Philosophy Now Forum

Logically, if "good" and "bad" are only matters of social convention,

1. Genocide is "bad" in Australia and the UK, but was "good" in Rwanda or wartime Germany.

2. Ted Bundy was "bad" to eat people in America, but if he had been living in Borneo among the headhunters, it would have been "good."

3. Child molesting was wrong for Jimmy Saville in England, but it would have been "good" if he had lived in tribal Afghanistan, where it's conventional.

Seeing that requires nothing but the belief that "ethics" means "convention," plus simple logic.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:16 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:34 am You are denying that what you are saying is guided by your philosophical outlook...

It isn't. It's guided by two things: "conventionalism," as a starting point, and logic as a mechanism. That's it.

You could discover the same thing from any worldview position at all, so long as you start with conventionalism and move by logic.

Your logic is merely a convention, too. And applying the convention of logic on the conventional logic itself it will turn out that your calling something morally "good" or morally "bad" isn't grounded on any consistent logical reasoning at all but is grounded on the mere convention of calling this something morally "good" or morally "bad". And where does your calling something morally "good" or morally "bad" come from? From a conventional world view, ideology, religion or philosophy, your culture and/or your history of education ... i.e. from conventions.
Usually it works like this: first a goal is set by a collective and then everything supporting the attainment of this goal is called "good" and everthing that goes against it is called "bad". Then psychological factors like guilt (of doing the "bad") and pride (of doing the "good") are instilled into the brains of the members of the collective by means of education and public opinions and by means of educational reinforcement and punishing. But of course the initial goal again is mere convention, an arbitrary agreement within the collective.

stevie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:56 am Your logic is merely a convention, too.

"Logic" is a formal process, not a "convention." And it's not "mine" in any sense, anymore than mathematics or the Law of Gravity is owned by me.

And applying the convention of logic on the conventional logic itself it will turn out that your calling something morally "good" or morally "bad" isn't grounded on any consistent logical reasoning at all but is grounded on the mere convention of calling this something morally "good" or morally "bad".

Well, again, logic isn't a "convention," but a formal process like maths. It's "adding up" or "summing up" the implications of a set of premises, and showing their "mathematical" outcome. It's totally indifferent to conventions, as a matter of fact.

But you've actually hit the nail on the head. If you call ethics a "convention," then anything "conventional" in a society becomes "good." (Or, to be more truthful, "good" loses all meaning.) So the German and Rwandan genocides, or Jimmy Saville's activities become "good" in any society that approves of them.

Are you up to paying that price, in order to hold onto your view that ethics are "conventional"?

Usually it works like this: first a goal is set by a collective and then everything supporting the attainment of this goal is called "good" and everthing that goes against it is called "bad".

Okay, let's take a particular case, and plug it into what you say here, and see how it works in the real world.

Tribal Afghan collectives have a goal of obtaining sexual gratification for their men. What they have decided supports this goal is that men should be allowed to kidnap and rape young boys, called "bacha bāzī boys."

This is true. This is what's going on. It's not an imaginary or inflated case. This is reality.

So according to ethical conventionalism, the taking of bacha bāzī boys is called "good," and the attempts of soldiers or others to liberate such boys from sexual attacks is called "bad." And that's as much meaning as the words "good" and "bad" can ever have.

Are you prepared to stand behind that judgment?

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pmSo according to ethical conventionalism, the taking of bacha bāzī boys is called "good," and the attempts of soldiers or others to liberate such boys from sexual attacks is called "bad." And that's as much meaning as the words "good" and "bad" can ever have.

Are you prepared to stand behind that judgment?

From a man who believes that a god which condemns people it professes to love to eternal torture for the crime of not believing is the underwriter of objective good.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:56 am Your logic is merely a convention, too.

"Logic" is a formal process, not a "convention." And it's not "mine" in any sense, anymore than mathematics or the Law of Gravity is owned by me.

And applying the convention of logic on the conventional logic itself it will turn out that your calling something morally "good" or morally "bad" isn't grounded on any consistent logical reasoning at all but is grounded on the mere convention of calling this something morally "good" or morally "bad".

Well, again, logic isn't a "convention," but a formal process like maths. It's "adding up" or "summing up" the implications of a set of premises, and showing their "mathematical" outcome. It's totally indifferent to conventions, as a matter of fact.

Your "formal process" is a convention. But of course you're again speaking with your attitude of "absolute truths". Regardless of what topic we'll choose we will always end up with this. It has to do with your conventional philosophical outlook.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pm But you've actually hit the nail on the head. If you call ethics a "convention," then anything "conventional" in a society becomes "good." (Or, to be more truthful, "good" loses all meaning.) So the German and Rwandan genocides, or Jimmy Saville's activities become "good" in any society that approves of them.

Are you up to paying that price, in order to hold onto your view that ethics are "conventional"?

You don't seem to get the meaning of "conventional". Conventions always refer to collectives who hold these conventions to be valid. So me calling views that have been the basis for genocides "conventionally good" refers to the collectives who hold/held these views to be valid by convention but does not mean me sharing these conventions. I am not necessarily partaking in conventions that I do observe as I do not partake in the philosophical conventions you are following.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pm

Usually it works like this: first a goal is set by a collective and then everything supporting the attainment of this goal is called "good" and everthing that goes against it is called "bad".

Okay, let's take a particular case, and plug it into what you say here, and see how it works in the real world.

Tribal Afghan collectives have a goal of obtaining sexual gratification for their men. What they have decided supports this goal is that men should be allowed to kidnap and rape young boys, called "bacha bāzī boys."

This is true. This is what's going on. It's not an imaginary or inflated case. This is reality.

So according to ethical conventionalism, the taking of bacha bāzī boys is called "good," and the attempts of soldiers or others to liberate such boys from sexual attacks is called "bad." And that's as much meaning as the words "good" and "bad" can ever have.

Are you prepared to stand behind that judgment?

Again, what may be conventionally called "good" and "bad" by these "Tribal Afghan collectives" (you are fantasizing) is "conventionally good" and "conventionally bad" in these collectives. But it isn't "conventionally good" and "conventionally bad" e.g. in many collectives within western societies because these have other conventions of morally "good" and morally "bad".

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:56 am Your logic is merely a convention, too.

"Logic" is a formal process, not a "convention." And it's not "mine" in any sense, anymore than mathematics or the Law of Gravity is owned by me.

And applying the convention of logic on the conventional logic itself it will turn out that your calling something morally "good" or morally "bad" isn't grounded on any consistent logical reasoning at all but is grounded on the mere convention of calling this something morally "good" or morally "bad".

Well, again, logic isn't a "convention," but a formal process like maths. It's "adding up" or "summing up" the implications of a set of premises, and showing their "mathematical" outcome. It's totally indifferent to conventions, as a matter of fact.

Your "formal process" is a convention.

No, actually. Logic is a way of understanding how reality works, just like mathematics is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pm But you've actually hit the nail on the head. If you call ethics a "convention," then anything "conventional" in a society becomes "good." (Or, to be more truthful, "good" loses all meaning.) So the German and Rwandan genocides, or Jimmy Saville's activities become "good" in any society that approves of them.

Are you up to paying that price, in order to hold onto your view that ethics are "conventional"?

You don't seem to get the meaning of "conventional". Conventions always refer to collectives who hold these conventions to be valid. So me calling views that have been the basis for genocides "conventionally good" refers to the collectives who hold/held these views to be valid by convention but does not mean me sharing these conventions. I am not necessarily partaking in conventions that I do observe as I do not partake in the philosophical conventions you are following.

I realize that you may belong to a society that does not approve Jimmy Saville or genocide. But since you think "bad" is also a mere convention of your society, you have to say that Saville and genocide are not actually wrong. All you can say is, "Well, the conventions of my society -- for the present only -- don't approve that conduct, but other societies do."

You'd have to add, "...and when my society approves those things, one day, they will also be 'good.'"

Moreover, if you stay with "conventionalism," you'd have to also agree that if you had been born in Germany or Rwanda or Afghanistan, all the things these people did would not be "bad" for you to do, too.

Are you willing to accept all that? Just asking. It's the inevitable outcome.

So again, you've lost any referent to the terms "good" and "bad." Both mean no more than "whatever the current convention is," and neither has any objective difference from the other.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pm

Usually it works like this: first a goal is set by a collective and then everything supporting the attainment of this goal is called "good" and everthing that goes against it is called "bad".

Okay, let's take a particular case, and plug it into what you say here, and see how it works in the real world.

Tribal Afghan collectives have a goal of obtaining sexual gratification for their men. What they have decided supports this goal is that men should be allowed to kidnap and rape young boys, called "bacha bāzī boys."

This is true. This is what's going on. It's not an imaginary or inflated case. This is reality.

So according to ethical conventionalism, the taking of bacha bāzī boys is called "good," and the attempts of soldiers or others to liberate such boys from sexual attacks is called "bad." And that's as much meaning as the words "good" and "bad" can ever have.

Are you prepared to stand behind that judgment?

Again, what may be conventionally called "good" and "bad" by these "Tribal Afghan collectives" (you are fantasizing)

No, it's a real thing. Just google it, and you'll find out.

Do you regard bacha bāzī boys as merely a matter of "convention"? If you do, then you'd have to say pedophilia and rape are not objectively "bad," of course.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:47 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pm
"Logic" is a formal process, not a "convention." And it's not "mine" in any sense, anymore than mathematics or the Law of Gravity is owned by me.


Well, again, logic isn't a "convention," but a formal process like maths. It's "adding up" or "summing up" the implications of a set of premises, and showing their "mathematical" outcome. It's totally indifferent to conventions, as a matter of fact.

Your "formal process" is a convention.

No, actually. Logic is a way of understanding how reality works, just like mathematics is.

Again your attitude of being able to speak about a "reality" from a perspective beyond what you've learned and what you've been conditioned to.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:28 pm But you've actually hit the nail on the head. If you call ethics a "convention," then anything "conventional" in a society becomes "good." (Or, to be more truthful, "good" loses all meaning.) So the German and Rwandan genocides, or Jimmy Saville's activities become "good" in any society that approves of them.

Are you up to paying that price, in order to hold onto your view that ethics are "conventional"?

You don't seem to get the meaning of "conventional". Conventions always refer to collectives who hold these conventions to be valid. So me calling views that have been the basis for genocides "conventionally good" refers to the collectives who hold/held these views to be valid by convention but does not mean me sharing these conventions. I am not necessarily partaking in conventions that I do observe as I do not partake in the philosophical conventions you are following.

I realize that you may belong to a society that does not approve Jimmy Saville or genocide. But since you think "bad" is also a mere convention of your society, you have to say that Saville and genocide are not actually wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:47 pm Moreover, if you stay with "conventionalism," you'd have to also agree that if you had been born in Germany or Rwanda or Afghanistan, all the things these people did would not be "bad" for you to do, too.

Conventions are temporary. So what has been considered valid in these countries at a given time isn't necessarily considered to valid at another time. Also, me observing conventions, doesn't necessarily entail that I would partake in these conventions incl. their conceptual opposites. So "all the things these people did" aren't judged as morally "bad" by me because I do not partake in the conventions of judging morally "good" vs morally "bad" exactly because these judgements are conventions that are not appealing. However I may e.g. take declarations of "human rights" as a guiding conventional outlook since these appear reasonable to me and say that activities violate human rights principles but that doesn't render these "morally bad" because "morally bad" and "morally good" follows conventions I do not partake in.

stevie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:18 am Again your attitude of being able to speak about a "reality" from a perspective beyond what you've learned and what you've been conditioned to.

I learned mathematics. Somebody "conditioned" me, in that sense, to know how to use it. I wasn't born understanding symbols like the number 3 or the value pi. I had to be taught about the sum of the squares on the other two sides of the hypoteneuse.

But maths worked when I knew nothing about it, and will work long after I'm dead. That's because mathematics is woven into the fabric of reality itself, as any engineer or physicist can tell you. It transcends us all. And that's why we have to learn about it; because it's the way reality is.

Logic is like that. It's the way things operate, whether you or I is yet "conditioned" to understand its workings or not. When we learn it, we discover it's a reliable indicator of what reality is doing.

So it's not a "convention." Logic does not change from society to society, or from age to age, anymore than mathematics does. The rules of logic were first described in ancient Greek society, were known among some Muslim scholars of the middle ages, and are still being specified in modern Western society. But they're universal.

One can ignore them, but only at the pain of being illogical, just as one can ignore the law of gravity or refuse to be "conditioned" to understand it; but one may well die as a result.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:47 pm I realize that you may belong to a society that does not approve Jimmy Saville or genocide. But since you think "bad" is also a mere convention of your society, you have to say that Saville and genocide are not actually wrong. ...Moreover, if you stay with "conventionalism," you'd have to also agree that if you had been born in Germany or Rwanda or Afghanistan, all the things these people did would not be "bad" for you to do, too.

Conventions are temporary.

That makes the problem even worse for you, not better. For you would then have to say that Jimmy Saville or Rwanda were "bad" in your society today, but could be "good," even in your own society, tomorrow. It means that moral are not merely socially dependent, but time dependent as well. That makes them very short and insubstantial indeed.

Also, me observing conventions, doesn't necessarily entail that I would partake in these conventions

No, of course it doesn't. I'm not suggesting you're a bad person.

But really, that doesn't help the problem. Whether or not you personally would do these things doesn't touch the question of whether those things are good or bad, right or wrong." It merely signals that, at the present moment, your society doesn't approve X and does approve Y. A conventionalist would have to allow that genocide or pederasty was not okay for today but might be just fine tomorrow, just as he would have to say that beating women was bad in the West but good for Islamic regimes.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:24 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:18 am Again your attitude of being able to speak about a "reality" from a perspective beyond what you've learned and what you've been conditioned to.

...

So it's not a "convention." ...

It doesn't make sense to repeat our incompatible perspectives again and again.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:47 pm I realize that you may belong to a society that does not approve Jimmy Saville or genocide. But since you think "bad" is also a mere convention of your society, you have to say that Saville and genocide are not actually wrong. ...Moreover, if you stay with "conventionalism," you'd have to also agree that if you had been born in Germany or Rwanda or Afghanistan, all the things these people did would not be "bad" for you to do, too.

Conventions are temporary.

That makes the problem even worse for you, not better. For you would then have to say that Jimmy Saville or Rwanda were "bad" in your society today, but could be "good," even in your own society, tomorrow. It means that moral are not merely socially dependent, but time dependent as well. That makes them very short and insubstantial indeed.

You keep on ignoring what I said: the convention (of others like you) of "morally good" vs "morally bad" is not one that I am applying. Conventions are temporary, so even the conventions I decide to apply today may undergo some change or branch into different conventions with the original one persisting in parallel to another evolved from that. And it's always up to me to decide whether I apply any of the conventions available or I don't apply any of them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:24 pm

Also, me observing conventions, doesn't necessarily entail that I would partake in these conventions

No, of course it doesn't. I'm not suggesting you're a bad person.

You may even suggest that I am a "bad" person because I don't share your convention of "good vs bad".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:24 pm But really, that doesn't help the problem. Whether or not you personally would do these things doesn't touch the question of whether those things are good or bad, right or wrong." It merely signals that, at the present moment, your society doesn't approve X and does approve Y. A conventionalist would have to allow that genocide or pederasty was not okay for today but might be just fine tomorrow, just as he would have to say that beating women was bad in the West but good for Islamic regimes.

You keep on ignoring what I said: the convention (of others like you) of "morally good" vs "morally bad" is not one that I am applying.

stevie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:17 pm You keep on ignoring what I said: the convention (of others like you) of "morally good" vs "morally bad" is not one that I am applying.

I'm not ignoring it...rather, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not to point out that a conventionalist has to be amoral...though I think it's inescapable that that is what it implies.

Notice: I'm not saying "immoral," (i.e. bad, because you're declining that category, and I accept that); I'm saying "amoral" (as in, "without any moral categories at all").

To say "morality is a convention" is to say "morality is a word with no moral obligation." It's to say "It's a word that means its opposite in a different social context, and in fact, a word that need not endure beyond the next second, even in this social context." It turns the idea of morality into a zephyr, an ignis fatuus, an illusion. It's to argue for amorality.

And if that's what you mean, then it would have to follow that you don't really believe in ethics at all; and the whole sum of your answer to the OP would have to be, "Ethics has no point."

Is that where you're happy to go?

amor-ality sounds lovely

words are funny things...

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:33 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:17 pm You keep on ignoring what I said: the convention (of others like you) of "morally good" vs "morally bad" is not one that I am applying.

I'm not ignoring it...rather, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not to point out that a conventionalist has to be amoral...though I think it's inescapable that that is what it implies.

Since the "a" in "a-moral" stands for a mere negation I think it is appropriate to call my perspective "amoral" if the opposite "moral" perspective implies judgements as "[morally] good" and "[morally] bad". That is exactly why I do not confuse "morality" with "ethics" and why my response to the topic question 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:33 pm Notice: I'm not saying "immoral," (i.e. bad, because you're declining that category, and I accept that); I'm saying "amoral" (as in, "without any moral categories at all").

That's fine insofar I do not follow/apply any conventions of morality but follow/apply conventions of ethics as "a guiding philosophies".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:33 pm To say "morality is a convention" is to say "morality is a word with no moral obligation." It's to say "It's a word that means its opposite in a different social context, and in fact, a word that need not endure beyond the next second, even in this social context." It turns the idea of morality into a zephyr, an ignis fatuus, an illusion. It's to argue for amorality.

I am not arguing. I am merely expressing what I think and I think amorally (->see definitions 1b and 2 here: amoral).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:33 pm And if that's what you mean, then it would have to follow that you don't really believe in ethics at all; and the whole sum of your answer to the OP would have to be, "Ethics has no point."

Is that where you're happy to go?

As said (see my answer to the topic question quoted above). But yes, even if I am applying this or that convention of ethics as "a guiding philosophy" depending on contexts I do not believe in it (i.e. I do not believe that the corresponding philosophy represents truth or is truth).

stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:32 am Thus the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.

Ah, I see the mistake.

Ethics have to do with what one does when desires themselves need to be evaluated for their moral status; and in relation to conduct, ethics tell one what to do when there is a conflict between what is "right" and the conduct required to obtain what is "desired."

For example, if I want to go to the store, and I decide to drive my bike, there is no ethical issue: my desire is to do it, and assuming I'm right about it being the best way for me to get somewhere, I since I own it, it isn't even an ethical question whether I should. There is no ethical question.

Even if I end up walking, and it takes me three times as long, I'm not immoral for having chosen an inefficient method to obtain my desires; I'm just perhaps unwise, or perhaps I'm just not in a hurry. Again, there is no ethical dimension to that.

But if I want to go the store, and I decide to take your bike without asking, suddenly an ethical question appears. It's not because stealing your bike won't work; it will. My desire fits with the conduct of taking it. But ethics tell me I ought not to do that, despite the fact I want to and it will work.

I'm afraid you'll find that you're talking about isn't "ethics" at all. It's just pragmatics. Ethics only come into play when "I want" and "I should" are not the same thing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:10 am

stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:32 am Thus the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.

Ah, I see the mistake.

Ethics have to do with what one does when desires themselves need to be evaluated for their moral status;

Only if one follows/applies a convention of morality that says that desires need to be evaluated for their moral status. If not then not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:10 am and in relation to conduct, ethics tell one what to do when there is a conflict between what is "right" and the conduct required to obtain what is "desired."

According to my response to the topic question the wording should be: "in relation to conduct, ethics as part of the guiding philosophy tell one what to do and how to live one's life in order to obtain what is desired."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:10 am But if I want to go the store, and I decide to take your bike without asking, suddenly an ethical question appears. It's not because stealing your bike won't work; it will. My desire fits with the conduct of taking it. But ethics tell me I ought not to do that, despite the fact I want to and it will work.

Ethics depends on the guiding philosophy, so it depends on whether the guiding philosophy - directly or indirectly - touches upon me taking your bike without asking.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:10 am I'm afraid you'll find that you're talking about isn't "ethics" at all. It's just pragmatics. Ethics only come into play when "I want" and "I should" are not the same thing.

Well I looked up the definition of ethics and opted for the most amoral and pragmatic. As a moralist you obviously will opt for another definition.

stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 7:24 am Only if one follows/applies a convention of morality that says that desires need to be evaluated for their moral status. If not then not.

Everyone knows they do, though.

Take the desire for a woman, which is common enough. Do you not think we need to evaluate that? How about the question, "Is she consenting?" Or the question, "Is she somebody else's?" Or how about the question, "Is she of age?"

What kind of a person would say that such a desire was not a proper subject of ethical reflection? I think we'd both agree that anybody who declined to subject that desire to the relevant ethical considerations would be, at least "conventionally" a very wicked person...perhaps an adulterer, maybe even a rapist, or worse, a pederast.

Or take the desire for property: is not a relevant question, "Is it moral to take somebody else's?"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:10 am and in relation to conduct, ethics tell one what to do when there is a conflict between what is "right" and the conduct required to obtain what is "desired."

According to my response to the topic question the wording should be: "in relation to conduct, ethics as part of the guiding philosophy tell one what to do and how to live one's life in order to obtain what is desired."

That's not correct, though. "what to do...in order to obtain" is not a moral question at all. It's merely an instrumental/pragmatic one. One could easily answer it in a way that is highly (at least conventionally) immoral, such as "in order to obtain X's death, I should slit his throat." That might be instrumentally true, or pragmatically expeditious; but it's certainly not moral.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:10 am But if I want to go the store, and I decide to take your bike without asking, suddenly an ethical question appears. It's not because stealing your bike won't work; it will. My desire fits with the conduct of taking it. But ethics tell me I ought not to do that, despite the fact I want to and it will work.

Ethics depends on the guiding philosophy, so it depends on whether the guiding philosophy - directly or indirectly - touches upon me taking your bike without asking.

Which "guiding philosophy" makes my stealing your bike okay? Perhaps solipsism, narcissism, or egoism...which, because they refuse to acknowledge any duty from one being to another, are all amoral. So they're not really "moral philosophies" at all: they're anti-ethical philosophies, or simply refusals to think about ethics.

Well I looked up the definition of ethics and opted for the most amoral and pragmatic. As a moralist you obviously will opt for another definition.

I think it's pretty clearly stronger than that. Amorality is the opposite of ethics. Amorality is a position what one adopts when one thinks "ethics" mean nothing at all.

So again, I think the answer to the OP, for an amoralist, has to be "There is no point in ethics."