Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand?

_db

For instance, natural law theorists often justify their ethical beliefs based on a complex metaphysical worldview that involves teleology and God, using arguments that are not particularly accessible to someone who is not trained in philosophical reasoning. To the uninitiated, these arguments can appear to be very intimidating and the conclusions can even seem counter-intuitive.

Yet more philosophers will justify positions like consequentialism, or Kantian ethics, that can also be based on quite complex metaphysical theories. Anyone who is familiar with Parfit knows how complicated detailed consequentialist theories are. And Kant as well. Both show that aspects of these theories can lead to counter-intuitive or even absurd conclusions.

It seem to me that for the most part, people live their lives on a situation-by-situation basis, evaluating what is right and wrong based on different drives that can be contradictory. The best advocate for this view, in my opinion, is W. D. Ross with this ethics of prima facie duties. These include fidelity, beneficence, non-malevolence, self-improvement, and gratitude. It also seems to me that compassion or empathy is a fundamental aspect of ethical behavior, something that Schopenhauer argued for.

What is interesting is that both theories of Ross and Schopenhauer, while complicated in their exposition, ultimately come to a fairly simple conclusion that may easily have been arrived at without much philosophical thought at all. Putting the point more directly, it seems like philosophers can oftentimes over-complicate philosophical issues, ethical and otherwise.

Since ethics concerns itself at least in part with daily decisions and behavior, should a criteria of an ethical system be that it is simple and easy-to-understand? Should we expect an ethical system to provide not just a theoretical but also a pragmatic guide to life?

skyblack

Since ethics concerns itself at least in part with daily decisions and behavior, should a criteria of an ethical system be that it is simple and easy-to-understand? Should we expect an ethical system to provide not just a theoretical but also a pragmatic guide to life? — darthbarracuda

Isn't it as simple as personal accountability based on compassion (com + patti). Which cannot be expected from people.

180 Proof

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
~Hillel the Elder

↪darthbarracuda

Easy enough to understand.

skyblack

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
~Hillel the Elder

↪darthbarracuda Easy enough to understand. — 180 Proof

Only intellectually. Hard to live by, especially by those who deny accountability.

180 Proof

↪skyblack

Antisocial, free-riders are outnumbered over 8-to-1 by eusocial, cooperators; otherwise, h sapiens would not have achieved any viable social arrangements larger than hunter-gather familial clans. Easily understood and lived by most – just not all – of us for at least a hundred millennia.

skyblack

Antisocial, free-riders are outnumbered over 8-to-1 by eusocial, cooperators; otherwise, h sapiens would not have achieved any viable social arrangements larger than hunter-gather familial clans. Easily understood and lived by most – just not all – of us for at least a hundred millennia. — 180 Proof

The social arrangements based on the unethical exploitation and profiteering of the many by the few, right. The proof is in the pudding. Like the OP says, there is no need to be an intellectual idiot. One doesn’t have to look outside. A quick honest look at oneself will confirm the lip service.

baker

Antisocial, free-riders are outnumbered over 8-to-1 by eusocial, cooperators; otherwise, h sapiens would not have achieved any viable social arrangements larger than hunter-gather familial clans. — 180 Proof

Yet the antisocials and the freeriders can do extremely well in life. How do you explain that?

180 Proof

↪baker

Gaussian distribution of large sample sizes.

baker

↪180 Proof

I guess consolation and justice also have a Gaussian distribution, at large enough sample sizes ...

180 Proof

↪baker

Indeed.

skyblack

To OP:
Ethics has always been the concern of a few (persecuted and ostracized) . Often marginalized and on the fringes of society.It has to be that way, since they won't be a a part of the unethical exploitation of each other, which is at the core of society and it''s arrangements.

Like the OP mentions, ethics is supposed to be lived, not theorized about and then forgotten.

god must be atheist

↪darthbarracuda

Morality is dead easy to explain, and I have done so.

Nobody touched my theories, except complained that the first version I posted here was too long.

So I posted the shorter version.

Morality (ethics) is clear-cut, easy to explain, easy to see for what it is.

Except people of course are horrified by new ideas. There is resistance. Huge resistance.

But nobody gave critical analysis that defeats my theory. They just ignore it. I suspect that is so because there are no holes in the theory.

Anyway, here're the long and short of it:

Long, detailed version:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

Short version:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

TheMadFool

Since ethics concerns itself at least in part with daily decisions and behavior, should a criteria of an ethical system be that it is simple and easy-to-understand? — darthbarracuda

The Real World Is Messy

Should we expect an ethical system to provide not just a theoretical but also a pragmatic guide to life? — darthbarracuda

The Real World Is Messy

The point of ethical theories is to sift through all the incidentals and zero in on the essence and see if it's possible to build a working ethical model centered on that - happiness (consequentialism) and duty (Kantian ethics), etc. It reminds me of science - reducing even the most complex phenomena to a set of simple principles. It bears mentioning that, in line with your thoughts, ethics too, like the chaos of a pitched battle is nothing but pressure, maybe just as simple. The complexity we perceive in ethical issues is then only an illusion.

tim wood

Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand? Kant thought they should be.

praxis

Since ethics concerns itself at least in part with daily decisions and behavior, should a criteria of an ethical system be that it is simple and easy-to-understand? — darthbarracuda

Sure, if daily decisions and behavior are simple and easy to understand. That isn't typically the case, however.

Should we expect an ethical system to provide not just a theoretical but also a pragmatic guide to life? — darthbarracuda

Moral development evolves within individuals and cultures. A one-size-fits-all would stifle development and lead to rigidity.

Joshs

↪180 Proof

”That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
~Hillel the Elder — 180 Proof

Often that which is hateful to you defines the very essence of that which defines the thinking that goes beyond you.

Just about every innovation in social ideas was despised as immoral, dangerous, regressive , by the old guard.

180 Proof

↪Joshs

And your point? Since "the old guard" set up their regimes doing to others "for profit & glory" what they themselves found hateful to others and thus opposition, whenever it comes, by their victims, of course, the immoral "old guard" finds hateful; this negative feedback (backlash) is the reason, after all, for rabbi Hillel's golden rule. 'Reap what you sow' and all that. And yet: Why do the hateful thing even though you (can) foresee hateful consequences? Self-serving bias says "We're different, we're the exception, we'll get away with it – "the old guard" are just primates too.

skyblack

To OP:

Course a deeper investigation into ethics has to eventually get into other facets such as the non-ethical, the half-ethical, the infra-ethical, and the supra-ethical.

_db

↪skyblack

↪180 Proof

↪tim wood

Yes, there do seem to be simple ethical principles that we tend use, like the Golden (or Platinum) rule, personal accountability, compassion, virtues (like courage or discipline), etc.

But as pragmatic as these principles can be, there are holes in them. They contradict each other. There is no one-size-fits-all. A more complicated theory may be less pragmatic, but it might also be more self-consistent. Is the question under-determined?

One thought I had was that, similar to Sellars' manifest/scientific image, there could be a manifest/"enlightened" morality. Buddhism has its bodhisattvas and buddhas, enlightened ones who have learned the middle path, for instance.

↪TheMadFool

I like your point about the illusion of complexity. Very interesting.

180 Proof

But as pragmatic as these principles can be, there are holes in them. — darthbarracuda

Point out the "hole" in the golden rule below, I can't find one.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
~Hillel the Elder

Btw, Confucius had proposed more or less the same principle centuries earlier.

_db

↪180 Proof

I hate being physically injured, but I may physically injure someone who tries to do so to me.

180 Proof

↪darthbarracuda

Same here. Self-defense isn't a "hole" in the golden rule unless its an excuse for active, gratuitous aggression. Btw, many circumstances force on us a "lifeboat ethics" or worse (i.e. there are no saints or good wo/men in foxholes); as Martha Nussbaum points out, ethical integrity presupposes moral luck (see her Fragility of Goodness). We can only apply Hillel's / Confucius' golden rule as much as we're practically able or as prudence allows; no viable ethics is a suicide-pact.

TheMadFool

I like your point about the illusion of complexity. Very interesting. — darthbarracuda

One or a few simple rule(s) [mechanics] and we have chaos [gas particles demo] :point:

Complexity (chaos) is an illusion then, no?

The rule with gas molecules is rather simple: Hey gas particles, remember how you move is determined by the angle and the force with which you're struck under the rubric of the law of conservation of momentum. All gas particles follow this rule and yet, the motion of all the particles is/seems disorderly/chaotic, almost as if there are no rules.

Something similar maybe happening in the moral universe just like in the particle universe - there could be a very simple, easy-to-understand moral rule we all, looks like unwittingly, follow but when we zoom out and look at the bigger picture as it were, it's chaos, another name for complex/complicated.

skyblack

Sounds like @180 Proof has patched the imaginary "hole". :up:

Without getting too much into it, reason points us to couple of facts: Either we are always going to live by superficial and convenient interpretations of reality/facts (ethics, in this case,) or, we may have to jump into the deeper end. The former is a comforting, compromised, conformity, that holds on to our existence, the latter is an acceptance of non-existence. In the former the person can never have what it takes to accept non-existence and will therefore always live within conformity, compromise (compromised ethics), and fear. In the latter there will be an un-compromising ethics as there is no fear of non-existence. Needless to say the ratio between the two will probably be something like like 1 Billion-to-2 people.

_db

↪180 Proof

I'll check out Nussbaum's book, thanks.

We can only apply Hillel's / Confucius' golden rule as much as we're practically able or as prudence allows; no viable ethics is a suicide-pact. — 180 Proof

You say here that we can only apply the golden rule as much as practically able, and that no viable ethics is a suicide-pact, but this seems to presuppose that ethics is compatible with living.

There is an Argentine philosopher I have studied on-and-off, Julio Cabrera. He is developing a "negative ethics" that keeps in mind the structural problems of life, and advocates antinatalism. He believes that ethics is normally not radical enough. Cabrera would argue that people, simply by being alive, are disqualified from nearly all real ethical behavior. The situations in which we find ourselves in, and the constitution of our bodies are such that we can only ever approximate ethical behavior.

Then there are some of the Stoics, who thought it better to commit suicide than to lose ones virtue.

Do you believe ethics and life are congruent?

180 Proof

There is an Argentine philosopher I have studied on-and-off, Julio Cabrera. He is developing a "negative ethics" that keeps in mind the structural problems of life, and advocates antinatalism. — darthbarracuda

I'm an aretaic-negative consequentialist myself which, I suppose, has some affinities; I understand that 'the highest good is the prevention or reduction of both harm and injustice' (but not the elimination, or suspension, of ethical praxis itself (pace Kierkegaard)). I'm also antinatalist by conscience, not normatively by policy.

He believes that ethics is normally not radical enough. Cabrera would argue that people, simply by being alive, are disqualified from nearly all real ethical behavior. The situations in which we find ourselves in, and the constitution of our bodies are such that we can only ever approximate ethical behavior.

Yeah, just like epistemology which describes only approximate truths and fallibilistic knowledge. Such is the relation of maps to the territory. By "radical" in this context, all Cabrera can mean is "formal" (or ideal), that is, like Kant's 'categorical imperative', inapplicable to actual, messy, living situations. His complaint is, to my mind, silly. Academic skeptics in the Hellenistic era had claimed knowledge was impossible because "knowledge is never conpletely certain" – same nonsense as Cabrera's "ethical behavior ... is normally not radical enough". So what? Ethics is sufficiently adaptive, or flexible, in many of its pragmatic expressions (i.e. moral norms) such as Hillel's / Confucius' golden rule, etc.

Then there are some of the Stoics, who thought it better to commit suicide than to lose ones virtue.

No doubt, for some it was better. Normatively viable? Of course not. Thus my recommendation of Nussbaum's (work on stoic) 'moral luck'. How does it make sense, ceteris paribus, for failure itself – even vice – to precipitate suicide (i.e. a permanent solution to temporary problem)? Seems nearly pathological to me, like religious martyrdom, which no doubt is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church looked favorably upon the Stoics (adapting selectively e.g. "Serenity Prayer") and simultaneously condemned Epicureans as heretics (e.g. "tetrapharmakos") as almost from its beginning.

Do you believe ethics and life are congruent?

More than that I believe Human life [natality + eusociality + fatality] is the Ur-ethical concern insofar as sentient living presupposes valuing; this ancient insight into our existential condition (re: ethos, or habitat & ethikos, or of habits – the latter for adequately sustaining the former) very much still holds true.

Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions