Philosophy Now Forum

Anja Steinbauer says Don’t Trust the Ethicists (too much).

https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Ethics_versus_Morality

divide the articles into columns, it's very stressign to read an overly broad single column!

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:32 am Anja Steinbauer says Don’t Trust the Ethicists (too much).

https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Eth ... s_Morality

A nice article.

Over the years professional philosophers/ ethicists have made no significant contribution to the domain of morality. It would seem that morality is more of an empirical discipline than a theoretical one.

It is akin to the 'problem' of determining what level a particular amount of water will settle at when poured into a convoluted receptacle of pipes and bulbs. One could do a theoretical analysis of the length and internal diameter of the pipes and bowls and determine the volume and compare that with the volume of water. But really the only way to arrive at a reliable answer is to pour the water into the receptacle and see what level it settles at.

It is best left to the people and their communities to determine what form of morality works best for them.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:32 am Anja Steinbauer says Don’t Trust the Ethicists (too much).

https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Eth ... s_Morality

The following is taken from the conclusion of the article:

Anja Steinbauer wrote: Constructing moral theories may be up to the philosophers, but assessing them, and rejecting or implementing them is up to the individual.

Surely there are exceptions to such a blatant declaration of moral relativism?

For example, what if the individual is a member of a society that believes that the mutilation of the genitals of defenseless little girls - (slicing off their clitoris’ and robbing them of their ability to have an orgasm later in life) - is proper (moral) behavior?

Should the assessing of the morality of such an act really be left up to those who have already been brainwashed into accepting such a thing as being a part of their cultural norms?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:40 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:32 am Anja Steinbauer says Don’t Trust the Ethicists (too much).

https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Eth ... s_Morality

The following is taken from the conclusion of the article:

Anja Steinbauer wrote: Constructing moral theories may be up to the philosophers, but assessing them, and rejecting or implementing them is up to the individual.

Surely there are exceptions to such a blatant declaration of moral relativism?

For example, what if the individual is a member of a society that believes that the mutilation of the genitals of defenseless little girls - (slicing off their clitoris’ and robbing them of their ability to have an orgasm later in life) - is proper (moral) behavior?

Should the assessing of the morality of such an act really be left up to those who have already been brainwashed into accepting such a thing as being a part of their cultural norms?
_______

Fair point... but ... does the labelling of such acts as immoral actually benefit anyone?

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:40 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:32 am Anja Steinbauer says Don’t Trust the Ethicists (too much).

https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Eth ... s_Morality

The following is taken from the conclusion of the article:

Anja Steinbauer wrote: Constructing moral theories may be up to the philosophers, but assessing them, and rejecting or implementing them is up to the individual.

Surely there are exceptions to such a blatant declaration of moral relativism?

For example, what if the individual is a member of a society that believes that the mutilation of the genitals of defenseless little girls - (slicing off their clitoris’ and robbing them of their ability to have an orgasm later in life) - is proper (moral) behavior?

Should the assessing of the morality of such an act really be left up to those who have already been brainwashed into accepting such a thing as being a part of their cultural norms?
_______

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:12 am Fair point... but ... does the labelling of such acts as immoral actually benefit anyone?

I think that it would, but only if the labeling is accompanied with a direct and forceful intervention to try and put a halt to it.

And when I say forceful intervention, I mean that the perpetrators of this barbarous practice should be subjected to the same scale of punishment as that of anyone who tortures and purposely (and permanently) mutilates another human being, especially a child.

Do you not agree?
_______

Ethics versus Morality land us into problem of definition.

The background of the above terms are actually the subject of good versus evil, and that good must prevail over evil.
As with any other subject, there should be the Pure Principles and Applied Principles & Practical.

It is noted the Pure and Applied cannot be related to either Morality or Ethics.

In Kant's case, he defined the terms as follow'

• Morality = Pure Principles and grounding of the highest good.
  Ethics = Applied Principles of Morality and the practice of good over evil.

So it is a question of how the terms Morality or Ethics are defined.

What is critical here is how to combine the two aspects of pure and applied principles and practices to achieve continual progressive optimal results.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:50 am Ethics versus Morality land us into problem of definition.

And the problem of definition lands us back into the problem of ethics and morality.

What's a good (ethical?) definition?
What's a bad (unethical?) definition?

For one can always define morality they way Hitler did: The pursuit of the Aryan race.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:50 am Ethics versus Morality land us into problem of definition.

And the problem of definition lands us back into the problem of ethics and morality.

What's a good (ethical?) definition?
What's a bad (unethical?) definition?

For one can always define morality they way Hitler did: The pursuit of the Aryan race.

I am not going to waste time here.
Suggest you do research on what is and how to ground the 'greatest good'.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:04 am

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:40 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:32 am Anja Steinbauer says Don’t Trust the Ethicists (too much).

https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Eth ... s_Morality

The following is taken from the conclusion of the article:

Anja Steinbauer wrote: Constructing moral theories may be up to the philosophers, but assessing them, and rejecting or implementing them is up to the individual.

Surely there are exceptions to such a blatant declaration of moral relativism?

For example, what if the individual is a member of a society that believes that the mutilation of the genitals of defenseless little girls - (slicing off their clitoris’ and robbing them of their ability to have an orgasm later in life) - is proper (moral) behavior?

Should the assessing of the morality of such an act really be left up to those who have already been brainwashed into accepting such a thing as being a part of their cultural norms?
_______

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:12 am Fair point... but ... does the labelling of such acts as immoral actually benefit anyone?

I think that it would, but only if the labeling is accompanied with a direct and forceful intervention to try and put a halt to it.

And when I say forceful intervention, I mean that the perpetrators of this barbarous practice should be subjected to the same scale of punishment as that of anyone who tortures and purposely (and permanently) mutilates another human being, especially a child.

Do you not agree?
_______

Certainly I agree. And in the country that I live the perpetrators of such acts would (if identified) be subject to such punishment.

But I am not sure if this is what you were referring to?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 am

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:50 am Ethics versus Morality land us into problem of definition.

And the problem of definition lands us back into the problem of ethics and morality.

What's a good (ethical?) definition?
What's a bad (unethical?) definition?

For one can always define morality they way Hitler did: The pursuit of the Aryan race.

I am not going to waste time here.
Suggest you do research on what is and how to ground the 'greatest good'.

What do you mean?

Hitler grounded it just fine!

What do you make of people disagreeing with his grounding?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:12 am Fair point... but ... does the labelling of such acts as immoral actually benefit anyone?

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:04 am I think that it would, but only if the labeling is accompanied with a direct and forceful intervention to try and put a halt to it.

And when I say forceful intervention, I mean that the perpetrators of this barbarous practice should be subjected to the same scale of punishment as that of anyone who tortures and purposely (and permanently) mutilates another human being, especially a child.

Do you not agree?
_______

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 am Certainly I agree. And in the country that I live the perpetrators of such acts would (if identified) be subject to such punishment.

But I am not sure if this is what you were referring to?

What I was initially responding to is how wrong the author of the article is in suggesting that it should be “up to the individual” to assess the worth of certain moral theories when it is obvious that societal brainwashing can severely affect (and damage) an individual’s sense of right and wrong.

In which case, I was simply using the problem of FGM as one example of why “individuals” cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

I guess the question then becomes – how do the more enlightened humans of the world convince others that their actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose their own personal morals on the other?

Got any suggestions?
_______

how are they imposed? superior firepower...

-Imp

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:50 am Ethics versus Morality land us into problem of definition.

And the problem of definition lands us back into the problem of ethics and morality.

What's a good (ethical?) definition?
What's a bad (unethical?) definition?

For one can always define morality they way Hitler did: The pursuit of the Aryan race.

Bad and good are just situational. It is bad if they tell you that they are going to kill you. Death however is good if they are going to torture you. etc.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:17 am

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:50 am Ethics versus Morality land us into problem of definition.

And the problem of definition lands us back into the problem of ethics and morality.

What's a good (ethical?) definition?
What's a bad (unethical?) definition?

For one can always define morality they way Hitler did: The pursuit of the Aryan race.

Bad and good are just situational. It is bad if they tell you that they are going to kill you. Death however is good if they are going to torture you. etc.

Yes, good and evil can be relative and also optimal depending on various circumstances.
However, DNA wise ALL humans are endowed with an evolving faculty of morality, albeit our moral progress is not up to general expectations at present.

• Inherent Morality within Babies
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

To meet expectations, we need to ramp up the progress of morality within each individual, i.e. to expedite the progress of their inherent moral faculty.

To establish a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and to ensure its operation is efficient we need to impute absolute moral laws as its ideal objectives and guides.

Just as theists can think of an absolute God of supreme perfection, there is no problem for humans to think [rationalize] absolutely perfect moral laws. We do not expect these ideal absolute moral laws [absolute good] to be achievable in reality but they are to be used as a guide or fixed goal posts to guide actual behavior and ethics toward the impossible ideals.

Thus absolute good is possible at least in thought to be used as a guide for ethics in practice.

If you can think of an absolute entity [illusory], why can't you think of absolute moral laws never mind given that both are impossibilities.
The problem with an absolute entity like God is it can either be absolutely good or absolutely evil [e.g. the God of TROP].
But absolute good meant absolute good without any possibility of evil.