[Serious] Ethics

[polymath257]

In math, if two people disagree, they try to find a proof one way or the other. There are established axioms and rules of deduction and those determine the correctness of any proposed proof. if the two people do not share an axiom system, the question is considered to be meaningless. if there is a proof of two contradictory statements, then the axiom system is declared to be deficient.

I think I understand where you coming from with this. It's true that there tends to be a widespread agreement on the axioms that have been established in mathematics whereas it's hard to find something equivalent to this in ethics.

Nevertheless there is something intuitive about the statement that chopping off anyone's arms for fun is wrong, even in the absence of knowing what exactly makes it wrong. It doesn't seem to be just an opinion.

And that is where I disagree. It *is* an opinion. it is an opinion that is common among intelligent great apes. But would it be so for a species where arms grow back and the chopping is fun for all concerned? or a species where such arm chopping is a common sort of social interaction that is considered to be harmless?

It is wrong (for great apes) partly because we don't regenerate and losing an arm is considered to be a real harm (which it is if the goal is to be able bodied, etc). But what about a society where cutting hair is considered to be a real harm? Would cutting hair be as immoral for that society as cutting arms is to ours? Possibly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, observationally equivalent theories are considered to be equivalent in science.

The basis is observation for *all* questions in science. if there is no difference in observations between two theories, they *are the same theory*.

This isn't a matter of 'not resolving' a dispute. it is a matter of saying the dispute is nonsense. Where in ethics does that happen?

I'd call discovering that any two seemingly disparate theories were observationally equivalent a resolution to the dispute as to which between them is accurate.  Pluralism is an entire set based around this observed phenomena in normative statements.  

OK, how does one find sound premises in ethics? On what basis are they declared to be sound?

No reason they can't use the same basis as science.  Empirical inquiry - so they do.  You can see this even when They Get It Wrong. That our common objections to normative statements take the form of offering, and then rejecting, an assertion to fact available to any rational observer. So, for example, when we say some horrible violent crime is bad and you shouldn't do it - we're not saying we have an opinion about it - but that there are things about it, in fact, that are badmaking. Or, conversely, in rejecting the thing as bad because it doesn't have those bad making properties.

[vulcanlogician]

But isn't that what all the theories do? Solve dilemmas?

Hmm I'm not sure. In my observation dilemmas only emerge from within rather than without. For example, when two deontological rules are clashing. I would resolve the clash with utilitarianism.

Can you give an example of a dilemma that isn't self-produced by an ethical system?

I think you can have ethical dilemmas without theories. Any time it's not clear what the right thing to do is. Two options compete over "which is the best for me to do?" Boom. Ethical dilemma. Then, as I see it, the theories come along and try to resolve and clarify the issue. Each theory suggests different actions for what the best action might be. In a perfect world, the best theory recommends the best actions.

Where you find dilemmas within an ethical theory is when you test the theory against our intuitions.

For instance, in hedonistic utilitarianism there is a thought experiment whereby a person has the choice of living her life normally, with all its suffering, or (alternatively) hooking herself up to a machine that blinds her to the outside world but causes her to constantly experience extreme pleasure. The machine also keeps her biology going and ensures that she lives a long and healthy life.

According to hedonism, the best "life decision" she could make is to choose the machine. Why? Because to the hedonist, pleasure and happiness are the only intrinic goods. It's a no-brainer to go into the machine. But our intuitions tell us that the machine isn't the best option. If that's correct, well then. Hedonism must be false.

[Disagreeable]

Is there some reason why you have to choose one system, sign up for the team, and wear the team colors?

No.

Surely they're all useful tools to think about ethical issues. 

Yes.

It has been widely believed that there are such deep disagreements between
Kantians, Contractualists, and Consequentialists. That, I have argued, is not true.
These people are climbing the same mountain on different sides.

Would you throw yourself on the tracks to save 5?

Would I? No. Should I? Maybe.

[deepend]

Do you have an ethical system? And, if so, what is it?

I'm a Rule Consequentialist in principle but a virtue ethicist in practice.

for those who are unaware, there are three main branches of normative ethics.

(1) Consquentailism

(2) Deontology

(3) Virtue ethics.

Also, an answer to the trolley problem would be cool. I should kill the 1 to save the 5.

  I have doubts that humans are even capable of ethics.  Not in a consistent manner that is.  And where making money is involved, any real ethics tend to fall by the wayside.  As for your last question, I have a better one.  Would you exterminate 6 billion to save one billion people?  The alternative of course being that everybody dies otherwise.