What exactly is the point of moral and political philosophy?

[godelian]

This is indeed a general remark to make about philosophy.

Science is inductive about the physical universe.
Mathematics is deductive about some of the abstract, Platonic universe, i.e. about the world of ideas expressible in language.

Philosophy only makes sense when it is inductive about the abstract, Platonic universe.

So, ideas can be (inductive/deductive) about (physical/Platonic) reality. That produces four possible combinations:

- Inductive/physical --> science and observational studies
- Deductive/physical --> not possible
- Inductive/Platonic --> philosophy
- Deductive/Platonic --> mathematics

This is similar to Kant's categorization based on (a priori/a posteriori) and (analytical/synthetic). However, I reject Kant's categorization because of how he defines these terms.

So, philosophy is only legitimate if it is about observing the world of knowledge and detecting stubborn patterns in it.

In that sense, political philosophy is problematic because the ideas about which it philosophizes are not legitimate knowledge, in terms of justified true beliefs. Political philosophy is as flawed as the ideas that it philosophizes about.

[ThinkOfOne]

As someone who's spent four years in uni studying moral and political philosophy and is seriously considering going to grad school to study more, I can't help but start to question the legitmacy of questions raised by the philosophers. It seems to me the strength of any normative argument, ethical framework, ideal political system etc. ultimately has to make appeal to "moral intuition" or mere "feelings."

Is killing the same as letting die? Sould the state/individuals be allowed/forced to do X,Y,Z? Is moral duty natural or contract-based? What counts as consent? Is the morality of an action assessed by its utility, intention or some principles?

Barring any factual errors (when empirical claims are made) or internal inconsistency of an argument, it seems to me the debate among philosophers is always reduced to "According to your premise a,b,c, aren't we also compelled to accept conclusion x,y,z (which violates general moral intuition)?" "Consider this following thought experiment/imaginary scenario, are you cool with that as well?"

At the end, it seems to me all the discussions always hinges on whether the audience already accepts certain moral commitments or sharing the same moral sentiments, and if not, there's just what I call "fundamental misalignment of moral judgement" where two people simply have different opinions about a moral situation and the debate admits of no further arbitration.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into what you've written here, but you seem dissatisfied with moral philosophy as it is typically taught in academia. Perhaps you should ask yourself: Why is moral philosophy almost exclusively scenario-based in academia? What are the inherent weaknesses of this approach?

[FlashDangerpants]

As someone who's spent four years in uni studying moral and political philosophy and is seriously considering going to grad school to study more, I can't help but start to question the legitmacy of questions raised by the philosophers. It seems to me the strength of any normative argument, ethical framework, ideal political system etc. ultimately has to make appeal to "moral intuition" or mere "feelings."

There's a circle of madness involved.

• On the one hand our intuitions and feels are all important in this matter, we will reject a moral or political theory that can be argued to absurdity. Take for instance the idea that it is literally good to allow a vagrant to be hanged for a murder he didn't commit if the actual killer was a beloved celeb and knowledge of his guilt would cause lots of sadness. There are moral theories that support this outcome, and there are likely to be actual philosophers who bite the bullet when confronted with the problem (don't know of any, but there's never only one). But in general, we all agree that it's stupid and if your theory binds you to this outcome then the theory is broken. And we conclude thus armed with nothing but intuition.

• But intuition is a notoriously unreliable source of knowledge, in any field where we can test our intuitions empirically they do quite badly.

• Knowing both of these problems, most still aren't willing to accept the antirealist position that knowledge in ethics, politics and law is not equivalent to knowledge in science and maths. Or rather, if they can be sold on that premise, they cannot conclude that they have no strong basis to tell somebody else that the contents of their moral beliefs are total shit and that the are an idiot who should be thrown off a cliff.

• But our intuitions strongly inform us that some people are just entirely evil and ought to be thrown off a cliff.

So we keep on, even though a full exposition of moral truth is beyond our capabilities, largely because it surely doesn't exist, we're locked into the effort because it matters so much to our lives every day.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As someone who's spent four years in uni studying moral and political philosophy and is seriously considering going to grad school to study more, I can't help but start to question the legitmacy of questions raised by the philosophers. It seems to me the strength of any normative argument, ethical framework, ideal political system etc. ultimately has to make appeal to "moral intuition" or mere "feelings."

True indeed. One astoundingly provocative philosopher who drops wisdom tidbits here from time to time spent years in philosophy, earning all sorts of letters trailing his name, only to declare that all philosophical, and by extension all existential positions, are ultimately aesthetic. I guess that is more or less the same as based in feeling.

A normative argument requires a norm, but it has become impossible to define what is normative except by what one feels to be so in a given moment.

Have you considered a career in interior decoration?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Et voilà …

So we keep on, even though a full exposition of moral truth is beyond our capabilities, largely because it surely doesn't exist, we're locked into the effort because it matters so much to our lives every day.

[Alexis Jacobi]

At the end, it seems to me all the discussions always hinges on whether the audience already accepts certain moral commitments or sharing the same moral sentiments, and if not, there's just what I call "fundamental misalignment of moral judgement" where two people simply have different opinions about a moral situation and the debate admits of no further arbitration.

Ah, so you have poked around quite a bit on PN I gather?

[FlashDangerpants]

True indeed. One astoundingly provocative philosopher who drops wisdom tidbits here from time to time spent years in philosophy, earning all sorts of letters trailing his name, only to declare that all philosophical, and by extension all existential positions, are ultimately aesthetic.

You speak of course of Will Bouwman, he tends to consider ethical judgments to be aesthetic in type, although so arguably did Nietzsche. I guess we will have to overlook the pretentious meaninglessness of your waffle about 'existential positions' because it's never really worth finding out what you think you mean by these things.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I guess we will have to overlook the pretentious meaninglessness of your waffle about 'existential positions' because it's never really worth finding out what you think you mean by these things.

Let me get this straight. There are no moral positions that actually exist and can be referred to as real and existent, but we are locked into endless conversations and argument about what these should be (?) because it matters much to our life.

You say that it is not worthwhile to discover what I mean by existential positions — ouch!
I am hit! — yet the question that comes up for me is what do you derive from unending conversations with no possible result or resolution?

Why would a man gravitate to such a field?

Oh, right. I forgot! It’s that danged circle of madness.

So we have one philosopher who reduces all of it to aesthetics while another defines the field as one of mad conundrums.

Interesting!

[Alexis Jacobi]

You speak of course of Will Bouwman, he tends to consider ethical judgments to be aesthetic in type …

No, I was referring to another philosophical master named Wilbur Boneman. I understand though why you were confused. They are similar names.

My Wilbur is a sort-of Nietzschean too but, well, perhaps not. He says there is no substantial purpose or end to life and those who do believe in such Truth inevitably become dreaded “black-and-white” thinkers, and with a sprightly hop skip and a jump become Fascists and menaces to all wee Hobbits.

He holds to what may be called a negating piety which — perhaps like you? — leads only to the glory of philosophical wheel-spinning and sentiment-based bickering. He actually recommends “fuzzy sets” of neither this, neither that, and proposes these as substitutes for virtue and for truth.

[FlashDangerpants]

I guess we will have to overlook the pretentious meaninglessness of your waffle about 'existential positions' because it's never really worth finding out what you think you mean by these things.

Let me get this straight. There are no moral positions that actually exist and can be referred to as real and exist...

Like I said, it's never really worth finding out. Are you on double rations of insecurity today?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Hi ho, hi ho,
off to graduate school I go…

[FlashDangerpants]

As someone who's spent four years in uni studying moral and political philosophy and is seriously considering going to grad school to study more, I can't help but start to question the legitmacy of questions raised by the philosophers. It seems to me the strength of any normative argument, ethical framework, ideal political system etc. ultimately has to make appeal to "moral intuition" or mere "feelings."

There's a circle of madness involved.

• On the one hand our intuitions and feels are all important in this matter, we will reject a moral or political theory that can be argued to absurdity. Take for instance the idea that it is literally good to allow a vagrant to be hanged for a murder he didn't commit if the actual killer was a beloved celeb and knowledge of his guilt would cause lots of sadness. There are moral theories that support this outcome, and there are likely to be actual philosophers who bite the bullet when confronted with the problem (don't know of any, but there's never only one). But in general, we all agree that it's stupid and if your theory binds you to this outcome then the theory is broken. And we conclude thus armed with nothing but intuition.

• But intuition is a notoriously unreliable source of knowledge, in any field where we can test our intuitions empirically they do quite badly.

• Knowing both of these problems, most still aren't willing to accept the antirealist position that knowledge in ethics, politics and law is not equivalent to knowledge in science and maths. Or rather, if they can be sold on that premise, they cannot conclude that they have no strong basis to tell somebody else that the contents of their moral beliefs are total shit and that the are an idiot who should be thrown off a cliff.

• But our intuitions strongly inform us that some people are just entirely evil and ought to be thrown off a cliff.

Geometry Dash Lite

So we keep on, even though a full exposition of moral truth is beyond our capabilities, largely because it surely doesn't exist, we're locked into the effort because it matters so much to our lives every day.

thank you so much

To be fair, I am a moral skeptic and inclined towards hermeneutic moral fictionalism, so I am rather more accepting of your base premises than others might be. Most moral realists are likely to challenge them.

[ThinkOfOne]

As someone who's spent four years in uni studying moral and political philosophy and is seriously considering going to grad school to study more, I can't help but start to question the legitmacy of questions raised by the philosophers. It seems to me the strength of any normative argument, ethical framework, ideal political system etc. ultimately has to make appeal to "moral intuition" or mere "feelings."

There's a circle of madness involved.

• On the one hand our intuitions and feels are all important in this matter, we will reject a moral or political theory that can be argued to absurdity. Take for instance the idea that it is literally good to allow a vagrant to be hanged for a murder he didn't commit if the actual killer was a beloved celeb and knowledge of his guilt would cause lots of sadness. There are moral theories that support this outcome, and there are likely to be actual philosophers who bite the bullet when confronted with the problem (don't know of any, but there's never only one). But in general, we all agree that it's stupid and if your theory binds you to this outcome then the theory is broken. And we conclude thus armed with nothing but intuition.

• But intuition is a notoriously unreliable source of knowledge, in any field where we can test our intuitions empirically they do quite badly.

• Knowing both of these problems, most still aren't willing to accept the antirealist position that knowledge in ethics, politics and law is not equivalent to knowledge in science and maths. Or rather, if they can be sold on that premise, they cannot conclude that they have no strong basis to tell somebody else that the contents of their moral beliefs are total shit and that the are an idiot who should be thrown off a cliff.

• But our intuitions strongly inform us that some people are just entirely evil and ought to be thrown off a cliff.

Geometry Dash Lite

So we keep on, even though a full exposition of moral truth is beyond our capabilities, largely because it surely doesn't exist, we're locked into the effort because it matters so much to our lives every day.

thank you so much

As a matter of curiosity, what ways in particular did you find that helpful?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Could a math-based hermeneutical pro-fictionalism with a dash of bonhomie ‘feels’ become the basis of a PhD project?

[Impenitent]

What exactly is the point of moral and political philosophy?

crowd control

-Imp