here at FHF, however, may or may not generalize to the world at large, and if that is the goal, we need to expand our scope of input (increase sampling size)
Now moderating, my opinions will not be expressed, so I'll need some input on
3) resolution of term(s)
4) ethical topics
Sound familiar Frank? it should...
"You folks really need to define a target, then define a method(the ammo), then define how your going to get this across(the gun) Then make your dang list(shoot the gun) The shooting is always the last thing you do. The first is, DEFINE THE TARGET, hahahahahahahahahahaha sorry I had to do that."
We're saying the SAME THING, but one is slightly more, uhhh, 'coherent' ?
Bottom line... everyone brings to the table what they can... I'm not the most experienced herper, not the smartest, not the most educated, and not even (by any standard) the most 'moral'
What I can (and tried) to bring is some experience in Ethics and 'ethical discourse', and the structure and order required for this effort to succeed. And I know a lot of big words... but USE those words BECAUSE they MOST PRECISELY express what I'm trying to say... not to show off.