Simon Paynton

Davis wrote:
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 an…[Read more]

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

Are you saying they’re incompatible with each other?

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).

_Robert_ wrote:
It was mind-numbing

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

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.

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…[Read more]

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.

That’s true.

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

Autumn wrote:
It might be worth establishing what all parties mean by ‘moral philosophy’ here.

Both the article and myself are referring to the industry-standard of moral philosophy, which has the unnatural and unconvincing bases of utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics etc.

The problem they have is that each one of these approaches nee…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
Pick up a god damn book and read and spare us your monumental intellectual laziness.

I didn’t think you would be able to provide an example.  You’ve proved my point.

Here’s an example from my version of evolutionary ethics:  a person goes into a shop and buys something.  What morality comes into play?  1) reciprocity, when I exc…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
This is as meaningful as listening to a creationist who doesn´t know anything about evolution complain about evolution.

Can your moral philosophy tell anyone anything about how to live?  Really?  It can’t, because it doesn’t make sense and is not connected with reality.

I’m looking for a simple everyday example of how moral ph…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Moral philosophy is bogus, a mere substitute for God that licenses ugly emotions. Here are five reasons to reject it.

I think the author, Ronnie de Sousa, is complaining about moral philosophy rather than morality itself.  I agree with him.  Someone said that moral philosophy has become “a special way to be boring” a…[Read more]