(September 9, 2025 at 2:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: All of them. Every single ethical system is an idea about how society should be constructed and how one should live one’s life. None of them -require- a metaethical commitment for utilitarian value because in addition to having edge cases they could all be gettier cases. Coincidentally useful, not based on their explicit claims or propositions. For example, authoritarian deontology could be a utilitarian good not because whatever the authority says actually is good (or the authority even exists) or because it actually will lead to the best outcomes…. but because, lacking a singular and “true” authority or the broad agreement of the society in questions members….knocking on heads and sticking to -any- sort of rules whatsoever provides some measure of stability, reliability, and predictability. To use the example of incarceration. Prisoners may be treated poorly and we may be encouraged or conditioned to accept this not for anything that’s true anbout a given prisoner or prisoners ans a whole…- but because it makes running prisons easier. That’s more or less compelling depending on how many people you plan to capture or incarcerate, obvs. Here in the us the answer is “a lot”.
Yeah, fair! Stupidly phrased of me re wanting to work out what ethical systems deal with how to live / structure society. I meant it specifically in the light of anti-realist commitments. If any are structured around a view that there is an objective type of right or wrong, virtue / vice and that is the underpinning of all else that follows, then it isn’t really one I am as interested in. If I can jettison those underpinnings without damaging the practical part of the system, or the basis for which I should consider the system worth following then I would love to read up on them.
I guess utilitarian views might be worth me looking at.
I am working through Morris’ less recent book “Science and the end of ethics” and he answers my questions in part there. He looks at desire dependent and desire independent enlightened self-interest views. Not enough there for me to really get my teeth into, but it gives at least a view of “here is a good way to approach life and culture that is grounded on non-realist commitments.” Basically being the view that acting in prosocial ways can benefit oneself and that this is worth striving for as a society as it would make people happier in themselves, but also others as well.
I don’t feel comfortable with the view that we ought to normalise bad treatment of prisoners for the purpose of making prisons easier to run. The studies that Morris and others cite point out that prison systems where this is the case tend to lead to more recidivism and therefore cost society more overall. It might be better for the person running the prison, on the budget they have, but to my mind that is an issue of needing to invest more into the system and not treat prisoners as if they are somehow deserving of such treatment.
That isn’t just something I am saying about the US system, but the studies I see cited in what I have read focus on that system in comparison to those in some of the Scandinavian countries. Heck, Britain isn’t great in this respect either with chronic understaffing, poor living conditions, lack of focus on reintegrating people successfully back into society.
Of course, my desire for the things above to change isn’t grounded in some metaethical truth claims about what should be. But it is nonetheless something I would like to see changed (and too lazy to do anything about it myself).
