Good luck in the ring. — john27
I think before we can talk about Mill or Kant, or the nature of moral obligation or how moral attitudes figure into morality itself, and so on, we have to ask a more fundamental question: what IS ethics? — Astrophel
What is a proper analysis of the "parts" of an ethical problem? — Astrophel
If good is not known to be a universal, then how one acts "good" is relegated to subjective standards, which kind of defeats the point of making a list on "how" to do things. — john27
Well, this just a tad general, don't you think? — Astrophel
Reason could be here substituted for ethics and it would still be true. — Astrophel
What kind of doctrine would an ethical doctrine be? — Astrophel
what are the assumptions built into it that would expose a deeper understanding of ethics? — Astrophel
Both. You need to know what is and what is not, and also what is better, what worse. Two differing logics, rhetoric and dialectic. One exhorting, arguing for agreement to a course of action; the other demonstrating, to which one assents. Both.The problem of ethics is not "what is the case" but "What do we do"? — Banno
But the distinction I pointed out to Mww seems pivotal: ethics is not about what is the case but what to do. It is not to be found by looking around at the world, but in deciding what actions one will take.
SO there's a start. — Banno
I wrote the following two papers explaining why ethics can't be defined. The thrust of my thesis was that ethics in fact comprises two separate and irreconcilable systems, each of which can be defined, but the two are always lumped together into one, and that causes a lot of confusion for philosophers. There are distinct similarities and differences between the two systems which I tried to describe in the papers.
Everyone on this site poo-pooed on these papers, those who criticized them, but mainly those who never even bothered to look at them.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper — god must be atheist
Ethics seems to me the study of how to discern adaptive conduct which optimizes – from maladaptive conduct which fails to optimize – habits/customs of (i.e. individual preferences/social priorities for) non-reciprocal helping. — 180 Proof
One doesn't do until one know what lies before one. — Astrophel
Philosophy steps in with its inexhaustible curiosity and asks the question about a thing's nature or essence. — Astrophel
Sorry, I couldn't make sense of this. — john27
Socrates is the most misguiding and most over-rated philosopher of all times. — god must be atheist
I ask, in order tp have a moral theory at all, you have to have something before you to theorize about. What is it there, in the reduced analysis of actual moral affair, that can make moral theorizing possible? — Astrophel
Apostrophel, did you mean to say what we came up with speculatively trying to understand you? — god must be atheist
To the extent that we see them expressed in even 'unintelligent' and very nonhuman species, such as fish, we can guess: quite.But those inborn concepts and feelings, how inborn are they? — Astrophel
The innate ethical tendencies are shaped and directed by culture in very varied ways. The same as with our innate linguistic tendencies, sexual tendencies, etc.what is the separation between what is acculturated and what is "natural"? — Astrophel
That is, if I have a feeling, a pang of conscience, isn't this to be brought up under review to see if it's right? — Astrophel
You are one of many who feels compelled to believe that ethics is Real with a capital R. I don't sympathize. Do you seriously think there is a material basis for ethics? This isI think ethics is Real, not just a construct. All constructs are constructs OF something. All meaningful affairs are meaningful only to the extent that there is a material basis for them. — Astrophel
I am asking that this be put off until we actually know what it is that sits before you that you are theorizing about. Is there an objection to this? — Astrophel
What makes you think we should talk about ethics ‘in general’ before talking about Mill or Kant? This reminds me of what Foucault does with concepts like sexuality
or morality. Rather than giving us a history of something , which pre-supposes the meaning and then inserts it into the history, he gives us a genealogy of a concept, showing us that its history isn’t a history of changing applications or attitudes towards what has already been assumed in its basic structure. Rather, a genealogical analysis reveals a thoroughgoing transformation of the concept itself from one historical
period to the next. So in looking for the ‘parts’ of ethics which are transcendent to cultural contingency, we have to ask what it is that belongs to the genealogical structure in general. That may bring us to something on the order of local systems of intelligibility and their transformations. Ethics ‘in general’ may then be analyzed in terms of a drive toward creating new futures, an impetus to societal transformation oriented around diversification of values. — Joshs
To ask “what IS reason, you mean? Otherwise, I don’t understand the question. Anyway, not so sure it makes sense to ask what reason is. To reason about reason is intrinsically circular, whereas to reason from an ethical...or more accurately, a moral, predisposition.....is not. Ethics presupposes reason; reason does not presupposes ethics. So I don’t think there’s sufficient justification to substitute one for the other. — Mww
Rationality follows these terms rather than dictating them. — Astrophel
It is not to be found by looking around at the world, but in deciding what actions one will take. — Banno
studies in the principles of historical progressions presuppose something more basic, and this is the intuited presence of value-in-the-world. — Astrophel
Ethics has an intuitive dimension that exceeds the contingencies of theory. — Astrophel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.