The Nature of Ethics

DiscussiePhilosophy and Theory

Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.

The Nature of Ethics

Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.

1AtticWindow
dec 26, 2010, 4:51 pm

I think it's become fairly typical to treat ethics as something that isn't 'out there in the world', but rather a human invention or convention of some kind. With this attitude, I've found some people saying things like 'morality doesn't exist' or 'all morality is relative'. When this happens I often find myself feeling like we're discussing different things under the same name, so I'm wondering how others here would answer the question "What is morality?" or, if you like, "What are ethics?". My first instinct is to say that ethics simply consist of 'what one ought to do', but this definition may be too broad for some. Anyway, I'd be interested to read anyone's thoughts on this.

2Phocion
dec 26, 2010, 6:05 pm

Morality seemed to stem from our being social animals (though I would argue against the idea that morality is ingrained into our genes); all social animals seem to have a set of "rules" that helps to enforce a safe environment for procreation and stagnation.

We're much more complex, though, than our other ape cousins. We went from, "this behavior allowed us to survive," and molded it into, "this is good, and this is bad," distinctions that often have little to do with survival.

There is no universal "what one ought to do." There only seems to be "what should I do given these relative circumstances"?

3AtticWindow
dec 27, 2010, 2:12 pm

But mustn't there be some absolute standard by which to judge what to do in specific circumstances? If there isn't, then how can one ever decide what one should do? When in these "relative circumstances", surely the justification for one's behavior doesn't terminate with "this is the right thing to do in this situation". Rather, one has reasons why it is the right thing to do in this situation, and those reasons refer to something outside of the immediate circumstances. For instance, if I decide to lie to a friend I might justify the decision by saying something like "he's better off not knowing", but I certainly wouldn't justify it by simply saying "it was the right thing to do in those circumstances"; justifying it merely by circumstance would be circular, since, in effect, I would be saying "it is the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do". As soon as I give a reason for my action outside of the immediate circumstances (which is in fact what I must do in order to avoid circularity), I am summoning up some principle or standard that transcends relativity (if only in a very limited capacity).

4Phocion
dec 27, 2010, 4:25 pm

Your mistake is trying to justify your actions. There is no absolute standard by which to judge any of our actions.

5AtticWindow
dec 27, 2010, 6:56 pm

"Your mistake is trying to justify your actions." - If no actions can be morally justified then, in effect, moral justification does not exist. If moral justification does not exist, then morality does not exist. For, what could morality consist of if stripped of its justificatory power? In order to be able to condemn, the moral rules must also be able to justify and vice versa. Yet, without either of these features, morality looks empty and functionless. Are you arguing that morality is an illusion? That it can be reduced to social customs? In this case, what would separate morality from popular belief about proper behavior? Are you content to consider the two identical? If so, within what context must a belief be popular in order to constitute a moral rule? A family, a city, a state, a country, a planet? It seems to me that popular beliefs about proper behavior often dramatically differ between each of those categories, so how would you resolve this? Perhaps I've completely mistaken the direction of your theory, but this is what it looks like you're driving at to me.

6AtticWindow
dec 27, 2010, 7:32 pm

Your second point, namely "There is no absolute standard by which to judge any of our actions", is a mere assumption of the very conclusion that my argument is meant to undermine. Perhaps you're ignoring this argument because of the force you attribute to your first point.

7Phocion
Bewerkt: dec 28, 2010, 12:32 pm

If moral justification does not exist, then morality does not exist.

Morality exists; it's just relative and subjective. Ergo, no morality is superior to another, and all depends on the circumstances surrounding them. For example, when a Muslim or a Jew refuses to eat pig because it's immoral, others can point and laugh; when a Westerner repulses at the thought of eating a dog, because how dare we eat something with a soul, others can point and laugh. Objectively, we know there is no morality involved with eating either pig or dog, and it's entirely subjective to the culture the morality applies to.

Are you arguing that morality is an illusion?

As much an illusion as a personal God.

Your second point, namely "There is no absolute standard by which to judge any of our actions", is a mere assumption of the very conclusion that my argument is meant to undermine. Perhaps you're ignoring this argument because of the force you attribute to your first point.

I'm not the one arguing there is such a thing as non-subjective morality. The burden of proof is on you to prove there is.

8AtticWindow
dec 28, 2010, 2:02 pm

"'Are you arguing that morality is an illusion?' - As much an illusion as a personal God." - The import of this reply is lost to me without knowing your religious views; perhaps you can elaborate a bit.

"I'm not the one arguing there is such a thing as non-subjective morality. The burden of proof is on you to prove there is." - Right, but I already provided what I took to be a proof that there is via my earlier argument, so the burden is then laid upon you to refute my argument. When someone argues for something the interlocutor needs to invalidate the argument in order to refute the conclusion. Simply assuming the negation of the conclusion is pure dogmatism. Further, you did in fact contend that morality is subjective and I don't see why you shouldn't be required to prove that it is.

9Phocion
dec 28, 2010, 2:04 pm

I'm sorry, but would you highlight where you offered proof of objective morality?

10AtticWindow
dec 28, 2010, 2:12 pm

You appear to be making a similar error in your reply to "If moral justification does not exist, then morality does not exist.". This sentence is a conditional argument deriving the conclusion that "morality does not exist" from the premise that "moral justification does not exist". In order to refute that conclusion you need to either deny the premise or reject its connection to the conclusion. Rather than doing either of these, you've simply assumed the negation of the conclusion "morality exists" and started from there.

11AtticWindow
dec 28, 2010, 2:15 pm

Sure, though I only used the term "proof" to conform with your own terminology, I'd prefer the humbler label of "argument". Here it is -

But mustn't there be some absolute standard by which to judge what to do in specific circumstances? If there isn't, then how can one ever decide what one should do? When in these "relative circumstances", surely the justification for one's behavior doesn't terminate with "this is the right thing to do in this situation". Rather, one has reasons why it is the right thing to do in this situation, and those reasons refer to something outside of the immediate circumstances. For instance, if I decide to lie to a friend I might justify the decision by saying something like "he's better off not knowing", but I certainly wouldn't justify it by simply saying "it was the right thing to do in those circumstances"; justifying it merely by circumstance would be circular, since, in effect, I would be saying "it is the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do". As soon as I give a reason for my action outside of the immediate circumstances (which is in fact what I must do in order to avoid circularity), I am summoning up some principle or standard that transcends relativity (if only in a very limited capacity).

12Phocion
dec 28, 2010, 2:16 pm

I assumed the negation of the conclusion "morality exists" because I have no reason to think otherwise; and if absolute morality does not exist, one need not have to justify their subjective morality to anyone, as any two conflicting moralities is the result of the subjectivity, and one is not superior or inferior to the other.

13Phocion
dec 28, 2010, 2:21 pm

But mustn't there be some absolute standard by which to judge what to do in specific circumstances?

I used to think so. But since I reject the possibility of a God that could possibly care about humans, where would such authority reside?

If there isn't, then how can one ever decide what one should do?

I'm trying to figure the answer of that question.

Rather, one has reasons why it is the right thing to do in this situation, and those reasons refer to something outside of the immediate circumstances.

Your reasoning typically comes from how you were raised. If a person was raised to believe eating pig is immoral, then when they are handed ham and refuse it, they are reinforcing the morals given to them from their environment; but eating pig is neither moral nor immoral outside of that individual.

14AtticWindow
dec 28, 2010, 2:32 pm

Because you had "no reason to think otherwise"? Then what would you call my argument? Surely in order to remove my argument from the category of 'reasons to think otherwise' you need to refute that argument.

As for your other point, I'm not talking about anyone justifying her morality, as you put it. I'm talking about someone justifying her actions. If there is a subjective morality, then presumably one's actions within that subjective sphere can be justified by reference to the subjective moral code. If there is no code or standard here, then why even call it morality? I see nothing that can't more accurately be called something else.

15Phocion
dec 28, 2010, 2:40 pm

If there is a subjective morality, then presumably one's actions within that subjective sphere can be justified by reference to the subjective moral code.

I just said that actions are neither moral nor immoral outside of the individual. The Muslim or Jew does not have to justify why they choose not to eat pig unless they want to, but in the end the morality/immorality of eating pig is still relative to them as individuals -- not some higher code.

If there is no code or standard here, then why even call it morality? I see nothing that can't more accurately be called something else.

Call it what you want.

16AtticWindow
dec 28, 2010, 3:04 pm

"But mustn't there be some absolute standard by which to judge what to do in specific circumstances?

I used to think so. But since I reject the possibility of a God that could possibly care about humans, where would such authority reside?" - It resides in human biology; at least that's how I see it. We share common traits, dispositions, desires, etc. as members of the same species and these commonalities can be translated into a universal moral code. Excluding other animals doesn't weaken the universality because, after all, other animals can't "be moral".

17Phocion
dec 28, 2010, 3:11 pm

It resides in human biology; at least that's how I see it. We share common traits, dispositions, desires, etc. as members of the same species and these commonalities can be translated into a universal moral code. Excluding other animals doesn't weaken the universality because, after all, other animals can't "be moral".

I suspect you speak of empathy, that trait necessary for us as social animals to exist among one another? How would you hold that up as some kind of universal code?

18AtticWindow
dec 28, 2010, 6:30 pm

I didn't mean empathy specifically, though I suppose that might be one of many parts. But one could start at a much more basic level than that and build up. For instance, all humans ought to eat; all humans ought to sleep; all humans ought to drink; all humans ought to breathe. These claims may all appear very boring, but that's only a testament to their universality. I expect that if I continued adding more and combining them I might reach some more substantive claims. But, in any case, it looks like these provide a reason to say that there are in fact some things that everyone ought to do regardless of cultural customs.

19AtticWindow
Bewerkt: dec 28, 2010, 6:33 pm

In short, I think that ethics needs to be naturalized.

20Phocion
dec 28, 2010, 6:34 pm

But how do you derive morality from our bodily needs?

21AtticWindow
dec 28, 2010, 7:43 pm

Well, to me morality is merely a system of rules or 'ought claims'. So the brief outline I sketched above would already constitute a primitive morality. As I said, I think that more basic human biological rules can be observed with further investigation, such as "you ought to try to survive" and more complex rules can eventually be built from these, such as "you ought to communicate". Even at its most developed stage, such a system would fail to cover a multitude of possible human behavior. This realm would be labeled 'amoral' and thus distinguished from actions that can be good and bad. I think that there are limits to morality, that is, to the number of actions that can be morally assessed; just as there are limits to the scope of logic, science, religion, etc. To me, universal morality only means 'universally applicable', not 'universal in scope'.

22AtticWindow
dec 28, 2010, 8:47 pm

Perhaps most would consider my definition of morality as misleading, that is, that it somehow fails to capture what we really mean by morality. This is partly what I was interested in investigating in this thread, i.e. what sorts of definitions people generally take to conform with what they mean when they say 'morality'.