RE: (LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics
November 21, 2017 at 4:59 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2017 at 5:09 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(November 21, 2017 at 2:04 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Not so much, no. I think it has merit, and was a good start...but it's long in the tooth at this point. Beyond the dry paradox of hedonism mentioned earlier, are you familiar with the case of the happy businessman?
He does what he does because it brings him joy. He's happy because he has a successful career, he's respected by his neighbors, and is in a loving marriage. Or, at least he thinks he is. The truth is that he's held in utter contempt by his peers and neighbors..and has been horribly deceived by his adulterous wife...who is taking him to the cleaners on the sly.
Not only is this a subtle variation of the hedonists paradox (should he keep doing what he's doing, since it makes him happy?) it's a criticism of what moral or ethical realists might call mental statism. The notion that virtue or value is determined by something wholly internal and personal. Deeply subjective and commonly in factual error.
The happy businessman's life is a good one, by the metrics of hedonism or any form of mental statism....but would you want it...?
(credit to kagan and nagel for that little gem, lol)
I am familiar with the businessman example. These sorts of problems plague every iteration of ethical monism, and it causes me to consider pluralism. I find myself seeing value in each and every one of the monistic theories, and I can't help thinking that each one says something important about ethics. As far as monistic theories go, I really like utilitarian hedonism and virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is SO compelling, but also problematic. This isn't to say that desire satisfaction and others aren't appealing as well. If I had to pick one at gunpoint, I suppose utilitarianism would be the one. Otherwise, I'd have to put myself in the undecided category.
In meta-ethics, I tend toward moral objectivism but I've yet to hear a satisfying response to error theory, so nihilism haunts me with its nightmares. How about you? What theories do you find most attractive?
(November 21, 2017 at 3:34 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Also my view, the development of ethics may be very simple and rooted in biology. The ethics of survival, of self, then family, then herd, then society.
I agree with you that natural selection is the most likely culprit in the formation of our moral sense.
Assuming that the development of ethics is rooted in biology, I'm interested in your opinion of how we should proceed with developing our ethical thinking. Should we, in the development of our ethics, continue to prioritize survival/self/family/herd/society, or should we (now that we are civilized and rational) proceed with an ethical development based on principles?
