“Normative” ethical theories

[LoneWolf]

He doesn’t believe that that end in itself is a “morally good” one

I look at moral statements more as a shorthand for a conviction about a real world action response relationship. It may still serve its purpose as a practical soundbite if the action response relationship is indeed manifest in the real world. But of course a lot of the current soundbites are hardly traceable to such things.

[Lucian]

Imo, if we want to address the practical question the following observations seem relevant:

Great points, I will try to give a my thoughts in brief below

• “There are multiple moral frameworks we have to deal with (e.g. the religious moral framework (in plenty of varieties), the secular moral framework (also in plenty of varieties).”
  Absolutely, and we need to deal with some of the commonalities between the frameworks. Do they believe that there is a real thing external to us in some way that makes a given act moral or not. Some do, some don’t. The ones that do can be harmful because of the argument stopping nature of such beliefs.  The ones that don’t (at least some of them) may be more pliable
  

.

• “In a given society we probably want to compare different moral frameworks with each other. So there is not only a question about the inner coherence of a moral framework but also a question across such frameworks.”
  Again, I completely agree with you here. If we are to live with each other we need to understand each other, and in some instances push back hard at each other or prepare to if we see what is likely to come from that system as something we feel strongly against. 
  

• “Moral frameworks are ever evolving entities with time as culture shifts, new insights are gained and circumstances of the real world change”
  another hearty Amen brother from me on this one 
  

• “Also for my personal choices I would like to be able to compare different moral frameworks in order to make my own moral choices in the best possible way”
  This is actually what I wanted to get some views on from this thread but found my initial interest falling on the rocky ground of Metaethics. Initially I was interested in seeing ones that are at base compatible with my error theory commitments, and then to think through others that are not and will need elements jettisoning if they are to be internally consistent with my views 
  

• “A moral framework can be very limited and personal (e.g. the moral framework of a particular serial killer might not be that all encompassing and nuanced as the moral framework of say the physicians in a hospital) or very broad in application (e.g. the laws of a complete nation)”
  I also agree with this. Viewing different frameworks thought out by people more clever than me seemed a good place to start thinking through this area of life. I can at least then work out what seems sensible to me, what doesn’t, and whether my views are internally consistent as I develop them. 
  

• “The abundance of moral frameworks from the examples above already show that it won't be an easy job”
  Kinda one of the reasons I want to start getting into it. I find myself with an awful lot of time on my hands and a need to satisfy various intellectual itches
  

“So it seems to me that at minimum 3 main ingredients (maybe more) are needed for a rigorous method of comparison and selection:

• Transparent statement of the principles underlying the moral framework
  
• Logical consistency of statements within the same moral framework
  
• Evidence-based verification of action response relations in the real world”
  

How would you go about this? Recognising that we will never do it well enough even if we devote 100% of our spare time to it, and especially for someone like me who is just interested in it and not even educated in the relevant areas

[Lucian]

He doesn’t believe that that end in itself is a “morally good” one

I look at moral statements more as a shorthand for a conviction about a real world action response relationship. It may still serve its purpose as a practical soundbite if the action response relationship is indeed manifest in the real world. But of course a lot of the current soundbites are hardly traceable to such things.

Probably a dumb question, but are you using action response relationship as a technical phrase?

[LoneWolf]

Probably a dumb question, but are you using action response relationship as a technical phrase?

I certainly hope not. I am not referring (as far as I know) to any technical jargon of moral philosophy, if that's what you ask. I think of moral statements as statements about human actions, leading to certain outcomes. The things we make laws for.

[LoneWolf]

“So it seems to me that at minimum 3 main ingredients (maybe more) are needed for a rigorous method of comparison and selection:

• Transparent statement of the principles underlying the moral framework
  
• Logical consistency of statements within the same moral framework
  
• Evidence-based verification of action response relations in the real world”
  

How would you go about this? Recognising that we will never do it well enough even if we devote 100% of our spare time to it, and especially for someone like me who is just interested in it and not even educated in the relevant areas

As I see it, we should be busy comparing for quite some centuries. The starting condition for that is that moral frameworks are transparent and explicitly formulated. A lot of the available frameworks (especially but not exclusively religious ones) tend to immunize themselves against any scrutiny from the outside. But we should turn that around: any moral framework that lacks transparency can be ignored to hold any power in public moral discussion (just as "the bible says so" isn't good enough in court).

But it isn't an easy task at all. It may take humanity a while and nowadays a red button is easily pressed, so maybe time is running out.

But we should start with looking at the starting assumptions of moral frameworks and getting them clear.

First shallow attempt (as an example and for a good laugh):

Examples of principles underlying a moral framework:
    - Sam Harris' framework : well-being of conscious creatures
    - Christian framework: divine command
    - French framework: egalité, fraternité, liberté
    - Stoic framework: wisdom, courage, temperance, justice
    - Marxist framework: power to the people
- Postmodern framework: power corrupts
    - Neoliberal framework: grab what you can and the world will be a better place

Let the discussion between these frameworks start now! 

My own preference is with the stoic framework (in a modern context), although I think the 4 virtues have rather fuzzy definition.

[The Grand Nudger]

@LoneWolf
No offense here. I do tend to get dragged off onto the Metaethics side of life and language is a big part of it. That said, I definitely agree that the question of what ethical system to adopt when you don’t believe in objective moral values isn’t one I felt got resolved and perhaps might not be resolvable in the sense that I could possibly adopt any and just drop the metaethical commitments. That would have to be treating them as a guide to life with a view to what I prefer as outcomes that those systems give

The book I was reading on the abolition of morality suggests adopting a view of promoting prosocial values as those tend to provide outcomes that reduce harm and can even be in the interest of the strict egoist if they understand it properly. That doesn’t give a system per-se, but it does give a foundation for considering which system might best use that principle and assess the outcomes likely from there

b-mine

...that's pretty standard for moral realism, actually.

[Lucian]

@LoneWolf
No offense here. I do tend to get dragged off onto the Metaethics side of life and language is a big part of it. That said, I definitely agree that the question of what ethical system to adopt when you don’t believe in objective moral values isn’t one I felt got resolved and perhaps might not be resolvable in the sense that I could possibly adopt any and just drop the metaethical commitments. That would have to be treating them as a guide to life with a view to what I prefer as outcomes that those systems give

The book I was reading on the abolition of morality suggests adopting a view of promoting prosocial values as those tend to provide outcomes that reduce harm and can even be in the interest of the strict egoist if they understand it properly. That doesn’t give a system per-se, but it does give a foundation for considering which system might best use that principle and assess the outcomes likely from there

b-mine

...that's pretty standard for moral realism, actually.

Yep, I don’t doubt that. I am just saying that is what he feels is a reasonable way for even those who hold his views as well

[Lucian]

As I see it, we should be busy comparing for quite some centuries. The starting condition for that is that moral frameworks are transparent and explicitly formulated. A lot of the available frameworks (especially but not exclusively religious ones) tend to immunize themselves against any scrutiny from the outside. But we should turn that around: any moral framework that lacks transparency can be ignored to hold any power in public moral discussion (just as "the bible says so" isn't good enough in court).

But it isn't an easy task at all. It may take humanity a while and nowadays a red button is easily pressed, so maybe time is running out.

But we should start with looking at the starting assumptions of moral frameworks and getting them clear.

First shallow attempt (as an example and for a good laugh):

Examples of principles underlying a moral framework:
    - Sam Harris' framework : well-being of conscious creatures
    - Christian framework: divine command
    - French framework: egalité, fraternité, liberté
    - Stoic framework: wisdom, courage, temperance, justice
    - Marxist framework: power to the people
- Postmodern framework: power corrupts
    - Neoliberal framework: grab what you can and the world will be a better place

Let the discussion between these frameworks start now! 

My own preference is with the stoic framework (in a modern context), although I think the 4 virtues have rather fuzzy definition.

Interesting. So I think a key thing would be to start with some basic texts / links that would support those to ensure we aren't working from mischaracterisations; especially given that I am ignorant of the details of all of these, bar the Christian framework (of which I think it would be fair to say there are many)

[LoneWolf]

@Lucian

Since you seem to be looking for practical moral guidance in life, how about investigating modern stoicism?
Maybe you have delved into it already and were not impressed. If so, please tell me why it does not match with what you're looking for.

Some things I like about modern stoicism:
- it clearly is targeting individual moral questions
- there is no ultimate authority to judge you
- It is about getting to deal with your imperfect self in an imperfect world
- It challenges you to become a better person according to your own definition
- It doesn't bother with linguistic altercations

But there are also things I don't like about it.

Mind you, I am not in the trade of selling stoicism or whatever moral framework to anybody here. Just curious what you are looking for.

[Lucian]

@Lucian

Since you seem to be looking for practical moral guidance in life, how about investigating modern stoicism?
Maybe you have delved into it already and were not impressed. If so, please tell me why it does not match with what you're looking for.

Some things I like about modern stoicism:
- it clearly is targeting individual moral questions
- there is no ultimate authority to judge you
- It is about getting to deal with your imperfect self in an imperfect world
- It challenges you to become a better person according to your own definition
- It doesn't bother with linguistic altercations

But there are also things I don't like about it.

Mind you, I am not in the trade of selling stoicism or whatever moral framework to anybody here. Just curious what you are looking for.

Thanks. I actually haven't delved into it, I keep getting dragged back into the more abstract stuff. Any suggestions on good books for the modern stuff on this?