Ethics

[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.

[Suburbanite]

Why align yourself with moral positions at all? Ever? It is such a useless way of denoting or describing something. Hows that apple? Its good. That doesn't really give you much information. If we never used the concept good or bad, to describe things, we'd have to come up with really accurate and specific adjectives. Like, this apple is sweet. I can't think of a significant reason to use moral or ethical vocabulary, when we have so many more articulate vocabularies to choose from.

[Morality Games]

In day to day matters, "Why not?" People understand moral vocabulary and it can be used to refer to strongly held preferences in behavior. Making a point of not using moral vocabulary has never seemed necessary to me -- eventually I will get into a discussion about preferences, and taking the time out of everybody's day to explain why we don't have to use moral vocabulary (when it is actually functional) would detract from my main point (diminishes my logos) and make everybody think I lack common sense (diminishes my ethos). I didn't score an 18 on Rhetoric on the ACTs to make such a basic mistake.

The vocabulary anybody uses doesn't really matter, so long as it functions. I would only stop using moral vocabulary if the popular attitude was that such a vocabulary is too archaic to be of service in discussion.

In more sophisticated matters, moral vocabulary is crucial to the study and interpretation of historical texts and anthropological data.

[Suburbanite]

Well, in the same sense knowing the meaning of the word "doth" is important to understanding historical texts, morals too have no direct correlation to the society we live in.
You have to first imagine the world before our traditional concept of morality came into play, and understand that honesty and virtue were important because the whole world was on an honor system. A man was his word, because it was so much easier to lie, kill, act "immorally". But since that time we've developed a very critical, empirical vocabulary of justice: we have evidence, habeas corpus, lawful and unlawful, etc.

[Morality Games]

I don't disagree that humans could get by without moral vocabulary if people were willing to broaden their horrizons a bit. But it is still widely used and therefore can be put to use.

Apart from social institutions which administrate justice, there is the psychological sense of good and bad -- one could call these preferences, but they might still want a different word (morals) to stress preferences of a very enduring variety. In effect, strong preferences which refer specifically to behavior are called 'morals' and weak preferences which are general are simply called 'preferences'.

[Merge]

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?

[Morality Games]

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.

Definitely, and that is basically the function they perform in this discussion -- rather, they "stand in for" or "represent" a class of ethical theories.

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?

See above. They are "standing in for" all the ethical theories of their type.

[Merge]

Definitely, and that is basically the function they perform in this discussion -- rather, they "stand in for" or "represent" a class of ethical theories.


See above. They are "standing in for" all the ethical theories of their type.

I agree with you here, but flaws in specific ethical theories don't necessarily project onto the meta-ethical category that those theories fall under. Meta-ethics don't actually make any claims or statements about what should be, so how can the flaws of meta-ethics be anything but logical? Even if all ethical theories under Moral Realativism are flawed in that they have "only partially complete views of the facts," Moral Realativism itself cannot be said to have only a partially complete view of the facts because as a meta-ethic it does not even deal in empirical facts. Moral Realativism is concerned only with how specific ethics function, not how moral agents should act.

[loser]

Why is that I scored 30 on my ACT score (I had a bad day) but I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about? Use big words, that's okay, I'll probably know them. But, I'm sorry, disjointed and incoherent babble about "moral vocabulary" and "ethical theory" and "meta-ethics" is just more psycho-babble. Is that what they are teaching in the Hallowed Halls of Hokum today? Learned that in your 'Ethics' class?

[Morality Games]

I agree with you here, but flaws in specific ethical theories don't necessarily project onto the meta-ethical category that those theories fall under. Meta-ethics don't actually make any claims or statements about what should be, so how can the flaws of meta-ethics be anything but logical? Even if all ethical theories under Moral Realativism are flawed in that they have "only partially complete views of the facts," Moral Realativism itself cannot be said to have only a partially complete view of the facts because as a meta-ethic it does not even deal in empirical facts. Moral Realativism is concerned only with how specific ethics function, not how moral agents should act.

I have never seen a morally relativistic theory which took a complete view of the facts (or rather, all the information to be considered) -- the term 'Moral Relativism' here represents any theory which incorporates elements that are logically consistant with the model of Moral Relativism, because I have no reason to mention specific theories that appear reminscient of the meta-ethical abstraction we designate 'moral relativism' -- the term 'Moral Relativism' is representational enough without using words like various kinds of 'Sophism', Nietzschean', most kinds of existentialism and Postmodernism, and possibly Logical Positivism (although this is debatable, as Logical Positivism dismisses ethics outright and only passingly appears to be favoring something like moral subjectivity or moral relativism).

Meta-Ethical theories cannot be criticized except on logical grounds, but here the terms are being used as a reference or signpost for a broader set of things, which can be criticized for how they work out in practice. To cut the length of the content of my post down, I use designations put on multiple ethical theories to refer to those theories -- sorry if there was any confusion as to what I meant.

[Merge]

Why is that I scored 30 on my ACT score (I had a bad day) but I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about? Use big words, that's okay, I'll probably know them. But, I'm sorry, disjointed and incoherent babble about "moral vocabulary" and "ethical theory" and "meta-ethics" is just more psycho-babble. Is that what they are teaching in the Hallowed Halls of Hokum today? Learned that in your 'Ethics' class?

I was really wondering about your ACT score, thanks for the info!

I hated my ethics class.

Sorry we make you feel stupid. I for one didn't mean to, did you Morality Games?

Maybe you don't have a clue about what we are talking about because you don't take the time to try to understand what we are talking about. I read Morality Games' posts way mare than once. Give it a try, maybe you'll learn something.

"Psycho-babble?" Didn't realize we were talking psychology.

Did you only post to share your test scores with everyone and dish out insults? If so then thanks for providing me a break from this discussion, writing mindless responses to mindless posts is a nice break from all this thinking Morality Games is making me do.

[loser]

"Psycho-babble?" Didn't realize we were talking psychology.

Did you only post to share your test scores with everyone and dish out insults? If so then thanks for providing me a break from this discussion, writing mindless responses to mindless posts is a nice break from all this thinking Morality Games is making me do.

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?

I guess I don't understand "moral relativism" and such, then, if they are not psychological by nature. Explain to me the distinction, please. Ethics is merely culturally-specific psychology in my mind.

Still, you're right, my post was in bad taste. Because of time constraints, I hurried a response in a debate about a subject to which, although interested, I was woefully ignorant.

Thanks for saying something that I could understand...mindless, I know.