(LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics

[John V]

Except that I don't. I approach ethics through REASON which, as I admitted in the OP, has failed to produce an unproblematic theory. Through reasoning, one can try to discern what is right and wrong. Hedonism, for example, forbids rape because it causes a great deal of pain and suffering. Through reason, I have come to accept that rape is wrong in much the same way a cosmologist ascertains that the universe is (probably) around 14 billion years old. New evidence or thinking could present itself which causes either the cosmologist or the philosopher to rethink their positions.

Not so with religious thinking. Religion holds fast to its stubborn precepts and so cannot modify its "theory" in order to reassess its ethics.

1. If you don't know that such things are immoral, why do you criticize religion for its positions? You could change to agree with religion at some point, right?

2. Your contention that "Religion holds fast to its stubborn precepts" is demonstrably wrong. Some religions have changed on certain issues. Do you seriously not recognize that?

[Catholic_Lady]

You pay lip service to ethicists being humble enough to not claim true knowledge...then you imply that you know that slavery, rape of slaves, genocide, and a list of other items are indeed immoral.

Except that I don't. I approach ethics through REASON which, as I admitted in the OP, has failed to produce an unproblematic theory. Through reasoning, one can try to discern what is right and wrong. Hedonism, for example, forbids rape because it causes a great deal of pain and suffering. Through reason, I have come to accept that rape is wrong in much the same way a cosmologist ascertains that the universe is (probably) around 14 billion years old. New evidence or thinking could present itself which causes either the cosmologist or the philosopher to rethink their positions.

Not so with religious thinking. Religion holds fast to its stubborn precepts and so cannot modify its "theory" in order to reassess its ethics.

I don't understand this. You're saying you don't know for sure if rape is wrong, then saying you do?

[vulcanlogician]

Hedonism has it's issues, but I don't think that's one of them.  Presumably, a diagnosis is the first step in reducing pain and suffering.  Most of hedonism's issues arise in the conflict between your pleasure and another's suffering (or your own).  The hedonists paradox more adequately describes the trouble with hedonism.  Pleasure seeking may not actually be the best way to achieve pleasure.  Hence the modification of hedonism with stoicism, ethical hedonism.  Whereby one seeks to increase pleasure and reduce suffering..but acknowledges that abstaining from at least some pleasure or pleasure seeking (or even seeking and accepting the reverse..suffering) might more adequately achieve the end goal for one's self and for others around them.  The gaping hole, as it were, in hedonism is incomplete and often counterproductive perceptions of how to best seek or achieve pleasure, and what responsibilities we may have to others in that pursuit.  

Yeah, the doctor example wasn't really the best. I was trying to make the case that no ethical theory is impervious to criticism while not delving too deeply into any particular ethical theory. In order to remain concise, I rounded some corners there. I didn't want to go on and on about the problems with hedonism while trying to make my original point.

But I'm more than happy to do that here. Epicurean hedonism emphasises modest pleasures over indulgence and may represent a sort of "stoic hedonism" (a theory which with I am wholly unfamiliar but it sounds cool). I have serious doubts about hedonism but the whole pleasure=good/pain=bad things seems like a very good place to start with ethical inquiries.

[Catholic_Lady]

.
By the way, you are wrong. We do use reasoning in my religion to figure out morality. Ever heard of Natural Law?

[John V]

I don't understand this. You're saying you don't know for sure if rape is wrong, then saying you do?

Exactly.

[vulcanlogician]

.
By the way, you are wrong. We do use reasoning in my religion to figure out morality. Ever heard of Natural Law?

I don't understand this. You're saying you don't know for sure if rape is wrong, then saying you do?

Exactly.

I see what your concerns are. You are viewing my moral contentions as absolutist when they are not. But perhaps I am guilty of the same thing in regards to my view of religious ethics in the OP. Let me be clear, If you are a religious thinker who uses say, natural law theory to arrive at conclusions, then my post wasn't really aimed at you. Unless you think that unchanging moral absolutes are disclosed in your scriptures, my criticisms aren't aimed at you. The whole point of the post was to say "I don't know" is a better answer than "I absolutely know I have to strangle my daughter to death"

While you two guys may not get moral absolutes from the Bible, you have to admit that MANY theists do. And you have to admit that there is a better way of arriving at ethical conclusions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, the doctor example wasn't really the best. I was trying to make the case that no ethical theory is impervious to criticism while not delving too deeply into any particular ethical theory. In order to remain concise, I rounded some corners there. I didn't want to go on and on about the problems with hedonism while trying to make my original point.

Absolutely.  It's through criticism that we refine our ethical theories in the first place.  Finding some edge case or even addressing the mundanities of the theory on questionable ground.  To some extent this has been done with religious ethics..but the nature of a religious system is such that at some point some fundamental limit of reconceptualization has been reached and proponents of the system are forced to schism.  I suppose that ewach schismatic group thinks they got it "more right" than the last...but from the point of view of a person who doesn't derive ethics from fairies they're just not even wrong.  No amount of work on that turd will ever approach a rational ethical system.

Obviously, they beg to differ, because "natural law"........

But I'm more than happy to do that here. Epicurean hedonism emphasises modest pleasures over indulgence and may represent a sort of "stoic hedonism" (a theory which with I am wholly unfamiliar but it sounds cool). I have serious doubts about hedonism but the whole pleasure=good/pain=bad things seems like a very good place to start with ethical inquiries.

You;re familiar, it's just that in their unmodifed forms the two ethical theories are antithesis.  Having been (and still being) contemporaneous ethical theories the proponents of both have been offering criticism of the other and the end product is that folks in both camps seem to have realized that, unmodifed, neither of their ethical theories adequately expressed the truth they sought to systematically justify, leading to a sort of ethical syncretism by which any modern concept of either is peppered with the borrowed and normalized concepts of the other.  Modesty over indulgence in pleasure seeking is a good example of that.  The reason that epicureanism was such a compelling opposing theory to stoicism is that it incorporated what some might call the better parts of stoicism, but in a way that coherently advocated for the ends of goals of hedonism. In addition, it wasn't hamstrung by irrational ethical concepts like "natural law" or "natures plan"...present in zenos stoicism and in christian mythology. In epicurean hedonism..."natures plan" can be a bad thing, from an ethical point of view.

[John V]

I see what your concerns are. You are viewing my moral contentions as absolutist when they are not. But perhaps I am guilty of the same thing in regards to my view of religious ethics in the OP. Let me be clear, If you are a religious thinker who uses say, natural law theory to arrive at conclusions, then my post wasn't really aimed at you. Unless you think that unchanging moral absolutes are disclosed in your scriptures, my criticisms aren't aimed at you. The whole point of the post was to say "I don't know" is a better answer than "I absolutely know I have to strangle my daughter to death"

OTOH, "I don't know" is a worse answer than "I absolutely know I should never strange my daughter," don'tcha think?

While you two guys may not get moral absolutes from the Bible, you have to admit that MANY theists do.

I do too. Not denying it.

And you have to admit that there is a better way of arriving at ethical conclusions.

No I don't. If God exists, I'd say deferring to him on ethics is the best choice - and I think he exists.

[vulcanlogician]

OTOH, "I don't know" is a worse answer than "I absolutely know I should never strange my daughter," don'tcha think?

Nobody gets strangled when you say "I don't know" so it is equally as good as "I absolutely know I should never strangle my daughter."

[The Grand Nudger]

No I don't. If God exists, I'd say deferring to him on ethics is the best choice - and I think he exists.

Why?  Further..are you attempting to be deferential or ethical, do you think it's possible that the two might not be interchangeable?