The pervasive silliness of the logic / ethics position

[barts]

Not infrequently in the Philosophy & Ethics forum posters imply that ethical systems should be based on some variant of logic. In other words, a set of logical axioms ought to be able to be applied to any human situation and produce a universally defensible correct ethical answer. The axioms must be universal, too.

This is pedantic silliness of the highest order.

Those who put forward any bases for ethics that are deemed not based on this illusive and imaginary "logic" are charged with being subjective and their views dismissed.

These views about logic and ethics, which are in fact subjective values in and of themselves, are intellectual silliness in the extreme.

First, those who deem that ethics be logically based should provide a logical rational for their position. Merely stating the view about logic and ethics is, in my view, insufficient. It's also, I suggest, intellectual cowardice.

Second, those who deem that any choice made about what ethics might be based upon is subjective and therefore lacking, must be able to argue logically why all choices are, therefore, not only subjective, but also why such choices are not credible or useful. That others might disagree with a choice is insufficient reason, it's only a matter of taste.

Third, those who argue for a logical based ethical system must first be able to offer some evidence that such a system, as they envision, might exist at all, but also why such a system has not been discovered in all human history. If such a system does not exist, what do these logical purists suggest those who make day-to-day decisions that affect their and others' lives base their ethical and moral decisions upon?

Fourth, it is a matter of fact, I submit, that logic and ethics are incompatible. Logic demands a level of precision and knowledge of variables not possible in human interactions and decision making. It's for that reason I suggest that those who expect there to be, or demand there be a logic-based ethical system are being silly. Those who condemn a moral decision or ethical paradigm as being subjective are, again, being silly, and indeed being subjective themselves.

Lastly, almost every aspect of a person's life is informed by subjective judgements based on incomplete, often false and constantly changing information and influences. Such is life. Those who think logic can be anything other than a marginally useful tool are delusional, and as I say are being silly.

[Senor Hoint]

Good and evil are objectively subjective.

[Darklordabc]

What is the alternative to a moral system based on logic? What could possible come close?

[barts]

Good and evil are objectively subjective.

Really? What makes you think so? Let me ask you this, if a person detonated a device that destroyed all life on this planet are you unable to decide if that is good or evil?

[barts]

What is the alternative to a moral system based on logic? What could possible come close?

Your first task is to demonstrate that a moral system can be based on logic. You say that as a given. It is not a given except in your own view.

To work, logic requires a set of variables that are comprehensive and measurable. In ethics these elements are not available.

Like it or not, logic has little utility in the field of ethics.

[truthreality]

What is the alternative to a moral system based on logic? What could possible come close?

Ethos and logos are two separate categories of rhetoric.

[LetThereBe]

Ethics should be logically consistent, though one's premises are by nature subjective.

If you think "it is wrong to kill" then you must think self defense is wrong. Either your premise was a fallacious over-generalization or your position is inconsistent.

[Darklordabc]

To work, logic requires a set of variables that are comprehensive and measurable. In ethics these elements are not available.

Human wellbeing, wold be the metric you use. This may not be easily measurable in practice, like say measuring air humidity, but its not impossible in principle. The only thing you have to assume, is that suffering, is bad. After you make that assumption, you can discover ways to minimize suffering, and maximize its opposite, "well being".
But really, there is no alternative to reason. What else could there be - basing your morality of a book, or on what you dreamt last night, or on some other purely arbitrary thing? Any other system, not based on sentient creatures welfare, would produce a nightmare of a system (which is why theocracies are hell holes). This is why nearly all philosophers use some variant of "well being". I use well being, because it encompasses more then just "happiness".

[truthreality]

Ethics should be logically consistent, though one's premises are by nature subjective.

If you think "it is wrong to kill" then you must think self defense is wrong. Either your premise was a fallacious over-generalization or your position is inconsistent.

There is logical consistency in thinking that murder is wrong and self-defense is right.

[barts]

But really, there is no alternative to reason.

I agree. The issue, however, is logic. Reason can operate quite effectively without full recourse to logic, because reason can accommodate the notion of unknowns and inadequate and incomplete information. Logic cannot.

Reason allows for judgment; logic, like mathematics, does not. It's for this reason that the notion of a logic-based ethical system is just silly.

[Darklordabc]

I agree. The issue, however, is logic. Reason can operate quite effectively without full recourse to logic, because reason can accommodate the notion of unknowns and inadequate and incomplete information. Logic cannot.

Reason allows for judgment; logic, like mathematics, does not. It's for this reason that the notion of a logic-based ethical system is just silly.

I don't see the difference between logic and reason.

[truthreality]

I don't see the difference between logic and reason.

Reason compared to logic