Ethics and relativism

What do you find dissatisfying about utilitarianism?

Not OP but someone post the meme about the death fields please.

Working my way through Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.

>That is, I tend to think that ethics and morality are subjective
Well, there's a bit of a lexical gap here that once closed will probably help clear up some of the issues of relativity in ethics/morals. Not all philosophers or ethical/moral sets define this dichotomy, but once its been defined it does help categorize the two more cleanly:

Within a basic relativist framework, there is a differentiation between principles which are relative to the INDIVIDUAL (which I will call Morals, although this is not a universal rule) and principles which are relative to THEMSELVES, or the larger group of principles with which they cooperate (which I'll refer to as Ethics, but again, this is not universal).
In simple terms, one can understand Morals as subjective - that is, they are defined by the individual based on their unique perspective. Meanwhile, Ethics can be considered internally objective - while still relative, Ethics typically comprise a set of principles with universal application towards a single end state. For example, Platonic Ethics would include a number of principles which, while not necessarily Morally good (such as the Noble Lie, or engineered ignorance), all work coherently towards the endgoal of achieving The Good.

It is important to understand this dichotomy in thought, because once you have this basic foundation it becomes rapidly clear that Morals which are truly subjective are all but nonexistant in the realm of philosophy and religion - at even its most relativistic, philosophical and religious thought are predicated on a structural and coherently reasoned basis of internal logic, which would be Ethics rather than Morals in this model.

In fact, it can largely be argued that Morals, being wholly relativistic, are sollipsistic in nature and thus non-demonstrable. This narrows the playing field to pure Ethics, which as stated earlier are principles based on an axiom of internal logic - once the axiom is understood and removed from ideological obscurity, the principles themselves can be studied and critiqued.

Forgot to say, the dichotomy between these two must be delineated because in various works of philosophy and especially in religion, Ethical principles are given the faux-authority of Morality as a means of imbuing pathos to the thesis. When morality is clearly cast out as sollipsistic and unusable, one can more cleanly dissect Ethical principles in terms of their value within the larger Ethical system, rather than floundering with qualifying a subjective ideological premise.

/thread

There's a reason in applied ethics you won't find a professional code of conduct that isn't dentological, like a code of virtues or a code of consequences.

>crypto-theist like Alasdair McIntyre or Paul Ricoeur
>crypto
Ricoeur taught at the only French university with a Protestant faculty of theology, as for MacIntyre I'll let the man speak for himself:
youtube.com/watch?v=0tm-5JXRXkM

Mostly the using people as means to ends

This, too.

I think that you don't understand the difficulties involved in explaining ethics/morality coherently within a subjectivist framework. You seem to believe that saying 'morality is subjective' is unproblematic, but there's a good reason for the lack of subjectivists and relativists among philosophers, which is that articulating such a position in a coherent way is rather problematic.

There are some theories that lean towards linking morality and subjectivity, loosely conceived, like expressivism (moral claims are expressions of our emotions and feelings), constructivism (moral truths depend on the constitution of human beings, if we were different beings we would have a different morality), and virtue ethics (morality is about us flourishing as human beings); does this mean that this theories 'acknowledge the subjectivity of ethics'? There's no way to know until you say something of more substance about how and why morality is subjective.

Read Mackie and Richard Joyce. The reason there's no clarity or closure in ethical debates is because there's nothing that would make moral claims true, there simply are no moral facts, only opinions that are veiled in more or less technical wankery and intuition (feels) and survival and co-operation strategies shared by groups of primates that are erronously thought of as normative truths.

OP here. Thanks for the replies. Here's a general example of what’s leading me down a path towards ethics and philosophy.

What bothers me the most about my peers in the social sciences is their a lack of self-awareness. Over the past few years there has been a lot of talk about post-colonial narratives and positionally. They will talk about how Lana Del Rey wearing a Native American headdress is evidence of this, and how something needs to be done to stop more instances of this type of behavior from occurring. So, we will talk about universal human rights, professional codes of conduct and best practices as a way of beginning to deal with this problem. Now, I can't help but notice that these people must, in some way, be referencing themselves when they are talking about post-colonialism since they must be near the top of the structure of positionality. And when I adopt their point of view that something like colonialism is being acted out by Western nations (on a less than conscious level) I can't help but think that any action taken on the part of Westerners would do anything but further the goals of colonialism. It seems that they lack the self-awareness to realize that declaring moral proscriptions they are acting as agents of the colonial boogyman.

A previous poster mentioned emotivism. A couple years ago I read some of Language, Truth, and Logic, and more recently I've browse through some of Charles Stevenson’s work. Stevenson seems to have a much more developed theory of moral language, and I find myself drawn towards his ideas. If I have a basic understanding of his writing, I could say that documents describing best practices, or professional codes of conduct such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do not tell us whether something is morally right because it is a moral fact, but instead are the affective intuitions of the authors. Thus, such documents might be a practical way to act (maybe). But, they really just amount to “I approve of this; do so as well.” Not very satisfying. I think it's a great way of breaking down moral language, but where do we go from here? I guess this is where the paralyzing uncertainty comes in.

I really see a problem with how people are so willing to give up on critical self examination just to find shortcut to the answer they want. I'm starting to feel like the modern practice of sociology and anthropology are degenerate, or, at the very least have lost their way. These kinds of ethical and moral discussions happen all the time and I'm really trying to think through them and find some grounding that doesn't involve being a hypocrite or lacking in self-awareness (or toe the line as an ironic hipster). Maybe I have the least awareness of all of them.

>do not tell us whether something is morally right because it is a moral fact
"We hold these truths to be self-evident."

>Thus, such documents might be a practical way to act (maybe).
I think the genocidal ideology of your faculty is quite contagious, so much so that the last allegedly sane man left in it would begin to question even the worth of preventing a second Holocaust - even on practical terms.

Alsadair MacIntyre, as the most important moral philosopher since Kant, sets to answer just this question in After Virtue and three following works.

MacIntyre isn't a crypto theist, he's a hardcore thomist Catholic.

Oh. You're running up against cultural Marxists.
Feel free to just laugh at their ideological non-arguments

Wow a MacIntyre thread! I honestly would like to study under him soon.

It equates what humans desire with morally good and what humans dislike as morally bad without explanation. Humans having the tendency to think of happiness as a positive thing doesn't mean that it is morally good to do things which promote happiness.

Do NOT let yourself be persuaded from seeing the hypocrisy in front of your eyes. It is there. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot strive to lead humankind by developing and instigating an ethics and ALSO claim that everyone should have equal footing and no one should be in charge. This is the primary fallacy, you have noticed it, and they have NOT been able to solve it. What they will attempt to do is make you look away from it.

Too bad he's 90

Hopefully next year honestly.

Leave subjectivity to me

particularly after the coffee

What is this in reply to?

I'm afraid I Kant do that sir.

Read Nietzsche. No, I'm serious.

No, he isn't being serious.

> I think the genocidal ideology of your faculty is quite contagious, so much so that the last allegedly sane man left in it would begin to question even the worth of preventing a second Holocaust - even on practical terms.

What did he mean by this?

Having had the questionable honor of having been in a fight over being Jewish, I would feel extremely uncomfortable in OP's faculty.

I would probably feel safer in a concentration camp, because at least the staff down there would be probably more honest and direct about their ultimate intentions.

I suggest a much closer reading of OP's post and the response, before proceeding any further.

Are you implying that academic elites who would likely describe themselves as liberal progressives are contemplating a genocide against the west?

Shut up you fucking kike

Whoever said anything about the target being the West? The target could be anyone that isn't them.

Look, instead of arguing against one or two articles of the Universal Declaration, they just plain reject it wholesale, and a priori. Not an argument. Boy do I feel liberated and emancipated by not having a right to live! Because only a Western imperialist big bully could affirm my right to live, right? So progressive.

But it doesn't end there. You know what else isn't satisfying? Emotivism! You know when people are concered for when the victims cry in pain, anguish, fear... and try to get you to stop? Well, fuck those guys, right? Who the hell do they think they are? WE ARE PROGRESSIVE TEACHERS OF THE FACULTIES OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY, we know better. And we are NOT satisfied. "Please stop" is just the Western colonist telling you what to do!

Listen, I don't give a shit what trolls in Veeky Forums i.e. believe or do not believe in, the problem for a "fucking kike" such as myself is when the Progressive Faculty of Progressive Teachers of Progressive Studies™ goes out of its way to become /pol/ with the addition of education, a hierarchy, and funds (the lack of which makes /pol/ an insignificant threat to my person and people, in case you were wondering if I happened to waste any brain power on them), a situation where ideas can indeed have consequences.

And then enter OP, who possibly has a bit of humanity left in him, so he more lor less consciously isn't particularly happy about his sorroundings, that adds a bracketed "maybe" on the practical value of ideas formulated in better days to oppose genocide. Not even some manner of pragmatism can save us. Yay.

Such is for nihilism in the field of ethics, but you could say the same about faculties choosing anti-realism in ontology (i,e, if there's no reality there is no reality of the Holocaust, so progressive), etc.

Not much of an argument the post.

>I've been reading through Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries
kek goodbye

I'm a Christian. May Kierkegaard be necessary or harmful for me?

>I would like to avoid thinkers who might challenge my worldview
Disgusting.

One doesn't have to challenge too tough opponents, as it may disintegrate something important.
I "argued" with fedoras when I was 10 or so, and I don't know if I will ever be free of their nihilistic taint.

Just seems like you need more stability in your worldview, to be honest. If it can't withstand an argument, then how useful can it be in the world?

10 year olds are easily influenced.
>If it can't withstand an argument, then how useful can it be in the world?
It's not about withstanding, nor really about arguments (10 year olds can't argue, and neither can fedoras). It's about ideas. They introduced ideas to me that were harmful to my development. I used to dream.

Morality is a System of Hypotheticals by Philippa Foot

She's right you know

It seems her title answers the problem so why should I read the book?

>Philippa Foot

Why would I listen to anything this person has to say?

Fair enough, as long as the message sinks in

>"Morality is a system of hypothetical IMPERATIVES"
>leaving out the most important word in the title

pleb

Sounds like consequentialism

Which of the giants should I read first? Nietzsche, Kierkegaard or MacIntyre?

Or Aristotle?

From what I've gathered after virtue is a historic critique of ethics with the second half being his plan to fix ethical discourse. So maybe start there.

are you a 10 year old? If not don't compare yourself to someone who s brain is not fully developed.

MacIntyre chat would be interesting if there was any one on here interested enough.

chart*

Source?