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]

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?

[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]

Quote by: Morality Games 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]

Quote by: Merge 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]

Quote by: 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?

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.

[Morality Games]

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.

[Merge]

Quote by: loser 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?

You mean the post I didn’t respond to? Not sure why I would do an “exhaustive examination” of that post…

Quote by: loser 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.

That is your meta-ethical position on the matter. It is a view of what ethics is, but it is not necessarily an ethical position (you are making statements about ethics, not what we should or should not do).

Ethics is a study of what one should or should not do. Psychology is a study of the human mind and human behavior. While they may be related in many ways and may overlap quite a bit, the basic study and goals of the two are different. Psychology might study why people come up with specific ethical theories, but this only makes ethics a study of psychology, not its equivalent.

Quote by: loser 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.

Yeah, calling our posts “disjointed and incoherent babble” was pretty uncalled for.

Quote by: loser Thanks for saying something that I could understand...mindless, I know.

Well you didn't expect me to respond without my own jabs, did you?

You are more than welcome to join the discussion and ask for any clarifications of our posts. I don’t doubt that my posts are far from clear, but I’d rather answer a bunch of questions than post responses to insults

[Merge]

Quote by: Morality Games 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.

Ah, sorry. I didn’t realize you were using them to refer to groups of ethics in practice. Thanks for clearing that up. I’m going to go back and read your first post and see if there is anything else I wanted to talk about.


Also, sorry I took so long to respond. When I signed in I had only planned to read what you had written, but then I saw the post by “loser” and figured I had time for a quickie post (and didn’t realize this post would be so shorter, haha).

[Merge]

Alright, I have a (possibly) quick question. What meta-ethical category would you put your "ethic" under?

This is a tough question because the way you phrased your position doesn't necessarily provide an ethic (you don't talk about what should be done, only what you do). If you meant to provide an ethical position, could you rephrase it? If you weren't giving an ethical position then I guess my question is answered.

Edit: By the way, thanks for the definition post. It will make an easy reference.

[Morality Games]

My overall attitude toward ethics is a blend of several different philosophies. However, put simply (like, in a political sense), it would be the good reasons approach, but what constitutes a good reason depends on accurate interpretations of objective features of reality, not on flighty opinion on basis of poorly considered delusions. An activity deserves to be called 'moral' if it is consistant with reasoning which derives from an outlook aiming to produce positive feeling in general.

[Objectivist]

In your opinion Morality Games, why does man need ethics in the first place?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Objectivist In your opinion Morality Games, why does man need ethics in the first place?

In my opinion (which I am sure is vastly different from his) man needs ethics so that Objectivists can be shown the error of their ways. Ethics is about how humans, social creatures that they are, can manage conflict and live at peace with each other and not waste valuable time and energy pursuring destructively selfish goals. But, that would be my overly simplistic rendition of something terribly complicated.

[Maximumbeing]

An activity deserves to be called 'moral' if it is consistant with reasoning which derives from an outlook aiming to produce positive feeling in general.

The problem I've always had with the topic of ethics is that there is so much subjectivity and relativism. It seems almost impossible to avoid using words that are defined in the mind of the beholder. You mentioned this "Moral Vocabulary" earlier. I'm currently a philosophy major and I'm seriously considering going down a new path because the semantics that underly all philosophical discussions are so frustrating.

I mention that vocab again because I am left with questions after reading your justification for a moral action. What I take your justification to state is that as long as a person has intentions of promoting positive feelings in general (I assume that to mean for the majority) and he has reason to believe a certain action will promote those feelings, then both the person and the action are moral.

Your justification doesn't mention an actor, however, just an action, so I'll focus on that. Whose reasoning supports this action in being consistent with promoting a positive feeling in general?

Positive is, of course, the "moral vocab" that muddles the discussion. But let's presuppose that we all have agreed upon a definition for positive. I would suggest to you that quite a few atrocities in history could still be justified using your morality.

Of course, who am I to say those atrocities are atrocities?

It must really sound like I hate philosophy, haha.

As an added note, your justification sounds Utilitarian to me. There is no problem with that, Utilitarianism is pretty solid as far as I am concerned.