Sunday School

Sunday School December 26th 2021

This topic contains 92 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 3 weeks, 1 day ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 93 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #40436

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    That doesn’t mean you must adhere to a comprehensive moral system,

    My point is that there is no “comprehensive moral system”, supplied by Western moral philosophy, that is sound enough for ordinary people to use to live by.

    In evolutionary ethics, there are no contradictions, only some unresolved areas.  It tells you what is good and how to live, in an interesting way, not a nightmarishly illogical one, which is the standard situation.

    #40437

    @simonMy point is that there is no “comprehensive moral system”, supplied by Western moral philosophy, that is sound enough for ordinary people to use to live by.

    Which moral system is the worst in your opinion? Can we assume that Divine Command Theory (or Divine Comedy Theory as I have sometimes called it), is not worth the discussion time here.

    #40438

    Davis
    Moderator

    My point is that there is no “comprehensive moral system”, supplied by Western moral philosophy, that is sound enough for ordinary people to use to live by

    And you’ve concluded that after familiarising yourself beyond skimming a Wikipedia article with none of them?

    In evolutionary ethics, there are no contradictions, only some unresolved areas

    Ehhh…which school of evolutionary ethics?   It is not remotely an established field. If there are so many unresolved issues…how could it be a system people could rely on for everyday life? A system with unresolved issues sounds more nightmarish that virtue ethics or some forms of Utilitarian ethics.

    Pick up a book and read Simon

     

     

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by  Davis.
    #40441

    Autumn
    Participant

    I don’t understand the value of needing a comprehensive moral system for ordinary people to live by. I take it ‘ordinary people’ means people who are not moral philosophers.

    The basic tenets of a number of philosophical systems can be taught at a high school level. While one might not live by these tenets as though they were a gospel guide to good living, they can be a good basis for forming useful frameworks.

    For example, an analytical framework for examining political or economic entities from a critical ethical standpoint. It could be as large as international governing bodies, or as small as your mom and pop shop, but the reality is, many people are trying to fleece us daily with feel good language that doesn’t amount to ethical or moral action or outcomes. Analysis doesn’t need to be perfect. It just needs to be a practiced habit so that we can stop being so fucking gullible.

    Or as another example, normative ethical models can inform applied ethics. It doesn’t have to apply to every facet of life, but even something like ethical consumerism could benefit from a more structured framework in which to ground our thinking processes. Otherwise there is enough information and complexity out there to drive a person to analysis paralysis.

    The idea that this needs to be specifically Kantian or utilitarian or Epicurean doesn’t seem to matter that I can see. It’s a question of how the material is taught and whether the ideas in each philosophy can germinate and propagate into something useful.

    #40442

    Davis
    Moderator

    I don’t understand the value of needing a comprehensive moral system for ordinary people to live by

    Indeed

    The basic tenets of a number of philosophical systems can be taught at a high school level.

    Some even in elementary school. Shame they are not.

     

     

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by  Davis.
    #40445

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I don’t understand the value of needing a comprehensive moral system for ordinary people to live by. I take it ‘ordinary people’ means people who are not moral philosophers.

    That’s a good point.  What needs to be taught, is how to do what people do anyway, well.  In studying evolutionary ethics, I’ve learned all kinds of things that help me every day to navigate the social world.  Not everyone grows up with a good moral compass, so if people know how morality works, they can understand themselves better and make more informed moral choices.

    It would be great if this kind of thing were taught in schools.  I would put the difficulty of a full-fledged course at about the 16 year-old level, but more basic stuff could be taught younger, in fact, it would need to be simplified for younger students.  My point about Kantianism, utilitarianism etc. is that as given, they don’t work in the real world, and hence, are just useless intellectual curiosities.

    On the other hand, elements of them do work and can be incorporated into evolutionary ethics.  But as things stand, they’re not good enough to base real life on.

    normative ethical models can inform applied ethics. It doesn’t have to apply to every facet of life, but even something like ethical consumerism could benefit from a more structured framework in which to ground our thinking processes.

    This is very true.  Evolutionary ethics would say: 1) cause the maximum benefit and minimum harm with your actions; 2) we need the right conditions to be in place in order to thrive and survive, so if we screw up our planet, then we ourselves are screwed. Also, delusion is a weakness that leads to poor outcomes.

    #40446

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    which school of evolutionary ethics? It is not remotely an established field. If there are so many unresolved issues…how could it be a system people could rely on for everyday life?

    It’s not very well established as an ethical theory, in the sense that it’s me who’s extended it to become a meta-ethical theory, and I’m trying to get it established.  There are one or two areas where we don’t know exactly how things work, but we’re close: for example, why do we insist on being fair to our collaborative partners? which must have a multi-faceted answer based on the evolutionary needs of the individual.  Also, why do people feel that morality is objective?  I think it’s because some moral motivations are so evolutionarily ancient that they are biologically ingrained; and because some cultures are arrogant and think that their version of morality should apply to the whole world.  Those are the two areas I can think of.

    #40447

    Autumn
    Participant

    I would put the difficulty of a full-fledged course at about the 16 year-old level, but more basic stuff could be taught younger, in fact, it would need to be simplified for younger students. My point about Kantianism, utilitarianism etc. is that as given, they don’t work in the real world, and hence, are just useless intellectual curiosities.

    I don’t really understand this argument largely because I don’t understand what you mean by ‘work’. I am not sure what you expect them to do, or what value you expect to be derived from teaching any given moral system. Is reading about a philosophy supposed to provide direct instructions on how to live or something?

    why do we insist on being fair to our collaborative partners?

    Being fair or appearing fair?

    #40448

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I don’t understand what you mean by ‘work’.

    They’re theories about the world that are wrong.  A theory should be able to describe the world accurately and be used to make further predictions and generate more knowledge.  None of these is possible with a wrong theory.

    I am not sure what you expect them to do, or what value you expect to be derived from teaching any given moral system. Is reading about a philosophy supposed to provide direct instructions on how to live or something?

    Yes, it is.  That’s what’s useful about it.  If it’s a piece of junk, it’s not going to help people.  Despite its many faults, this is where religion has done well where moral philosophy has failed.

    Being fair or appearing fair?

    Both.  It’s hard to appear fair without actually being fair.  There are lots of different kinds of fairness, but I contend that they each rely on treating people in an equal way.

    #40449

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Davis,

    This anti-ethics bullshit is almost as exhausting as Enco when he gets on the libertarian talking points bandwagon.

    If you’ve ever heard an actual conversation among people who identify with Libertarian philosophy, you would know that we have neither bandwagons nor talking points. The term “herding cats” applies equally to both Atheists and Libertarians.😻😺🐱😸😾😽😿🙀😹😼

    #40450

    Davis
    Moderator

    Simon you are using the pronoun “we” as though you are a philosopher, a scholar or have sufficient knowledge of moral thought to make an impact or a difference. Sorry, but lacking rudimentary knowledge of basic concepts will automatically exclude you. The lack of a degree in a related field might also be a slight problem. This is why I am highly encouraging you to pick up some books and read them. I am not doing this to “try to win” any debate, but because I would honestly like to see you make a meaningful contribution…which I am sorry to say you cannot starting in a state of ignorance. No…you do not need to get a BA in philosophy (though it sure as shit would not hurt to take a few courses/modules)…but yeah, you do have to pick up some books and read.

    The field isn´t established because the various schools either document moral evolution or they try to jam it into moral systems with no seeming success yet (and it is hard to imagine how they can considering we have evolved to be viciously violent, rapey, racist, controlling, indifferent and frequently very cruel on a mass scale). But I wish such scholars (and you if you ever decide to pick up some books and read) best of luck. I would love to be proven wrong and find a new interesting field of study.

    #40452

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Come on Enco! I have challenged you over and over to defend your political point of view. You’ve got absolutely nothing to say except to trot out propaganda.

    Moreover you have used words like smear to describe how you view any negative portrayal of what you hold sacred. When you can’t see any flaws, weaknesses or troubling issues in your political viewpoint you are not using your mind any better than a theist does in contemplating their mythology. There are issues with socialism, capitalism, communism or prism of any ism. Obvious issues. That makes you an ideologue.

    #40454

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @davis, I respect anyone who knows how to turn out good ideas.

    pick up some books and read them

    My bibliography runs to 15 pages.

    #40455

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Which moral system is the worst in your opinion? Can we assume that Divine Command Theory (or Divine Comedy Theory as I have sometimes called it), is not worth the discussion time here.

    Actually, in theory, the religious moral system works well in its own way.  It promotes good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour.  In practice, it’s highly open to abuse, since adherents think they’re justified in anything because God is on their side.

    Nietszche’s “will to power” is quite a stinker in my opinion, if he’s saying that power is the most important thing we all yearn for.

    #40456

    Autumn
    Participant

    Both. It’s hard to appear fair without actually being fair.

    It isn’t. Humans rationalize fairness where it doesn’t exist quite readily. While we tend to value the idea of fairness, we often do very little to ensure it exists in practice.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 93 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.