Quote:
|
My ACT score was a quip inspired by Morality Games's "I didn't score an 18 on Rhetoric on the ACTs to make such a basic mistake." Did you miss that in your exhaustive examination of his post?
|
Sounds silly when you put it like that, but it wasn't badly intended. I was just casting around for incidents of my life to demonstrate what would cause me to think along those lines.
Ethics is the study of
what activities are right or wrong through theories which detail specific conditions under which actions can be called moral or not,
meta-ethics is the study of
the content and logical form of ethical theories.
'Moral vocabulary' refers to terms (like good, bad, evil, value, standard, rule, norm, etc) which frequently appear in philosophical conversations / arguments about what is ethical.
'Moral Relativism' maintains that moral propositions do not express objective or universal truths but are rather reducible to the conventions of particular cultures and the individuals within them.
'Moral Objectivism' maintains that moral propositions can express objective or universal truths and are not necessarily reducible to the conventions of particular cultures and the individuals within them. Hence, they are somehow reducible to some enduring feature of reality (like a Supreme Being, Natural Law, or Human Nature).
'Moral Universalism' maintains that there are (somehow) normative moral standards that apply to all persons. Hence, they apply 'universally' -- everywhere in the world to all qualifiable to beings. The focus is different, but it is in line with Moral Objectivism.
'Moral Absolutism' is a more particular form of Moral Objectivism. It maintains that, in a moral objective / universal theory, there is at least one principle that ought not be violated (like divine will in most world religions) no mater what. It is more inflexible and rigid than other forms of Moral Objectivism, who have formal processes that allow for 'deviation' or 'exception'.
Moral Subjectivism maintains that moral propositions reflect attitudes of individual persons and nothing else. Quite in line with Moral Relativism, but the focus is different. Moral Subjectivism is more often than Relativism used as an excuse to dismiss ethics entirely from the discussion. Quite popular with the Logical Positivists, who hated most philosophy aside from logic, and the philosophies of language and science.
These all describe ethical theories. What follows is how you approach them.
Virtue Ethics focuses on the qualities of individuals. Certain traits (virtues) are 'moral' and it is on basis of how many of these a person exhibits they can be fairy called moral. Quite popular with the Ancient Greeks, passed on into Christianity.
Deontology focuses on the acts of individuals. Certain actions are 'moral' and it is on basis of how often they perform these a person is moral.
Consequentialism focuses on outcomes. Certain consequences (like happiness) are desirable and it is on basis of how much desirables a person produces that they are moral.
These approaches generally presuppose some form of Moral Objectivism, although that is not without exception. Nietzschaen ethics are 'morally relativistic' and yet maintain some morals are better (just not in a universal sense) than others on basis of the type of being they produce (something like Virtue Ethics, although not in the usual form).
The
Good Reasons approach dictates that actions deserve to be called 'moral' if they were performed for a good reason (concrete justification).
Contextualism considers morality in terms of the situation activities that are traditionally termed 'ethical' arise. It is often associated with moral relativism.