(October 5, 2018 at 7:00 am)DLJ Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 1:03 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Then say so.

I can't attack a position I don't understand. So if there's some sort of fifth kind of moral skepticism, then I'd need exposition there.

Is there a position that claims that the whole subject is so poorly defined that it becomes next to useless?

Error theory. It calls all moral thinking and moral philosophy bullshit.

What exactly in ethics is poorly defined?

(October 5, 2018 at 7:24 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 7:00 am)DLJ Wrote: Is there a position that claims that the whole subject is so poorly defined that it becomes next to useless?

Error theory. It calls all moral thinking and moral philosophy bullshit.

What exactly in ethics is poorly defined?

Well, I'm not calling it BS, merely poorly defined.

For a start, the distinction between 'morality' and 'ethics'. Why have two words when they are used interchangeably?

They're synonyms. You'll have to heap the blame on the english language for that one. It isn't philosophy's fault.

(October 5, 2018 at 7:50 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: They're synonyms. You'll have to heap the blame on the english language for that one. It isn't philosophy's fault.

In my industry they are not synonyms which is why it's easy to see morality as a system of inputs, process, outputs and controls (enablers and constraints) and similarly to see ethics as relating to goals, principles and practices.

Similarly, by specifying (limiting) 'objective' and 'subjective' as metrics-related terms it removes potential for equivocation...

"An object and/or an objective can be objectively measured using objective metrics". Yuck!

Meaning...
A thing and/or a goal can be independently measured using quantitative metrics.

By clarifying the subject using system, service and process terminology with unambiguous definitions it removes all the stuff like...
"Philosophers Bob and Harry consider morals to be xxx but Alice and Steph disagree and consider it to be xxy whereas this has been criticised by Frank and Faizul who argue for yyy-x or yyy-z

(October 5, 2018 at 9:14 am)DLJ Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 7:50 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: They're synonyms. You'll have to heap the blame on the english language for that one. It isn't philosophy's fault.

In my industry they are not synonyms which is why it's easy to see morality as a system of inputs, process, outputs and controls (enablers and constraints) and similarly to see ethics as relating to goals, principles and practices.

-utilitarian consequentialism.

A plain language expression of moral realism would be something like "It is right to do what is good, it is wrong to do what is bad. Things are good or bad due to facts about those things themselves."

(October 5, 2018 at 9:31 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 9:14 am)DLJ Wrote: In my industry they are not synonyms which is why it's easy to see morality as a system of inputs, process, outputs and controls (enablers and constraints) and similarly to see ethics as relating to goals, principles and practices.

-utilitarian consequentialism.
...

That sounds like a fair proportion of it...

wikipedia Wrote:Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence

That does seem to quite cover the decision-making elements of governance i.e. costs, benefits and risks.  But "good" is a value-judgement (with intrinsic, contextual and security components).

On the other hand, the models I teach also include elements of Accountability and Responsibility which swing towards deontology and maybe even virtue.

The short-hand for 'governance' is "doing the right things and doing things right".

The second part is the easy bit as it relates to compliance and following practices and processes using an assortment of quality criteria (measurable using both subjective and objective metrics), but the first part hinges on what is meant by 'right' ... this can be but is not always based on something like a PEST (or PESTEL) analysis.  It could also be interpreted through different lenses (autonomy ethics, community ethics, divinity ethics, ideology (of various types)).  

(October 5, 2018 at 9:31 am)Khemikal Wrote: ...
A plain language expression of moral realism would be something like "It is right to do what is good, it is wrong to do what is bad.  Things are good or bad due to facts about those things themselves."

I'd be grateful of an example.  And a definition of 'facts' in this context.

Cheers.

(October 5, 2018 at 10:05 am)DLJ Wrote: That does seem to quite cover the decision-making elements of governance i.e. costs, benefits and risks.  But "good" is a value-judgement (with intrinsic, contextual and security components).

Sure, but something being a value judgement isn't an obstacle to objectivity; not all value judgement is equal, and not all value judgement is equally accurate.  Factual statements can be made about the value judgement itself.  

Quote:On the other hand, the models I teach also include elements of Accountability and Responsibility which swing towards deontology and maybe even virtue.

The short-hand for 'governance' is "doing the right things and doing things right".

The second part is the easy bit as it relates to compliance and following practices and processes using an assortment of quality criteria (measurable using both subjective and objective metrics), but the first part hinges on what is meant by 'right' ... this can be but is not always based on something like a PEST (or PESTEL) analysis.  It could also be interpreted through different lenses (autonomy ethics, community ethics, divinity ethics, ideology (of various types)).  

The good serves the right, and there is certainly more than just one thing in this world that's right. 

This is trivia but I think it's the basic framework for why pluralism is compelling.  

In any case - we can take any example above and assess what, if anything..in each system is meaningfully objective, and meaningfully subjective.  Community ethics, for example..is necessarily more subjective than autonomy ethics (and this is a good thing).  Divinity ethics have issues of fundamental demonstrability, but they're fantastic vehicles for normative ethics.  Ideological ethics run a strong risk of being true...but only trivially so.  These, ofc, are the easiest to argue for and establish...but the conclusions are often unsatisfying.

Quote:I'd be grateful of an example.  And a definition of 'facts' in this context.

Cheers.

There is no pet or idiosyncratic definition for "facts" in moral realism.  That's the entire position.  That some statements are facts in precisely the same way, to precisely the same extent, with all of the same caveats...as any other fact. 


As for an example, I'll give you a good one.  It is right to pay your bills.  It is wrong to starve your family.

Khemical and I seem to have agreed that I’m a moral realist, even though by all accounts I still call morality subjective. I’m not going to argue about this language further. I feel I’ve made a good effort to describe my position and no more progress is going to be made on this front. Like I’ve always said, there are an infinite number of possible objective moralities to pick from. One can simply check for internal consistency.

I still suspect that realism is meant to be saying more than this, that there are statements about morality itself that can be said to be true or false, not just for any moral system. I’m surprised Vulcan agrees with Khem, since he seemed to be adopting this latter position.

The possible objections to true or false moral statements, even after allowing morality to be defined as you will, seems to be more to do with epistemology or the parsing of logic rather than morality itself. Objections can of course be raised at any stage, and with validity, and I tend to acknowledge these but then apply a "behaves as if..." principle of pragmatism to move on.

I’ll do some more reading on all these subjects to see if I can understand more. Thanks so much to everyone for your input so far!

---

PS: It was my understanding that moral realism supported one, "correct" morality. To me, that is what most people mean by "objective morality", not "morality that becomes objective once you announce what morality means to you".

---

Here we go. Another secular Humeanist!

Rob, I really like your attitude to philosophy. I should be so flexible.

Thank you very much, I appreciate it! I find philosophy fascinating and important. I seem to have a natural drive to explore it.

I have more thoughts to put together about this subject. I’m trying to decide whether to type them all out or do a video.