3 ms·

I read what you wrote perfectly carefully. I was merely suggesting, with a small question or two; that: 1. Those of us who take a position like yours nonethe

I read what you wrote perfectly carefully. I was merely suggesting, with a small question or two; that: 1. Those of us who take a position like yours nonetheless manage to find themselves experiencing the answers to moral questions as right or wrong on a daily basis, notwithstanding all efforts to deny that they can be true or false, and 2. That in a complex world we often experience ourselves as called upon to make judgments about situations that our instincts don't track. And we don't tend to think that flipping a coin is an adequate way of doing so. Ultimately, even if you believe that propositions of right and wrong have no truth value---even if you believe "X is the right thing to do" just amounts to "yay X," thinking carefully about right and wrong is a felt human need, deeply embedded into our psychology as a species. And it's embedded in our social relations too, as we make claims of right and wrong, just and unjust, fair and unfair against one another every day and have done so since forever. And, sure, the root instincts for this are shared by all. But is it so absurd to think that maybe the same economic division of labor principles that generate gains from specialization in every other form of human activity, even those that might not have some foundational truth value, might also apply to ethics? Even if you really think that ethics are a form of art, only with aesthetic value (a view I don't endorse, just to be clear, but I'm taking an extreme view for sake of argument---I actually think moral claims do have truth value, but that's a whole other conversation)---while it's true that any of us can slap paint on a page, and any of us can recognize beauty, I am sure glad that the world contains people who specialize in painting.

crimsonalucard 8y ago
1. So? I make decision regardless I don't spend time developing a career around it to claim my answer is better because it isn't. 2. You don't think flipping a coin is adequate and I agree it's not adequate. The problem is, no one has the adequate way of solving the problem. It doesn't exist... the best we can do is as good as flipping a coin. To claim that god exists when we don't know whether he exists is the same instinctual human drive that lays the foundation for the need of an ethicist to come in and answer questions no human knows the answer to. I don't equate it to painting art. I equate it to fraud or delusion. The artist makes no claim that his creation is real, he exists for entertainment. The incredulous attempt to claim that an ethicists answer is better than a layman is fraudulent. You truly think an ethicist can tell me the right answer to whether you want to murder the fat man to save 20 people? To make a judgment on murder and killing and claim that his answer is better than my answer when no answer exists is not only arrogant but flat out wrong. Nobody wants to flip a coin on moral decisions such as murder and life. But sometimes for hard ethical questions that's the best outcome. And for someone to claim that they can do better than a coin flip. Well... that's fraud or delusion. The need for answers causes humanity to make up answers. It's the basis of religion, and only in recent times does the discovery of science, logic and the scientific method are we able to break from this mold and realize our self delusion. Yet this knowledge is hard to obtain and self delusion still permeates our behavior. You're right in the sense that there will probably always be people who think they "need" ethicists just like there will always be people who "need" religion. It's just another lie we tell ourselves to get us through the day.

crimsonalucard 8y ago

1. So? I make decision regardless I don't spend time developing a career around it to claim my answer is better because it isn't. 2. You don't think flipping a coin is adequate and I agree it's not adequate. The problem is, no one has the adequate way of solving the problem. It doesn't exist... the best we can do is as good as flipping a coin. To claim that god exists when we don't know whether he exists is the same instinctual human drive that lays the foundation for the need of an ethicist to come in and answer questions no human knows the answer to. I don't equate it to painting art. I equate it to fraud or delusion. The artist makes no claim that his creation is real, he exists for entertainment. The incredulous attempt to claim that an ethicists answer is better than a layman is fraudulent. You truly think an ethicist can tell me the right answer to whether you want to murder the fat man to save 20 people? To make a judgment on murder and killing and claim that his answer is better than my answer when no answer exists is not only arrogant but flat out wrong. Nobody wants to flip a coin on moral decisions such as murder and life. But sometimes for hard ethical questions that's the best outcome. And for someone to claim that they can do better than a coin flip. Well... that's fraud or delusion. The need for answers causes humanity to make up answers. It's the basis of religion, and only in recent times does the discovery of science, logic and the scientific method are we able to break from this mold and realize our self delusion. Yet this knowledge is hard to obtain and self delusion still permeates our behavior. You're right in the sense that there will probably always be people who think they "need" ethicists just like there will always be people who "need" religion. It's just another lie we tell ourselves to get us through the day.