Brightsky
Forum Replies Created
-
Really Good points from unseen & Simon Payton.
Even public intellectuals like Sam Harris in his book ” the moral landscape” could not appreciate this concept. As he tried to argue for a scientific facts based (as you say) proofs to these types of moral questions. Which I don’t think is possible. In the way that you can find say proofs for example in science particle physics. Where you can find universal objective, publicly demonstrable Truth. Like the existence of electrons etc.
” what does it even mean to say that one ethical theory is more true than another one?” In the scientific sense.
I read some stuff by David Hume who has similar ideas as you guys his fact and value distinction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction?wprov=sfla1
I have read that are a variety of approaches in deontology.
Ranging from a Kantian absolutist one to more moderate approaches.
For example Kant famously wrote this.Better the whole people should perish,” than that injustice be done (Metaphysics of Morals Kant 1780)
Injustice= breaking a categorical imperative.
Absolutist conceptions of deontology ( Orthodox & inflexible in my opinion!)
You know the common known question,” if lying is always wrong. Then would you lie if Nazis came looking for Jewish children hidden in your house?”
An absolutist deontologist would tell the truth and let the Nazi take them.However in my opinion there are alternatives.
Moderate Deontology
Example here.
Sliding scale threshold deontology
is one moderate approach. For example in this case you will break the duty to tell the truth as saving lives is for you more important. But in other circumstances you would hold that duty of telling the truth.
- A person may even find it helpful to look at other moral frameworks.
- I guess you could develop pluralist thinking. One which considers; deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethical approaches. When thinking about this stuff.
- I read about some of these ideas from the University of Stanford website link below.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#WeaDeoThe - They have good references to journals & books at the bottom.
1) The first comment, sounds to me like what people do in real life situations. When they face a dilemma when two ethical principles clash. In that one tries to see which is more important.
I read something called a reflective equilibrium process Prof John Rawls uses this process to arrive at principles of Justice.
Another person Norman Daniels
Has a similar process to arrive at a ethical decision. ( The process is context specific so is unique for each dilemma)
(1) a set of considered moral judgments
(2) a set of moral principles
(3) a set of relevant (scientific and philosophical) background theories. To support your decision.
I think one good applied ethics model is the 4 ethical principles of biomedical ethics.
( non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy & Justice). Beauchamp et Childress.
In my opinion this kind of deliberate cognitive processes is one of the highest stages of personal moral development.
“Post- conventional moral” development (Kohlberg’s 5-6 stages of moral development)!
The Wikipedia page is below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_equilibrium?wprov=sfla1
Instead of relying on external sources of morality like God or other supernatural forces. Which have inflexible dogmatic rules.
The Atheist might rely instead on internal mental faculties. Such as reason! Which are flexible & context specific etc..
Think! Atheist?
