Sunday School

[Simon Paynton]

What we’re talking about is moral philosophy as taught in universities today.

[—]

That doesn’t change anything about my statements.

[Simon Paynton]

That’s true.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Medical ethics is a good thing, because it’s right at the coal-face of reality.

At first, I thought you typoed there on “coal-face.” However, Google led me to a dictionary definition: “the place inside a mine where the coal is cut out of the rock.”
That’s not a common idiom here on the left side of the pond.

[Simon Paynton]

Unseen wrote:

“coal-face.”

It’s not a common metaphor, but I did hear it the other day like that and it struck me as a good one.  It’s a commonly used noun because of the strong history of coal mining in the UK.

[Simon Paynton]

Medical philosophers, or whatever, have put together a kind of moral code for medical professionals.  If you think about it, morality is going to matter a lot in this environment of intense possibilities of benefit and risk of harm, in the hands of those professionals.

After quickly scanning the contents page of “Principles of Biomedical Ethics”, I am reminded that it comes down to four main principles: 1) respect for autonomy of the patient; 2) doing least possible harm to the patient; 3) doing maximum available benefit for the patient; 4) fairness to all concerned.

These are backed up by moral character and virtues.  Respect for autonomy is, I believe, derived from Kant’s ideas of not using other people as a means to one’s own ends.

[Davis]

I’ve already provided counteless examples Simon. How do you deal with a situation where you have to lie to protect someone? Through deontological ethics it is a question of adhering to a rule despite the predicted and unknowable posible co sequences. For virtue ethics, your integrity and trust is at stake. For situational and utilitarian ethics you must weigh up the situation and deal with the co sequences and benefits for all parties. This is extremely simple basic shit Simon and those are just four examples. Pick up a fucking book and read it. A kindergarten could realise that 2500 years of great minds have more to say on the issue than a person who cannot be bothered to survey it all badly reinventing the wheel. Of you cannot be bothered to get to know it…why should anyone care about your flimsy moral system. I’d take it as seriously as someone who dismisses psychology without reading up on even the basics and proposing their own psychology system. Zheesh

 

[Simon Paynton]

Davis wrote:

How do you deal with a situation where you have to lie to protect someone?

That’s a moral dilemma.  Can those ideas guide a person in everyday life?  Do they?

My extended version of evolutionary ethics tells you how everyday life works, morally speaking.  To me, that’s the useful line of enquiry.

[_Robert_]

Yeah Davis. I took an undergrad course in ethics alongside a full schedule of hard science classes. It was mind-numbing, no right answers for each crafted dilemma until you picked your preferred moral philosophy. Even then it was not so easy.

I was still calling myself a Catholic (even though I had already ditched most of it) and that just made it a bit cloudier with all those so-called sins against the trinity and church.

[Davis]

Simon, you are deliberately using vague tes like “every day life” to make things seem more complicated and futile than they are. This is almost certainly due to your lack of grasp of basic concepts (along with your recent blatant mischaracterisation of Kant). I’m not going to give you type out lengthy explanations of basic concepts when you can easily read them. Pick up a book and read before you reinvent the wheel. Virtue ethics easily tells you how to live. If you don’t know it you ha ent done your homework, if you are too lazy to do your homework then why should anyone want to read about your patchwork flimsy moral system?

[Simon Paynton]

_Robert_ wrote:

It was mind-numbing

It shouldn’t be mind-numbing.  To study evolutionary ethics is completely fascinating.

[Davis]

Yeah indeed Robert, it is rarely easy with moral systems to deal with complex problems. Apart from DEO tological ethics which is a very different approach, any system which makes it easy to solve such issues is not sufficiently robust to deal with them. Part of the general ignorance of society at large, is that they do not know that you indeed must pick a moral system before judgements have any substance. If you are unaware you blindly follow a system then you are trapped in it. Religion is a basic example of this.

[Simon Paynton]

Davis wrote:

Virtue ethics easily tells you how to live

It doesn’t tell you how empathy, fairness, reciprocity, competition etc. work – those staples of everyday life.  It doesn’t inform you about meta-ethics (as I understand it, what is goodness and badness).

[Simon Paynton]

Davis wrote:

you indeed must pick a moral system before judgements have any substance.

Are you saying they’re incompatible with each other?

[Davis]

Are you saying they’re incompatible with each other?

How could a moral judgement have substance outside of a moral system? Most of us live and breathe modern western morality whether we know it or not. Western modern morality is heavily influenced by the likes of Kant, Hume, Locke, Sartre, Popper and others. That doesn’t mean you must adhere to a comprehensive moral system, but being aware of it and historical influences is very valuable. There is little value in a collection of one off moral judgements. There is zero value in ignoring the history of moral thought, the development of modern western morality.

[Author]

Posts