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

[John V]

Again, why can't reason result in an absolute.

It is actually Nuran Halitogullari's father who failed to think of things so deeply. My whole point was to endorse "I don't know" as a good position to have (in the same way Dawkins doesn't know how life came from non-life, yet he still has his head on straight concerning biology).

And yet you generally do know, or believe with enough certainty that for all practical purposes it's as good as absolute knowledge.

Since I have introduced myself to you via a scathing indictment of scriptural literalism,

Don't flatter yourself...humility, remember?

Anyway, with those pleasantries out of the way, let me ask you: Do you think it is possible that the bible gets ethics wrong in places?

No. If I did, I wouldn't be Christian. Note though that "gets wrong" is pretty ambiguous. For example, is it getting it wrong to give ethics that are less than ideal due to practical considerations?

[vulcanlogician]

Don't flatter yourself...humility, remember?

...


No. If I did, I wouldn't be Christian. Note though that "gets wrong" is pretty ambiguous. For example, is it getting it wrong to give ethics that are less than ideal due to practical considerations?

I never made a personal claim to humility. This is something I ascribed to philosophy and science.

As to your second point, what about stoning someone to death for blasphemy? How "practical" is that?

Some Christians doubt the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Are they not Christians?

[The Grand Nudger]

You have some interesting thoughts on the matter. I was letting them percolate as I was squabbling with the squirrel. So let me ask, do you see Epicurean hedonism (or hedonism in general) as an appealing theory?

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)

[John V]

I never made a personal claim to humility. This is something I ascribed to philosophy and science.

A methodology as humble...OK, whatever.

As to your second point, what about stoning someone to death for blasphemy?

What about it?

How "practical" is that?

That's not one that I had in mind when discussing practicality.

You don't seem to be aware of this, but the Mosaic law wasn't forced on Israel. It was offered, and they accepted.

Some Christians doubt the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

And that's ultimately indefensible.

Are they not Christians?

Some are. Some aren't. It's not a litmus test issue.

[The Grand Nudger]

-addendum
I think you''ll appreciate some of the more common responses from within hedonism's framework on this one, after you've had time to mull it over and form your own opinion..because they play right into your OP.  For better or for worse.

[Whateverist]

            Lawrence Krauss, when postulating various theories concerning what might have happened before the big bang will readily admit that cosmologists have no certain answer on the matter. Richard Dawkins, though boasting a comprehensive knowledge of evolutionary science, will admit that he doesn’t know how life formed from non-life. It is to its credit that science is so humble concerning what it doesn’t know. If only theists showed a modicum of this true modesty!
 
...           
            But philosophical ethics possesses many virtues that a religion-based ethics lacks: honesty, integrity, reasonableness, and (most importantly) humility. You see, while ethicists from different camps squabble over the importance of happiness or autonomy, religion callously asserts that making graven images is one of the ten most immoral things a person can do—all while neglecting to condemn slavery, or the rape of slaves, or genocide... the list goes on. 

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.

You would feel better if we said we "feel strongly that" or "I am adamant that" or "I hold the position with great conviction that"?  

Whereas you claim to know not just that God exists but everything there is to know about him including the fact that he has a tablet somewhere with all the objectively good and bad actions to do or avoid.  In the end you just feel strongly, adamantly and great conviction that what choose to believe about God is true .. and that adds no weight whatsoever to your claim.

[John V]

You would feel better if we said we "feel strongly that" or "I am adamant that" or "I hold the position with great conviction that"?  

You already do that. I'd feel better if you don't also try to claim false humility.

Whereas you claim to know not just that God exists but everything there is to know about him

Everything...where in the world do you get that?

In the end you just feel strongly, adamantly and great conviction that what choose to believe about God is true .

Yes, but I don't also try to claim humility.

[The Grand Nudger]

You would feel better if we said we "feel strongly that" or "I am adamant that" or "I hold the position with great conviction that"?  

Whereas you claim to know not just that God exists but everything there is to know about him including the fact that he has a tablet somewhere with all the objectively good and bad actions to do or avoid.  In the end you just feel strongly, adamantly and great conviction that what choose to believe about God is true .. and that adds no weight whatsoever to your claim.

Pretty much have to nitpick here.  Command ethicists aren't referring to any objective ethics.  It's ethics by fiat, in the case of tablets.  I like to remind them that when we discuss ethics, we're not even remotely talking about the same thing if they're discussing ghosts and chiseled stones. They're discussing deference to authority and -calling- it ethics, and while deference to authority may have an ethical component, it certainly can't be the entirety of the subject I'm discussing...nor can deference to authority be described as ethical in and of itself.

[brewer]

OP: My view, "I/We don't know, yet" is a viable position.

It seems that theists have a major problem with existence and death. They therefore need to make up/believe in supernatural explanations to fulfill that need and make themselves feel comfortable. If they need it, OK by me. Just don't try to force it on me or get me to think their belief is valid. 

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.

[vulcanlogician]

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?

---

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?