What is the Point of Ethics?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Dubious »

To create a collective arrangement of behaviour by whose accepted protocols one is judged. It was meant to transform the speculative into the practical.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:13 pm To create a collective arrangement of behaviour by whose accepted protocols one is judged. It was meant to transform the speculative into the practical.
Sounds like Fascism: the "collective" gets to judge "one" by nothing more than its chosen "protocols." And they certainly did "transform" their "speculations" into "practical" measures, I'll give you that.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:28 pm
Dubious wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:13 pm To create a collective arrangement of behaviour by whose accepted protocols one is judged. It was meant to transform the speculative into the practical.
Sounds like Fascism: the "collective" gets to judge "one" by nothing more than its chosen "protocols." And they certainly did "transform" their "speculations" into "practical" measures, I'll give you that.
Of course, to those like you, it would. But the history of Christianity and Islam have proven as much. You like two or three other trogs on the site will reply with either Auschwitz or fascism every time. How bloody common! I read history; you only read the Bible. If you did read history, you would know exactly what I'm saying. Now screw-off, you're not worth having any conversations with.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:35 am Of course, to those like you,...
Ah, we hit a nerve.

Well, I'll let you go, then. No hard feelings.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:10 am
Dubious wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:35 am Of course, to those like you,...
Ah, we hit a nerve.

Well, I'll let you go, then. No hard feelings.
You've mastered that talent with nearly everybody; there aren't many, I imagine, who on this site would in the least object in letting you go. I'd call that a major upgrade.
stevie
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:43 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by stevie »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:26 pm ...
So again, I think the answer to the OP, for an amoralist, has to be "There is no point in ethics."
Well, the answer for me as a conventional amoralist has been:
stevie wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:22 am Referring to the definitions provided here I'd opt for 2 c "a guiding philosophy". Thus the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.
But maybe an amoralist who considers himself to be an ultimately/absolutely true amoralist and/or holds his views to be ultimately/absolutely true might answer differently or the way you suggest ... ? Who knows?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Belinda »

The question of which cultures of belief and practise are good and which bad can be settled by the following pragmatic stance.

Each religious moral code is embedded in a culture. There is no known culture that lacks a moral code, a myth, and rituals.

Pragmatically it's dangerous for any culture to include that it's God-given. If it does so the people will trust Providence (or Fate) to keep it safe from evil. The fact is, every nation can become a totalitarian dictatorship; there is nothing in the British common psyche that could stop Britain being as horrible as Hitler's Nazis or Stalin's supporters. Or further back in history, there was nothing in the British common psyche that stopped England having a revolution like that of France or America.

So any society that wants preserve itself and its culture must not trust in Almighty Providence but in its own resources.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Immanuel Can »

stevie wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:53 am But maybe an amoralist who considers himself to be an ultimately/absolutely true amoralist and/or holds his views to be ultimately/absolutely true might answer differently or the way you suggest ... ? Who knows?
Well, the question really isn't "how would a person answer," because "people" often have very inconsistent and even contradictory beliefs that they hold quite passionately. What philosophers want to know instead is: how does this belief make sense?
  • If a person says he is "strictly scientific," but then also claims "astrology really works," then philosophers want to understand why.
  • If somebody says she believes in "women's rights," but then also claims "men can be women too," then a philosopher wants to know what mental gymnastics make sense of both being in that person's realm of belief.
You get the idea. It's all about consistency: if a person believes "X", why does he not also believe "1X," and why doesn't he doubt "-X"?

If a person believes that ethics are nothing more than the conventional imaginings of a particular group of people for a temporary period, then why doesn't he also see that that makes ethics into essentially nothing?

He should, logically speaking, a philosopher would note: what line of thinking gives him any confidence it can be otherwise?

That's what a philospher in this situation would want to know. And so, that's what I'm asking.
stevie
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:43 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by stevie »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:32 pm
stevie wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:53 am But maybe an amoralist who considers himself to be an ultimately/absolutely true amoralist and/or holds his views to be ultimately/absolutely true might answer differently or the way you suggest ... ? Who knows?
Well, the question really isn't "how would a person answer," because "people" often have very inconsistent and even contradictory beliefs that they hold quite passionately. What philosophers want to know instead is: how does this belief make sense?
  • If a person says he is "strictly scientific," but then also claims "astrology really works," then philosophers want to understand why.
  • If somebody says she believes in "women's rights," but then also claims "men can be women too," then a philosopher wants to know what mental gymnastics make sense of both being in that person's realm of belief.
You get the idea. It's all about consistency: if a person believes "X", why does he not also believe "1X," and why doesn't he doubt "-X"?

If a person believes that ethics are nothing more than the conventional imaginings of a particular group of people for a temporary period, then why doesn't he also see that that makes ethics into essentially nothing?
I don't know. All I can say is that I don't believe anything which does not deter me from following particular conventions depending on particular contexts.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:32 pm He should, logically speaking, a philosopher would note: what line of thinking gives him any confidence it can be otherwise?
That's what a philospher in this situation would want to know. And so, that's what I'm asking.
Maybe we do not share this "wanting to know" and I am not a philosopher corresponding with your kind of understanding "philosopher".
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Immanuel Can »

stevie wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:09 pm I don't believe anything which does not deter me from following particular conventions depending on particular contexts.
Well, nothing prevents anyone from so doing.

But the point is that when they do so, they are not being rationally consistent. There's no physical law against a person being inconsistent, of course. But philosophers always want to know if the inconsistent can, by any means, be rendered consistent.

So they ask.
Maybe we do not share this "wanting to know" and I am not a philosopher corresponding with your kind of understanding "philosopher".
Maybe.
stevie
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:43 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by stevie »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:10 pm
stevie wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:09 pm I don't believe anything which does not deter me from following particular conventions depending on particular contexts.
Well, nothing prevents anyone from so doing.

But the point is that when they do so, they are not being rationally consistent.
But there is no rational consistency at all. Trying to implement one you'll end up in infnite regress, reciprocal reasoning or ungrounded hypothesis.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:10 pm There's no physical law against a person being inconsistent, of course. But philosophers always want to know if the inconsistent can, by any means, be rendered consistent.

So they ask.
They are free to ask like anyone is free to seek happiness.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Immanuel Can »

stevie wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:10 pm
stevie wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:09 pm I don't believe anything which does not deter me from following particular conventions depending on particular contexts.
Well, nothing prevents anyone from so doing.

But the point is that when they do so, they are not being rationally consistent.
But there is no rational consistency at all.
There should be.

Nobody should "live with an ungrounded hypothesis," because that means "living with something you don't think is true." In other words, it means being irrational and inauthentic -- not good qualities. So philosophers want everybody to "ground" their beliefs rationally, so we can be authentic and at least plausibly right, as well.
stevie
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:43 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by stevie »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:56 pm
stevie wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:10 pm
Well, nothing prevents anyone from so doing.

But the point is that when they do so, they are not being rationally consistent.
But there is no rational consistency at all.
There should be.

Nobody should "live with an ungrounded hypothesis," because that means "living with something you don't think is true." In other words, it means being irrational and inauthentic -- not good qualities. So philosophers want everybody to "ground" their beliefs rationally, so we can be authentic and at least plausibly right, as well.
Let's stick to the topic of this thead:
stevie wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:22 am Referring to the definitions provided here I'd opt for 2 c "a guiding philosophy". Thus the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:56 pm In other words, it means being irrational and inauthentic -- not good qualities. So philosophers want everybody to "ground" their beliefs rationally, so we can be authentic and at least plausibly right, as well.
The irrationalists disagree with you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Post by Immanuel Can »

stevie wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:04 pm Let's stick to the topic of this thead:
stevie wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:22 am Referring to the definitions provided here I'd opt for 2 c "a guiding philosophy". Thus the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.
I wasn't getting away from it. But okay, let's pick it up where you suggest.

Then the first question might be, "How should we judge what should/should not be 'desired'?"

For, as I'm sure you know, people can "desire" many things, both good and bad.
Post Reply