Who are some philosophers whose ethical philosophy is chaotic, relies on intuition...

Who are some philosophers whose ethical philosophy is chaotic, relies on intuition, and discards emphasis on hedonic calculus or reason.

I'll bump for ya', lad.

Sounds like the self aware, self punishing sort of existentialism

Try Kierkegaard

stoicism

Prolly Dogen Zenji, tbqh

nah

I consider myself to be anti-Platonic. The separation of human reasoning into component elements, aside from being a fool's errand, was rooted in a deeply patronizing, misogynistic logic. I also don't believe there's any supercedent logic; all logic is rooted in particular systems which are often taken for granted or assumed to be common sense, but that's the power of hegemony.

Once you try to peep over the walls of discursive bounds, I think you have to rely on intuition because the outside of well defined discourse, things are necessarily undefined and you have to find your way. I trust my intuition and try to guide myself in love for others, and I don't think any one form of logic can really determine how I should go about it.

There are cases when emotions/intuition are not coherent with facts, however.
Abortion, for instance.

I don't see how, personally. I have an ethical stance on abortion that's informed by the logic of reproductive justice and they're in concordance from my point of view.

>reproductive justice
Wut?

I get the feeling that while you claim all is based on intuition, you don't seem overly concerned with stuff like cognitive bias?

Also it seems like you disregard any universality to ethics. Which becomes a problem when dealing with i.e. people without empathy.

Virtue Ethics maybe?

Nietzsche

There are measurable material impacts on people's lives when you disallow them to have medically supervised abortions. Pregnancy and childrearing is expensive, unsupervised abortion rates spike in places where it's outlawed, you affect people's mental stability, the lives of their children, people are forced to quit jobs or stay in abusive relationships to afford it (partner and spousal abuse rates go up in couples with children), etc. You can make ethical arguments against abortion but there's no real logic for that, people will get abortions regardless and end up hurting themselves or be forced to rear a child they can't provide a decent quality of living.

That's some cold ass logic for someone who says logic is for suckers.

I never said logic was for suckers, I said it's relative and depends on your perspective. None of that matters if you're brainwashed by patriarchy and think women are just baby machines.

And more my point was that logic/rationality cannot be divorced from ethic and emotion. If you think a hypothetical person who might not even end up being born because many pregnancies naturally terminate is more important than an actual person who's alive and has relationships with people around them in the present, then your logic is being informed by your ethical stance of male supremacy.

What's logical about being logical senpai?

I get the sense you don't know a whole lot of women who actually had an abortion.

Many women are overcome with pangs of guilt. And that isn't just because of "muh patriarchy!".
Abortions aren't fun. And by no standard are they natural.
And I think most people who oppose it are purely lead by this intuition and formulate the opinion after the fact.

And that was what I was coming at. This:
>and I don't think any one form of logic can really determine how I should go about it.
made it seem like more of a gut thing.

People can feel however they want about having an abortion for themselves or abortions they have had in the past. I believe the guilt they feel is primarily informed by hegemonic ideas about children and the role of women in society as mothers and nurterers, yes, but there are people who've had abortions and don't feel guilty about it too and their opinion is their own to hold. I'm not the emotion police.

And my inclination to say people should have absolute personal autonomy over their own reproductive systems is informed by gut feeling. I have tangible reasons for why I think that's a good position to hold, but those points don't inform the underlying logic. Regardless of material circumstances, people should be able to get an abortion if they so choose.

Oh and I guess I wrote that poorly so just to clarify again, I don't actually conceptualize logic and ethics and emotion as separate entities, so sometimes I actually interchange them. It should read "underlying ethics" to be more precise/mesh with your understanding of those terms.

>Kierkegaard
which book would you recc? not OP but interested in the same concept

Having read a lot of K I heavily disagree with that user. If you want an intro to K read Diary of a Seducer. Really great entry point to get the motivation to dig through all his works.

I don't really like books above love and relationships is there another one of his more about the pointlessness of life or something equally morose?

The entirety of Jewish scripture.

If you think DoaS is about love and relationships you're reading it wrong