4 ms·
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 f
by woodandsteel 10y ago
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 10y ago> 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 10y agoWell, 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 10y agoI 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 10y agoYou'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.