
Philosophy vs. ethics - diodorus
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/philosophy-vs-ethics/
======
vivekd
So the TLS's answer to the categorical imperative is "be as good as you can be
I guess. . ." That has the same problems that they find in utilitarianism,
only even more so. It is even more vague and even less calculable than they
claim utalitarianism is. How good is a person capable of being? How do we find
out how good an individual is capable of being? Are psychopaths given special
allowances? What about people with very little self control?

If ethics is dependent on knowledge does that mean Aztec human sacrifices were
a morally great deed when performed by the Aztecs under a misconception that
the souls were going to heaven? What about Hitler's genocide under the
misconceived belief that he was creating a better and more peaceful Europe?

~~~
mcguire
No, the authors seem to suggest, "be as good as the average person can be":

" _He excludes from the scope of ethical obligation not just the literally
impossible, but also anything that is merely beyond the abilities of the
normal person. Ethics cannot tell us to do what would require the impartiality
of saints or the foresight of seers._ "

Superman is not ethically required to save the world from the giant meteor
because the average man could not. I, as a professional programmer, am not
required to make ethical choices when writing software because the average
person cannot write code at all.

~~~
true_religion
Your notion would also extend to saying "Superman is not ethnically required
to _not_ punch hole through that building killing everyone inside, it because
the average person cannot punch that hard".

It's is as if the claim is someone shouldn't avoid doing harm that their above
average abilities offer them?

The authors seems to be saying something dissimilar to that: people should't
not be require to do _more_ than average person, even if they have the
capability to do so.

Programmers shouldn't be required to perform code for charity for their
friends and family. Doctors shouldn't be required to save lifes.

------
Quanttek
THe author incorrectly assumes certain things about philosophy to argue for
his position, which, as pointed out by others, is actually no improvement over
utilitarianism etc.

When he talks that philosophy never thought they are over intellectualizing
ethics or making it too distant from the practical application, I have to
assume he never heard of Strawson's critique or of phenomonology of ethics
which both seem to tackle it.

~~~
imagist
The author doesn't actually ever present an ethical system they believe: the
article is a summary and critique of a variety of ethical systems.

------
woodandsteel
Philosophical discussion of ethics often seems to assume that we can take up
some point outside it, and erect or discover a set of ideas that will build it
up from nothing, and persuade all who are unethical.

Actually almost all of us are always already operating within an elaborate set
of ethical beliefs, and there is no way we can escape believing them. What we
instead do is try to improve them. It is somewhat like our perception of the
physical world, from birth we perceive and believe in it, and through thought
and experiences we expand and correct our cognition of it.

Ethics, though, has an exception in that there are some people, sociopaths,
who lack this aspect of human experience. Philosophers often think they can
construct a set of arguments that will persuade sociopaths to become moral
people, but this is not possible.

~~~
justin66
> Philosophers often think they can construct a set of arguments that will
> persuade sociopaths to become moral people

Do you have an example or two of this? (I bet you don't)

~~~
woodandsteel
Well, Plato tried to make Alcibiades into an ethical person.

The basic assumption behind much ethical philosopher is that human beings are
naturally amoral and so they need to persuaded by a set of ironclad arguments
as to what is good and that they should be good. Kant, for instance, argues we
can't rely on our feelings so we need to have a set of absolutely clear moral
principles to follow. Bernard Williams became famous for arguing this is not
the case.

~~~
justin66
I don't think you understand how strong a claim you were making before, using
phrases like "persuade all who are unethical" and "persuade sociopaths to
become moral people."

> Well, Plato tried to make Alcibiades into an ethical person.

Plato (probably didn't, but put that aside) used Alcibiades as a character in
some dialogues. Does it go beyond that?

> Kant, for instance, argues we can't rely on our feelings so we need to have
> a set of absolutely clear moral principles to follow

That is quite a different claim. It doesn't follow that such a set of
principles will be somehow persuasive to all.

~~~
woodandsteel
You're right, I made too strong a claim.

However, I do think that many philosophers think that human psychology is by
its nature ethically highly deficient, and the solution is philosophical
argument. Take Plato and his allegory of the cave, for instance, or Kant's
categorical imperative.

------
bleachedsleet
It seems to me the author incorrectly assumes morality is the same as ethics.
Morality is more individualistic whereas ethics are externally imposed rules
from which one _may_ derive their morality. A Biblical absolutist for instance
uses the ethics of the Bible as a foundation for their moral code, but that
still does not determine that one will lead to the other. As a society it may
indeed behoove us to follow an ethical structure such as utilitarianism (an
argument I have made specifically for democracies in the past) but the
personal morality of the individuals within that society may vary greatly.

~~~
woodruffw
In ethical theory/moral philosophy, ethics and morality _are_ the same thing.
Both are concerned chiefly with two questions: what we _ought_ to do given
what _is_ (unless you're Hume), and whether what _has been done_ is good (or
just, or right).

~~~
bleachedsleet
I'd be honestly interested to know why you believe they are considered the
same in the field of ethical philosophy. Throughout my education toward a
degree in philosophy I was consistently taught they were very different. One
cannot confuse the terms in the study therein because of cause and effect:
ethics is the cause that leads to morals.

~~~
woodruffw
That's funny. I'm currently pursuing a degree in philosophy, and I was
consistently taught that they were the same. Most of my professors used them
interchangeably, with a slight preference for "ethics" when discussing theory.

I realize that my previous comment made it sound like I'm an authority on the
subject (I'm most definitely not), so please forgive me for being so brusque
in dismissing an alternative definition.

------
tomlock
I'd say that all questions of "good" are philosophically underpinned, so
ethics is always preceded by some philosophy, whether or not "philosophers"
are around or not.

The article already begins by proposing that since ethics appears early in the
life of a culture, without philosophers, their contribution of theory is
unnecessary. This claim already builds a theory of what constitutes "good"
contributions, which is a philosophical theory.

------
robobro
Next up: science vs physics

------
OliverJones
Ethics is a slippery slippery subject. Why? Everybody has a personal ethical,
or perhaps two stances.

Many possible stances are combinations of three basic sorts of ethics.

Deontological. Follow the laws handed to us. Don't kill, don't steal, don't
force people to incriminate themselves.

Utilitarian. Choose a path that yields the greatest good.

"Responsible". Choose a path that yields the greatest good, but excluding
one's own welfare. "Nobody has greater love than to lay down his own life for
his friends'" We make heroes of people who act on this stance.

When an abstract situation presents itself, most people I know go for the
utilitarian stance. How can I drive the bus with the failed brakes to kill the
fewest people? Fine. Big whoop.

But, when presented with a real situation, people gravitate to their deeper
stances. "Dad's not going to regain consciousness. Should we ask the hospital
to shut off the respirator?"

The deontological stance often says, "NO WAY! DAD DESERVES THE BEST CHANCE."
In Judeochristian terms, this is translated "choose life."

The utilitarian stance might say, "that respirator is expensive. Could those
resources be spent curing someone with a long life ahead of them?" Health
insurance companies are 100% utilitarian, and that often comes across as
offensively callous. It's not, really. It's just an ethical stance among many.

The "responsible" stance recognizes Dad's agency. It might try to ask what
course of action is kindest to Dad, even if it's frightening to his children.

Obviously there are lots of nuances in these real situations. No actual
situation comes out like a case study. In the work of practical ethics, it's
important to work with people to help them discover and express their own deep
ethical stances.

I said people have two stances, because peoples' stated, intellectual, stance
is often not quite the same as their deeply held, operational, practical,
stance. Both levels count, because people use their intellectual stances to
unpack and grapple with their deep stances. That unpacking is some of the
hardest work each of us will do in our lifetimes.

Is this all postmodernist relativist claptrap? Is it all age-of-uncertainty
hogwash that ignores core human values? To many who hold strong deontological
stances, the answer is yes. Can it justify genocide? Certainly not, because
genocide necessarily denies the agency -- the ability to act upon their own
stances -- of an entire group of people.

The philosophers of ethics do well when they help us tell the stories of our
own stances in ways that help us do the hard work of confronting our own deep
ethical stances when circumstances force us to do so.

~~~
rhizome
_Can it justify genocide? Certainly not, because genocide necessarily..._

I would venture that every single Current Era genocide has been deontological.

