Quote:
Quote by: Morality Games  There are many different approaches to moral matters in both religion and philosophy.
My personal approach is a commonsensical / realist / pragmatist's view; you can single out ethical propositions and determine which ones are senseless and which ones are reasonable, but you cannot manufacture theoretical approaches which algorithmically detect and extract undesirable features while inserting desirable features in the concepts of bad or good conduct. Human psychology / society is too irreducibly complex / variant for that, and there is nothing in natural science which suggests the world or a God is going to provide the appropriate mandate.
This is why I reject any of the popular approaches to ethics in philosophy (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, etc) and the absolutism of religion (usually some kind of virtue ethics). Moreover, I feel systems like Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Objectivism, and Moral Subjectivism are flawed, because each incorporates some facts of humanity or the world, but then starts incorporating fallacies or has only partially complete views of the facts. |
I agree with you that one cannot develop an ethical theory that accurately dictates what is moral and what is immoral, but I don't understand how Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Objectivism, and Moral Subjectivism are involved in this discussion.
I consider Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Objectivism, and Moral Subjectivism to be more like meta-ethics in that they do not posit an ethical theory but rather
describe the nature of specific ethical theories. These meta-ethics do double as positions that can be taken on the nature of existing ethics, and in this they can be criticized. But I don't understand how any flaws of these meta-ethics can include "incorporating fallacies," or having only "partially complete views of the facts."
To make it easier to respond, I'll provide a question for you to answer (if you wish to):
If Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Objectivism, and Moral Subjectivism describe the nature of ethical theories but are not ethical theories themselves, how can they incorporate fallacies or contain partially complete views of the facts?