Why hasn't Ethics made more progress in today's world?

[Impenitent]

everybody wants to rule the world

-Imp

[henry quirk]

As in all things: it's the one(s) with the big stick (or more wisely applied smaller stick) who decide(s).

Mannie might say God is the ultimate stick wielder.

Prof might say 'society' is the stick wielder.

Makes me no mind who or what currently has the big stick.

I'm less inclined to abide the stick wielder than I am to (make a damned good attempt to) navigate around (or through) Him or it (when we disagree).

So: 'why hasn't ethics made more progress in today's world?'

Cuz no matter the source of the ethic, no matter how 'true' such an ethic may be, there's always gonna be a bastard to piss on the parade.

[Immanuel Can]

As as your examples show ethics and morals vary over cultures and time so I don't think there can be an absolute authority to decide such things,

Your syllogism looks like this:

Ethics and morals vary.
Therefore, there can be no authority to decide which are right.

If we supply the missing premise, it's got to be something like this:


Ethics and morals vary.
If something varies, then there must be no right answer.
Therefore, there can be no authority to decide which are right.

I think you can easily see now that your suppressed premise is unnecessary to believe, if not fully irrational.

The fact that people disagree about an issue says nothing about whether or not an authoritative answer can exist. There have been many views of the shape of the world. Many people said it's flat. Others said it was a plateau. Others said it was on the curved back of a turtle. And others said it was a sphere.

So according to your syllogism, the Earth can have no particular shape? That would follow, but would be bizarre. You would not be willing to accept so preposterous a conclusion, would you?

So why do we treat the question of the existence of an authority for ethics in a way we would treat no other question?

The best we can get is whatever appears reasonably and pragmatically acceptable to those at the time and as such I think all philosophy can do in this area is to point-out the possible approaches and any pitfalls from using them in the situation at hand.

Yet this is highly problematic, as you'll soon see.

Someone has to define "reasonable" and "pragmatically acceptable."

Now, you and I might have an accidental agreement about what those terms mean; but it would be likely to happen only because we come from a similar cultural situation and perhaps some similarity of disposition, etc. So if you and I were allowed to define those terms, perhaps the results would be what you and I would both happily call "good."

But what if we aren't the authority that decides what's "reasonable"? What if the "pragmatics" are defined by someone who believes something different from what we do? What if they want to define "reasonable" as "minimizing the number of infidels," and "pragmatic" as meaning "practical for achieving maximal efficiency in executing people?" Or what if "reasonable" means, minimizing dissent, and "pragmatic" means "useful for creating obedient drones?"

Then the words "reasonable" and "pragmatic" do not provide us with moral high ground, or with any semantic content to empower resistance. In fact, they capitulate entirely to totalitarian uses, just as easily as they yielded themselves up to the uses defined by you and me.

That's why "authority" is not an ethical issue that is just going to go away. We might wish it would, or would solve itself; but it will not. And inattention to it is very dangerous to freedom.

So no grand ethical theories anymore and I'm surprised people still keep trying as I'd have thought Kant's example enough of a lesson.

Oh, I agree. Grand ethical theorizing will get us all killed. But so will "pragmatics" if we don't have any way of defining it. What we need is some source-of-reliable-information (an "authority," if we can use that word in a non-pejorative, neutral way) to establish the territory for us.

And yes, capitulation to the WRONG authority even more of a disaster than having no authority.

[Immanuel Can]

As in all things: it's the one(s) with the big stick (or more wisely applied smaller stick) who decide(s).

Does it have to be, Henry? I agree that as a matter of historical fact. But are you not now questioning the validity of that? But on what basis, if there is no other fact but power?

So: 'why hasn't ethics made more progress in today's world?'

Cuz no matter the source of the ethic, no matter how 'true' such an ethic may be, there's always gonna be a bastard to piss on the parade.

True dat.

But absent any morals of our own, how would we know he was "pissing" rather than "fixing" or "improving"? Merely because we personally don't like it? But if we said that, then that would be merely a statement of contingent fact, not a solid, objective, moral argument in favour of our right not to be "pissed" on, and no way to marshal others to aid us in preventing it.

So he could "piss" on, unperturbed.

[henry quirk]

"Does it have to be, Henry?"

Yes...always.

#

"But are you not now questioning the validity of that? But on what basis, if there is no other fact but power?"

Not at all! Take God (please!). Without the power to ban the entrance of the unruly into Heaven what's He got goin' for Him?

Yes, by way of His Boy He offers a whole whack of 'good news' which (along with free will) sounds great, but it's Hobson's Choice (yes, indeed, dear Henry, you can choose, but you better choose 'this' and not 'that').

The Adversary, unimpressed with Jehovah's handiwork, told God 'up yours' and got his keister tossed out of Paradise. Popular opinion has it that the Adversary was most a'grieved of losing his daily God fix, but I think, instead, he was glad to be rid of the Prying Eye.

My point: just cuz the superior might makes the rules this doesn't obligate another to abide. In not abiding one risks jail or death or damnation, but them's the risks when one values one's self more than one fears the superior power (one disagrees with).

So: no I don't question the validity of the one(s) with the big stick (or more wisely applied smaller stick) deciding (making the rules; establishing 'right'), I merely point out that sticks are ubiquitous and some folks will flail away (with their small sticks) at an elephant (knowing full well they're not likely to accomplish anything) if the stakes are high enough.

#

"But absent any morals of our own, how would we know he was "pissing" rather than "fixing" or "improving"?"

But there's never a moral or ethical vacuum. Every one of us crafts (or, more often, adopts) notions of right and wrong. The honest man simply acknowledges 'I believe this is right and this is wrong because (1) I asses the world and based on the available information, it seems to me this is right and this is wrong, or, (2) I believe this is right and this is wrong because such distinctions have been taught to me, they seem to work, and so this is how I live and judge.'

Even you, as a Christian Theist, can say no more than 'I have assessed the world and this, Christianity, seems most clearly to describe the world and its underpinnings, so I operate willingly within its framework.'

So: even though it amounts to not more than personal preference, every one will assess and judge the pisser (who may well trying to fix [which is irrelevant]).

#

"a statement of contingent fact, not a solid, objective, moral argument in favour of our right not to be "pissed" on"

So what?

The man who attempts to steal my wallet has no 'moral grounding' for his act, only his willingness to rob me.

Me, the one who chooses not to be robbed, has no 'moral grounding' for my resistant, only my willingness to self-defend (or defend that which I call mine).

That is: your right to not be pissed on rests solely on your willingness to not be a urinal (and your ability to resist).

Ethics, then, morality, then: fictions (sometimes very useful fictions) that only have 'umph' when backed by the stick.

Even with God these things (ethics, morality) are fictions laid out by God, enforced by God.

So: ethics remains fragmented cuz -- again -- the prevailing ethic (in competition with a myriad of others) is still a fiction and some folks will always dissect the fiction, or piss on the parade, or point out the king is nekkid, or call a spade a spade, etc. and on and on....

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, Henry. You can take the view that power rules and ethics drool.

And so far a secular ethics go, I'll agree.

But I would choose instead to say "Power can be wrong." Just because someone can force something on me, and I may not always have the power to beat them does not mean they are right to do so, and I cannot appeal to a higher standard. But then, that's because, as you rightly point out, I believe that a higher standard does actually exist.

And that's the whole enchilada right there, isn't it? Does such a higher standard, one capable of contradicting power, actually exist? Or is it all power-versus-power until one wins?

Interesting.

[henry quirk]

"Does such a higher standard, one capable of contradicting power, actually exist?"

Beyond what one can muster for himself (or, in conjunction with others) I say 'no'.

#

"Or is it all power-versus-power until one wins?"

Yeah, pretty much.


I seem to recall we -- you and me -- ended up in a similar place in another discussion/thread...just goes to show (1) conviction (either way) is a bitch; (2) opposition can be tactful and civil...

[Ginkgo]

Right. I'm not a proponent of secular ethics.

They don't work, and they can't be compelled by dint of any line of reasoning. The thing I like least about them, therefore, is that they can ordinarily only be compelled by force or propaganda, since they cannot be defended by any rational means or to an autonomous person. Force and propaganda are bad options for everyone, I believe.

I'm a Christian Theist, and my ethics follow that line.

You mean the line that draws on a variety of approaches similar to the variety of approaches used in secular ethics?



wikipedia:Christian ethics.
Christian ethics is a branch of Christian theology that defines concepts of right (virtuous) and wrong (sinful) behavior from a Christian perspective. Various sources inform Christian ethics but "comprehensive Christian ethical writings use four distinguishable sources: (1) the Bible and the Christian tradition, (2) philosophical principles and methods, (3) science and other sources of knowledge about the world, and (4) human experience broadly conceived."[2] Jewish ethics and the life of Jesus also figure prominently.[3] According to D. Stephen Long, "The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics",[2] as "Christian ethics finds its source in diverse means, but it primarily emerges from the biblical narrative."[4]

Christian ethicists often engage with and draw from secular ethics. Like secular ethicists, different thinkers approach Christian ethics from different perspectives, variously using deontological, consequentialist, utilitarian and other frameworks for ethical reflection. The approach of virtue ethics has also become popular in recent decades, largely due to the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas.[5]

[Immanuel Can]

I seem to recall we -- you and me -- ended up in a similar place in another discussion/thread...just goes to show (1) conviction (either way) is a bitch; (2) opposition can be tactful and civil...

Ha! Mr. Pithy strikes again.

Yes, I heartily agree.

[Immanuel Can]

You mean the line that draws on a variety of approaches similar to the variety of approaches used in secular ethics?

Nope.

Wiki's wrong on that one. It's describing Catholic ethics, particular MacIntyre, whose ethics come from Aristotle. That's not me. However it is right about this: I do read and consider contrary positions. For example, I'm no stranger to Kant, Mill, or MacIntrye, or for that matter, Rand Singer or Rawls. I read them, think them over, and consider what they have to offer. I just don't believe they've got their moral grounding right.

[Ginkgo]

You mean the line that draws on a variety of approaches similar to the variety of approaches used in secular ethics?

Nope.

Wiki's wrong on that one. It's describing Catholic ethics, particular MacIntyre, whose ethics come from Aristotle. That's not me. However it is right about this: I do read and consider contrary positions. For example, I'm no stranger to Kant, Mill, or MacIntrye, or for that matter, Rand Singer or Rawls. I read them, think them over, and consider what they have to offer. I just don't believe they've got their moral grounding right.

I am sure Catholics would disagree with you on that one.

[Immanuel Can]

I am sure Catholics would disagree with you on that one.

Would they disagree that MacIntyre is a Catholic and that he got his view from Aquinas, who got it from Aristotle? I don't think they would. It's common knowledge, even among Catholic scholars. They're fine with that.

Would they disagree with me that Virtue Ethics is a dead end? Probably, since VE has strong approval from their clergy, and they are a top-down, authoritarian kind of institution with a putatively "infallible" leader.

Do I think they would have good reason for disagreeing? No.

[Ginkgo]

I am sure Catholics would disagree with you on that one.

Would they disagree that MacIntyre is a Catholic and that he got his view from Aquinas, who got it from Aristotle? I don't think they would. It's common knowledge, even among Catholic scholars. They're fine with that.

Would they disagree with me that Virtue Ethics is a dead end? Probably, since VE has strong approval from their clergy, and they are a top-down, authoritarian kind of institution with a putatively "infallible" leader.

Do I think they would have good reason for disagreeing? No.

Well, that's their grounding isn't it? I makes no difference if they have good or bad reasons for disagreeing with you. The fact is they do disagree with you and they provide logical argument as to why. As you say their grounding is not your grounding, so you also provide logical argument. As you demonstrate ethics exists on different groundings. So please don't tell me about the solid groundings of Christian theism in the face of denominational disagreement.

[Immanuel Can]

I makes no difference if they have good or bad reasons for disagreeing with you.

Sure it does. This is a philosophy board. "Good reasons" is all we're interested in. It always makes a difference if the reasons you propose are good or bad. If it didn't, what are we debating?

The fact is they do disagree with you and they provide logical argument as to why.

No, they provide a kind of argument...whether it's a logical argument remains for you (or them) to show.

As you demonstrate theistic ethics exists on different groundings. So please don't tell me about the solid groundings in the face of denominational disagreement.
Sure.

But first, realize how unsurprising your statement is. "Theists" is a very broad category. It's not even a little surprising that, say Polytheistic, Islamic, Jewish and Catholic ethics disagree. It's precisely what anyone would expect.

Then, whether we're talking about Theistic disagreements or about, as you put it, merely "denominational" ones is also a contentious question. I would say no. The Catholic ethics are grounded in Aristotle, and then lately in the pronouncements of the hierarchy...too shaky a basis for me. Solid grounding is this: ground your ethics in the Biblical revelation of the actual nature of God, not in any human tradition. Then you're on a firm foundation for ethical reflection.

[Ginkgo]

Sure it does. This is a philosophy board. "Good reasons" is all we're interested in. It always makes a difference if the reasons you propose are good or bad. If it didn't, what are we debating?

Not always, most people know what they know and nothing is going to change that. Surely you have been here long enough to realize that.

No, they provide a kind of argument...whether it's a logical argument remains for you (or them) to show.

Some kinds of arguments make scholarly articles. That's a good start in my view.

But first, realize how unsurprising your statement is. "Theists" is a very broad category. It's not even a little surprising that, say Polytheistic, Islamic, Jewish and Catholic ethics disagree. It's precisely what anyone would expect.

Theistic and secular ethics is a very broad topic so it isn't all that surprising.

Then, whether we're talking about Theistic disagreements or about, as you put it, merely "denominational" ones is also a contentious question. I would say no. The Catholic ethics are grounded in Aristotle, and then lately in the pronouncements of the hierarchy...too shaky a basis for me. Solid grounding is this: ground your ethics in the Biblical revelation of the actual nature of God, not in any human tradition. Then you're on a firm foundation for ethical reflection.

OK then, I'll go along with different groundings make for different interpretations.