5 ms·

Nice bit of literature reference there. The interesting thing about moral frameworks is there are so many to choose from. Throughout history we have been known

Nice bit of literature reference there. The interesting thing about moral frameworks is there are so many to choose from. Throughout history we have been known to send our sons and daughters to die in large numbers to first gain, and then protect, basic freedoms. And for other, less honourable, reasons as well... Returning back to science, a utilitarian could easily make the case that, if it is impossible to avoid, being cruel to bird for the sake of humanity may be a tradeoff worth making.

lkrubner 9y ago
"a utilitarian could easily make the case that" Are you making that argument? Your comment seems an extreme example of writing that uses the passive voice.
- jstanley 9y ago
  I think it's more interesting to honestly discuss the argument and its merits if one doesn't have to personally vouch for it upfront.
- noir-york 9y ago
  The moral framework used generally tends to determine where one falls on the major debates in ethics. As I happen to be aware of the different moral frameworks, I do not have the luxury of being beholden to an unexamined, implicitly "chosen" moral framework. Often times my internal debate is which framework is the most appropriate to evaluate the ethical question at hand. I am talking about hard ethical problems here like euthanasia, not the everyday things like lying, theft, etc. To answer your question, while in my personal life I take a more deontological (Kantian) moral approach, if I were in a policy making role I'd take the pragmatic, utilitarian road; that bird would be sacrificed if it really did help advance science. Ecce homo.
Area12 9y ago
So does morality/ethics boil down to numbers/metrics? I'm not being sarcastic; I don't know the answer myself ... and I'm not entirely sure that I would want to "know". Humans have gained great powers of number calculation, but I suspect that our greatest power and obsession has always been story-telling. We tell stories to each other and ourselves, and those stories form the basis of our ethics and morality. Which is why I think utilitarianism always feels cold and unsatisfying; it doesn't play well as a story.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  > So does morality/ethics boil down to numbers/metrics? The field of ethics essentially considers how to build and analyse arguments. Ethics generally does not make decisions; and it's not a flowchart you can follow to get a yes/no answer, either. People often use the world "unethical" as-if it is a proper adjective, meanwhile it actually refers to themselves having concluded that the act/object is not ethical within their reasoning; it's not an actual property of an act or object. Much like broad philosophy, it's a language for expressing thoughts. It doesn't think for you. Or, if you like, mathematics is a language for expressing some other thoughts. Mathematics doesn't solve problems for you, or prevents you from writing 3+1=5.
- JamesLeonis 9y ago
  There is a distinction between Ethics and Morals. Morals are the things you value, like liberty and happiness. Ethics are decision-making systems that you configure with morals. They are designed to aid you in situations where two or more of your morals/values are in conflict. Before talking about Utilitarianism, we first must talk about it's parent Consequentialism. The basics are this; Consequentialists state that the outcomes of an ethical decision should leave the outcome in a superior moral position. This is opposite of such systems like Kantian Virtue Ethics that state a more a priori value on the decision, even if the outcome is negatively affected. Honor might be a Virtue Ethic, since you would always act honorably even if the situation makes that a bad course of action. Utilitarianism is a balance point between two Consequentialist children: Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism. Both (respectively) examine the outcome based on the individual making the decision, and the rest of the situation outside of the individual. Combining both Utilitarianists examine the outcomes of both the individual and the surrounding environment when determining which course of action to take. tl;dr: Ethics are amoral systems of decision making that tell you where and how to apply your morals.
  - tisdy 9y ago
    > Morals are the things you value, like liberty and happiness I disagree, the conventional and I think the more widely understood meaning of 'morals' would be 'principles' or 'standards of right and wrong'. I think the term 'values' would do just fine.

lkrubner 9y ago

"a utilitarian could easily make the case that" Are you making that argument? Your comment seems an extreme example of writing that uses the passive voice.

jstanley 9y ago
I think it's more interesting to honestly discuss the argument and its merits if one doesn't have to personally vouch for it upfront.
noir-york 9y ago
The moral framework used generally tends to determine where one falls on the major debates in ethics. As I happen to be aware of the different moral frameworks, I do not have the luxury of being beholden to an unexamined, implicitly "chosen" moral framework. Often times my internal debate is which framework is the most appropriate to evaluate the ethical question at hand. I am talking about hard ethical problems here like euthanasia, not the everyday things like lying, theft, etc. To answer your question, while in my personal life I take a more deontological (Kantian) moral approach, if I were in a policy making role I'd take the pragmatic, utilitarian road; that bird would be sacrificed if it really did help advance science. Ecce homo.

Area12 9y ago

So does morality/ethics boil down to numbers/metrics? I'm not being sarcastic; I don't know the answer myself ... and I'm not entirely sure that I would want to "know". Humans have gained great powers of number calculation, but I suspect that our greatest power and obsession has always been story-telling. We tell stories to each other and ourselves, and those stories form the basis of our ethics and morality. Which is why I think utilitarianism always feels cold and unsatisfying; it doesn't play well as a story.

blattimwind 9y ago
> So does morality/ethics boil down to numbers/metrics? The field of ethics essentially considers how to build and analyse arguments. Ethics generally does not make decisions; and it's not a flowchart you can follow to get a yes/no answer, either. People often use the world "unethical" as-if it is a proper adjective, meanwhile it actually refers to themselves having concluded that the act/object is not ethical within their reasoning; it's not an actual property of an act or object. Much like broad philosophy, it's a language for expressing thoughts. It doesn't think for you. Or, if you like, mathematics is a language for expressing some other thoughts. Mathematics doesn't solve problems for you, or prevents you from writing 3+1=5.
JamesLeonis 9y ago
There is a distinction between Ethics and Morals. Morals are the things you value, like liberty and happiness. Ethics are decision-making systems that you configure with morals. They are designed to aid you in situations where two or more of your morals/values are in conflict. Before talking about Utilitarianism, we first must talk about it's parent Consequentialism. The basics are this; Consequentialists state that the outcomes of an ethical decision should leave the outcome in a superior moral position. This is opposite of such systems like Kantian Virtue Ethics that state a more a priori value on the decision, even if the outcome is negatively affected. Honor might be a Virtue Ethic, since you would always act honorably even if the situation makes that a bad course of action. Utilitarianism is a balance point between two Consequentialist children: Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism. Both (respectively) examine the outcome based on the individual making the decision, and the rest of the situation outside of the individual. Combining both Utilitarianists examine the outcomes of both the individual and the surrounding environment when determining which course of action to take. tl;dr: Ethics are amoral systems of decision making that tell you where and how to apply your morals.
- tisdy 9y ago
  > Morals are the things you value, like liberty and happiness I disagree, the conventional and I think the more widely understood meaning of 'morals' would be 'principles' or 'standards of right and wrong'. I think the term 'values' would do just fine.