Who Are ‘Good’ Morals/Ethics Good for?

The definitions of ethical terms derived in Chap. 13 show that it is possible to define these terms generically - independently of religious or transcendental considerations. This raises earthly questions as to who particular ethics may benefit and what effect such naturalist definitions could have on reducing conflict in inter-personal communication. To answer these questions, the definitional space is mapped for ethics, values, morals, principles and beliefs. Allegiances are next mapped for two entities A (me) and B (someone else) to depict the pressures affecting their approach to satisfying their needs in relationship to others. This provides perspective on who particular ethics may be good for. A generic communication process is then flowcharted from an autopoietic perspective. These depictions graphically demonstrate the high likelihood of error or omission in simplistic deterministic moral judgements, due simply to the large number of variables involved and the combinations possible. The communication model is then analysed in relation to the ethical perspectives of Bentham, Kant and Aristotle. Ten observations are then made on the models, suggesting alternatives to commonly accepted approaches to ethics.