one can ask, why make the world a more creatively anticipatable place? If there is no answer to this, then the mundane objection still holds: there is question begging in the assumption that "we should do X". Why? — Astrophel

The thinking goes this way:
There is no such thing as bad intent. We all
want the same thing, to be able to make sense of the world, and the behavior of other people most of all, in the most assimilable and internally harmonious way, and that means not force others in our worldview but rather expand our worldview so that we are able to emphasize with others. What we call evil is just the shortcomings of those attempts. Feeling has no intrinsic content, it is nothing but an organizational feature of our construing of events that indicates how well we are making sense of things. Giving affect some primordial content leads to the danger that we substitute a conformist impulse for the attempt to see things from others’ perspectives.

But that's an argument, not phenomenology, right? It's also not an argument I find all that persuasive as it stands: I've always been struck by the Nazis trying to destroy evidence of the Holocaust as the red army advanced -- they were like children caught doing something they knew perfectly well was wrong.

But, yes, history and anthropology seem to teach us that different communities have different values. Some apparently have no problem with practicing slavery, say, or genital mutilation, and then we seem forced to conclude that there is something relative about our moral judgments. This is all still argument though, rather than a phenomenology of ethical experience. It's just that the argument suggests such a phenomenology is useless, because in every case we'll find people experiencing what seems to them ethical in the same way. (Orson Welles explained Touch of Evil by quoting Jean Renoir: "Everyone has their reasons.")

There are two ways to begin to answer the relativist (or perspectivist): one is to say that the claims of variation are overblown, that there is obvious and substantial overlap in the mores of different communities, and even some research to back that up; the other is to question the experience more closely. If those who practice genital mutilation have to overcome their recognition of a young girl's fear and trauma, have to suppress their sympathy for her, then that's not evidence that their conscience is constituted differently from ours, but that they choose not to listen to it, that they let some other consideration overrule it.

I think the jury is still out on whether phenomenology is doomed to failure here. — Srap Tasmaner

I am not trying to defend phenomenology, and it I were, I would be in a poor position. That would be an true academic's job. I do defend the phenomenologist's approach to basic problems, and I defend things the way I think along these lines.

Phenomenology cannot be doomed to failure, unless Trump destroys the world and all is lost like the library of Alexandria. It is too intuitive. I mean, this and that can be argued, dismissed, and so on, but phenomenology is what you might call a profound and enduring insight.

What I do here is not about what is at issue in all you talk about. What is not arguable is the presence of affect, no matter how this term finds context. And affect (happiness, sadness, misery, joy suffering pleasure, and so forth) is foundational for ethics.

Terms like courage are dangerous, because they imply a hostility toward and condemnation of those who we judge as lacking in courage. — Joshs

I can think of circumstances, institutions, where this is probably true, maybe in the military or in public safety. But in general? I think people mainly just marvel at courage. It's okay to be awestruck by Martin Luther King -- doesn't mean you implicitly condemn everyone else, does it?

Anyway, don't you think your argument is overbroad? How you can you praise anyone for anything if it implies condemnation of everyone else?

This is the strength of evolutionary theory — god must be atheist

You haven't understood the point...

In your own example, helping the blind and killing and eating them can both be explained as procuring survival. — Banno

Actually, it does not fail to answer that question. . — god must be atheist

SO, what is it that evolution says we ought to do?

The good thing is, you can pick anything, and it will fit.

And affect (happiness, sadness, misery, joy suffering pleasure, and so forth) is foundational for ethics. — Astrophel

Ah, then we're not having the conversation I thought we were.

I have some attraction to a very old-fashioned "moral sentiments" view, such as you'd find in Adam Smith.

And affect (happiness, sadness, misery, joy suffering pleasure, and so forth) is foundational for ethics. — Astrophel

It's a pity you think that.

Sure, we have feelings. One's own feelings are all well and good, and you might do well to work towards feeling good rather than feeling miserable. But that's not the foundation of ethics.

Ethics concerns itself with how one is to relate to others.

I consider this to be wishful thinking and mysticism. You said earlier that I was making it more complicated than it need be and now here you are saying something serpentine like this. :razz:

Sounds like you want a transcendent or magical foundation point to this question and this may well be an emotional reaction. You won't be the first to reach this position.

Human flourishing does raise the question what does human flourishing look like when done well? We know that pretty much all people are attempting to achieve this. Even the Taliban - they, like all fundamentalists, think a particular interpretation of God's will leads to human flourishing - generally flourishing in the afterlife.

We can debate how best to accomplish human flourishing but there seems little doubt to me that pretty much all people have agreed in their own way that this is a starting point. I don't think we need any more than this. — Tom Storm

Nothing mystical about a knife in your kidney. That matter is much more basic than you would have it. You, I surmise, would like to treat that knife as Hume and Wittgenstein treat facts. But there is something in the occurrent event of misery, I mean while one is actually miserable, that needs attention. the habit we have, and this I take to be seriously understood, the habit that language imposes of the world both lifts it into understanding as well as silences and occludes. What I am saying is that the "magic" is magical to you because is unfamliar. Face it, Heidegger was right: the more science and technology dominates thinking regarding the place and status of what it is to be human, the more the powerful and profound are pushed out of existence, and by existence, read the manner of our thoughts and feelings. Cell phones are more real to modern sensibilities than existential matters. The fact that almost no one at all takes up such matters is exactly what makes them strange and magical.
That knife in the kidney. Answer me this: what would be a complete analysis of teh bare features of the one sitting there in misery? Spare me the medical contingencies, as well as what a biologist might say, or an evolutionist. Just observe what is there sitting before you.
Clue: there is in the event, at its final determination, something that defies explanation, but is the most salient feature.

It's a pity you think that.

Sure, we have feelings. One's own feelings are all well and good, and you might do well to work towards feeling good rather than feeling miserable. But that's not the foundation of ethics.

Ethics concerns itself with how one is to relate to others. — Banno

But this with others, what is it? Saying you have concern for others turns the table to you, because you are an other to others, and the most accessible possible examination would lie in an examination of yourself.
You see this, no? It is not saying that ethics is not about others at all. It is sayning what IS it about others that makes for the ethicality of ethic?

Saying you have concern for others turns the table to you, because you are an other to others, and the most accessible possible examination would lie in an examination of yourself. — Astrophel

The "most accessible possible examination" is your interaction with others, which is there for all to see.

An attempt to base ethics on private self-reflection will lead to nonsense. And does.

Ethics isn't an armchair self-examination. It's about getting out in the world, being amongst others, interacting.

Ah, then we're not having the conversation I thought we were.

I have some attraction to a very old-fashioned "moral sentiments" view, such as you'd find in Adam Smith. — Srap Tasmaner

Smith? No. I see no fault with moral sentiment, but these are not foundational in their attachment to incidentals (facts). They are, however, as sentiment, filled with meaning, and it is here I find a grounding.

SO, what is it that evolution says we ought to do? — Banno

In the most important way, evolution has NOTHING to do with ethics. For evolution will reduce ethics to what is conducive to reproduction and survival. Or, perhaps, an accidental gene mutation? Nothing here speaks to ethics, for whatever any science may say constitutes an ethical obligation, it will be a factual account, and ethics is not about facts.

, it will be a factual account, and ethics is not about facts. — Astrophel

Yep. You clearly state that which @god must be atheist has failed to grasp.

The "most accessible possible examination" is your interaction with others, which is there for all to see.

An attempt to base ethics on private self-reflection will lead to nonsense. And does.

Ethics isn't an armchair self-examination. It's about getting out in the world, being amongst others, interacting. — Banno

Take away the reality of emotive, consciousness endowed subjects that interact. What remains of ethics? Nothing. Ethics is thus contingent upon this reality. What of this reality brings about the occurrence of ethics? The only possible answer - were one in search for it - can only be found in that which is universal to such subjects: something like "hinge rules" by which all subjects play regardless of their wants and choices. And this cannot be ascertained by looking at what is perceivable in the external world - but only via self-reflection into the universal properties applicable to the cohort of all such subjects, a cohort which one oneself is a constituent of.

Same for the occurrence of aesthetics, or of value in general.

Were interacting with others to of itself be that which defines the ethical, mass murders would then qualify without reserve, for such are known by their interaction with others. Humans, however, don’t typically deem mass murders to be ethical.

I'm not here to try to provide answers to the OP, but I disagree that self-reflection - the notion of knowing oneself - can only be a wrong-minded approach to the matter.

Take away the reality of emotive, consciousness endowed subjects that interact. What remains of ethics? Nothing. — javra

Sure. So is art, science, politics, horse racing... The question is, what is particular to ethics.

Ethics is not about what one wants. That's just appetite.

Ethics is about human interactions. What ought one do in relation to others.

Interesting that you mention hinge rules. These are the rules that are constitutive of a game; and games are a social affair. Hinge rules only exist publicly.

Introspection is fine, but it will not tell you how to treat the homeless, or what abortion laws should be in place, or how much to donate to charity.

Ethics is inherently concerned with action, not introspection. Indeed self-reflection is so often an excuse for not acting.

One might know oneself best by looking in at one's reflection on the eyes of another.

You haven't understood the point... — Banno

Okay, consider then please this:

Banno denies the existence of evolutionary theory. Banno states that the evolutionary theory is faulty, wrong, and must be dismissed. Here:

Explaining behaviour in terms of evolution had a veneer of credibility within pop science, and is common on this forum - to the point of predictable tedium.

But there is little support amongst scientists. That's mostly because it is logically fraught. A little thought will show that any behaviour can be made to fit the model. In your own example, helping the blind and killing and eating them can both be explained as procuring survival. — Banno

Let's say Banno is right. Let's say the evolutionary theory is not a valid theory to explain behavior. In that case the following must be true:

Those whose gene-determined behaviour forces them to behave in ways that are counter-effective to survival, are the most apt to survive.

Those whose gene-determined behaviour makes them superbly adaptive to the environment, and to environmental changes, more than others, will perish.

Furthermore, those societies whose social structures -- such as education, ethics, law, religion, etc. -- are least likely to help them survive, will thrive and take over the world.

And those societies whose social structures help them superbly to survive, will perish.

----------

This is what Banno claims. Read it to believe it.

Banno denies the existence of evolutionary theory. — god must be atheist

No, he doesn't. He denies that it is the foundation of ethics.

And He's right.

And He's right. — Banno

A claim stated, so it must be true.

One might know oneself best by looking in at one's reflection on the eyes of another. — Banno

:grin: Yes. I find a deeper truth in this then might many others. Needless to add, if one takes it metaphorically rather than physically. Something to do with self in other and other in self: value in that which is universal to all.

Introspection is fine, but it will not tell you how to treat the homeless, or what abortion laws should be in place, or how much to donate to charity.

Ethics is inherently concerned with action, not introspection. Indeed self-reflection is so often an excuse for not acting. — Banno

Issue being asked is what makes ethics existent in the philosophical sense wherein we contemplate and infer a rational answer to the question. Theory regarding the idea/ideal rather than practice wherein this idea/ideal is imperfectly implemented. Or at least so I take the OP to ask.

What, for example, makes abolition ethical even when most, if not all, those who surround you despise you for your intents?

My own hunch is that in order to know how one ought to act one must first know - intuitively if not at a level of conscious understanding - the ideal one is in pursuit of by so acting. To me at least such can only be discovered via reflection regrading what the self (as in both oneself and others) is.

A claim stated, so it must be true. — god must be atheist

A claim argued:

1. It has the structure of an all-and-some doctrine; for any behaviour there is some evolutionary advantage. Hence it provides and explanation for any behaviour, and it's negation. It is of no use.

2. It fails to answer the question of what we ought to do, so does not address ethics. — Banno

But you appear to be having comprehension issues.

What, for example, makes abolition ethical even when most, if not all, those who surround you despise you for your intents? — javra

Abolition is a dreadful idea. Folk need to drink. :wink:

My own hunch is that in order to know how one ought to act one must first know - intuitively if not at a level of conscious understanding - the ideal one is in pursuit of by so acting. To me at least such can only be discovered via reflection regrading what the self (as in both oneself and others) is. — javra

I don't agree. As I have argued, a priori intuitions or any such introspection will not survive contact.

Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth. — Mike Tyson

Hence virtue ethics - but that's a longer story.

for any behaviour there is some evolutionary advantage. — Banno

You forget to apply your critical ability when you read authors. Yes, for any behaviour there is evolutionary advantage; but not at the same time, and at the same respect. In different times some respects may be predominant; some other times some other respects may be predominant.

Example: Murder. In our society it is not ethical. In our society the human life is sacrosanct, because we can afford to sustain all human lives, and because we agree that life is better lived with no fear of life.

Example: Murder. In cannibalistic societies the available meat protein is scanty. You capture and kill members of OTHER tribes and eat their flesh.

Is our society like a cannibalistic society? No. Is a cannibalistic society like ours? No. There are different from each other by solid and permanent demarcation lines. Therefore both murder and non-murder are both moral and immoral, which only causes a confusion, such as for you, when you don't consider the differences in circumstances. Once circumstances are normalized and permanent, the dichotomy of both an action and its opposite as ethical will cease to appear contradictory to the observer.

Abolition is a dreadful idea. Folk need to drink. :wink: — Banno

:razz: For the record, I was addressing it in terms of slavery.

Hence virtue ethics - but that's a longer story. — Banno

Doesn't that beg the question, though: how does anyone discern virtue from vice, kind of thing.

But OK.

Example: Murder. In cannibalistic societies the available meat protein is scanty. You capture and kill members of OTHER tribes and eat their flesh. — god must be atheist

From my former studies, the rarity of protein doesn't play a major role. Their spirituality however does. It bears heavy on the notion of consuming - both in the sense of devouring and annihilating - one's enemies: this both in terms of body and soul. But I grant, it's been a while since I've read up on the issue.

From my former studies — javra

I am the first one to admit that I never studied anything beyond high school. Yes, I have a degree, but I did not earn it by studying. I earned it by passing tests, exams and assignments. And that was a long time ago. I get my knowledge from hearsay and from figuring things out.

As far as I can tell, the meat-protein or fatty acid necessity in diet is a contentious issue. Some swear by it; some reject it. So I cherry picked this one, to be honest; it's also cherry picked because I like to eat meat (not human flesh).

I believe there have been studies that supported the theory that animal enzymes are a must in one's diet, and there have been studies that support the opposite. The upshot is that if the animal-enzyme camp was correct, there would be no true vegans around.

Then again, some authorities or some blokes with big voices might say that trace amounts of animal enzymes are impossible to avoid in getting into your system.

Well, god only knows. But god does not exist. (According to my beliefs, anyhow.)

Was just doing online research on the topic and, as you can guess, Wikipedia has an entry on it. Here's what it says:

In some societies, cannibalism is a cultural norm. Consumption of a person from within the same community is called endocannibalism; ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased can be part of the grieving process[19] or be seen as a way of guiding the souls of the dead into the bodies of living descendants.[20] Exocannibalism is the consumption of a person from outside the community, usually as a celebration of victory against a rival tribe.[20] Both types of cannibalism can also be fueled by the belief that eating a person's flesh or internal organs will endow the cannibal with some of the characteristics of the deceased.[21] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism#Reasons

Neither endocannibalism nor exocannibalism can be classified as murder per se: the first is a sign of respect/love for the already deceased; the latter usually follows warfare, and homicide during warfare is not considered to be murder (deliberate homicide without justification). There might be other examples that you could use, but, tmk, cannibalism as an accepted form of murder among some cultures is not it. "Female circumcision" however does come to mind.

Introspection is fine, but it will not tell you how to treat the homeless, or what abortion laws should be in place, or how much to donate to charity. — Banno

Considering that introspection is the means by which all of the great ethical doctrines have been generated, I can’t imagine a better way to prepare oneself to answer any of the above questions. Your comment sounds awfully Cartesian: real world out there vs subjective noodlings in here. Thing is , the most world-changing ideas are produced by such noodlings all alone in a windowless room. That’s because the inside is already outside.

Nothing mystical about a knife in your kidney. That matter is much more basic than you would have it. — Astrophel

Over 30 years I have often worked with violent criminals, I know knives and I know basic. Doesn't change my view on the issue of human flourishing.

But there is something in the occurrent event of misery, I mean while one is actually miserable, that needs attention. the habit we have, and this I take to be seriously understood, the habit that language imposes of the world both lifts it into understanding as well as silences and occludes. What I am saying is that the "magic" is magical to you because is unfamliar. Face it, Heidegger was right: the more science and technology dominates thinking regarding the place and status of what it is to be human, the more the powerful and profound are pushed out of existence, and by existence, read the manner of our thoughts and feelings. Cell phones are more real to modern sensibilities than existential matters. The fact that almost no one at all takes up such matters is exactly what makes them strange and magical.
That knife in the kidney. Answer me this: what would be a complete analysis of teh bare features of the one sitting there in misery? Spare me the medical contingencies, as well as what a biologist might say, or an evolutionist. Just observe what is there sitting before you.
Clue: there is in the event, at its final determination, something that defies explanation, but is the most salient feature. — Astrophel

Not sure what you are trying to address with this lengthy response. Seems like you are using phenomenology to distract from the original point, namely that we can build a robust ethical system on some basic ideas. If you think there is some transcendent aspect to this enterprise I have neglected, maybe it would help for you to describe it directly.

The "most accessible possible examination" is your interaction with others, which is there for all to see.

An attempt to base ethics on private self-reflection will lead to nonsense. And does.

Ethics isn't an armchair self-examination. It's about getting out in the world, being amongst others, interacting. — Banno

But consider that talking about relationships with others precludes something about agency itself. Agency comes, analytically, before inter-agency. The question here is, what is it that makes someone an ethical agency in order for ethical relationships to be possible? Look, you can't have an ethical relationship with a fence post. It has to be an ethical viable person, or animal (depending). So, since relations presuppose agency, then what is it that constitutes agency?