posted
I've been inspired to start this by the Jewish thread. I recently wrote a semi-essay on ethics. I call it "semi" because it's not academic in any way, though I'd like to work on it to become so. It mostly came into existence as a way to explore some thoughts that have been bouncing around my head recently in regards to ethics, particularly virtue ethics and epistemology.
It's a bit long (about 15 pages double spaced), so I'd rather not post it here. But I WOULD like to discuss some of the issues I raise in it. So if anyone would like to take some time to read it and have a conversation, please email me (email is in my profile) and I'll send it along. I'm looking for feedback before I dig back into it and try to expand on it anyway, and we certainly have a lot of people here who like to think about ethics. Again, it is not a final product, and I know there are places I may gloss over things, but I think it's a strong start for thinking through these issues, and a jumping off point for conversation.
Here's a rough outline of what I discuss:
1) An implicit discussion of deontology and whether the proper locus of evaluation of morality is actions. 2) A move over to utilitarianist principles and judging the consequences of an action. 3) An exploration of the deficiencies of utilitarianism. 4) A move towards virtue ethics and the idea that is people, not actions that are moral or immoral. 5) An exploration of what the purpose of a moral judgment is (what good is a label?), and a shift towards a future action oriented approach to morality as an interactive process of becoming moral. 6) An exploration of how this framework deals with issues of free will, responsibility, and the justice system. 7) An attempt to address moral skepticism is made, following a path of first justification for the virtues we hold, necessitating accounting for the goals we are working towards, and finally, the values that those goals stem from. 8) An exploration of the relationship between moral justification and the broader pursuit of justification for beliefs, epistemology...as well as some commentary on the is/ought gap. 9) An exploration of the scientific and biological basis for implicit or explicit values we hold. 10) Conclusion, bringing together a bunch of these ideas and how they relate to an internal process of moral self interest that encompasses non-selfish principles.
Anyway, let me know if you're interested!
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interested. And if we're moving that discussion over here, I'd like to start by reminding anyone who hasn't read the Baby Eating Aliens story to read it, unless they've already had the experience of extreme ethical vertigo from some other source.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always had a notion that neither people or actions are moral or immoral (unto themselves).
Take, for instance, the example of a man stealing bread to feed his family. From the offended party's perspective, this is an immoral (or evil) act. From the family's perspective, it is a moral (or good) act. From the man's perspective, it can be either, both, or none. What about the perspective of the community? The nation?
In the causal framework that I think in, every action can be judged with relation to self, another, family, community, nations, and the planet. A single action can have multiple positive and negative effects at any of these levels. A naturally good action would have only positive impacts at all levels and a naturally evil act would have only negative impacts. In most circumstances, neither will generally exist.
What about torturing prisoners (waterboarding, etc)? We supposedly did it for the "greater good", and at some levels we can try to make the ends justify the means. Ultimately, I like the idea presented in the Dresden Files novels: the good guys ALWAYS have to behave like good guys -- if they resort to the methods of the bad guys, they become the monsters as well.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my essay I get into some of the issues surrounding what you bring up (though not necessarily explicitly). I discuss the fact that actions just "are", and that creating a black and white picture of "good and bad" is over-simplistic. But also, that the very purpose and role of a moral judgment needs to be considered. What function does labeling the stealing of the bread, or the man who steals it, moral or immoral serve? What do we hope to accomplish from it? The exact nature of the role of the individual, family, community and society are certainly integral and need to be take into consideration, but I'm not sure that those considerations change the locus of where we evaluate morality.
The story that Raymond links to beautifully explores the notion of "perspective" that you're getting at.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Interested. And if we're moving that discussion over here, I'd like to start by reminding anyone who hasn't read the Baby Eating Aliens story to read it, unless they've already had the experience of extreme ethical vertigo from some other source.
I read it. Pretty horrifying.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Strider: I read it. It covered all the basis that an introductory paper should cover. I think the writing could be less verbose (something I struggle with myself). I'm also not sure who your target audience is. It reads like it's meant to be read by a professor, but you said it was basically for fun. If you're intending a layperson to read it and come away with a new interest and info on ethics, I think it should be less formal.
quote:I read it. Pretty horrifying.
Not sure what you mean by "horrifying." But my recommendation wasn't because you should learn a particular moral (I didn't, anyway). Just to emphasize how complicated the question of ethics is.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Raymond, to make it less formal I think it would have to be a lot longer. This would involve using less terminology, and thus more explication about the concepts. And using more examples to illustrate the points. All good ideas, but since I was mostly getting my ideas sorted out and constructed into a logical progression I ended up writing in the fashion I did.
You said you've been recently re-evaluating your ethics. What kind of stuff have you been thinking about? How did this fit into your re-evaluation?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
