4 ms·

No, it's generally agreed upon in academia that ethics is an a priori science like math. I don't know about law but it sounds plausible.

TimPC 4y ago
No it’s not. There are two major schools of ethics, deontology and utilitarianism. The later is about maximizing happiness and doesn’t believe that people have unalienable rights. So we can’t agree on the concept of rights at all never mind an enumerated list.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Sorry, seems like you're either in over your head here or misunderstood what I said. Both deontology, utilitarianism and all other major schools of ethics* are justified a priori. This is common, introductory, knowledge in philosophy. Virtually nobody considers ethics an empirical science. That being said, descriptive and experimental ethics have made tiny inroads very recently. * It doesn't really work like that today anyway; it's a decision tree of "schools."
dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
I do not know ethics, nor any branch of philosophy (as my below comments show, the issue I could discuss was the "law" part). However, what I have never understood is how does the a priori science of ethics map onto real life, where morality is borne out of emotions and instinctual human social conditioning. I think it's rather obvious from observing young humans that they do not discover ethics from first principles, but some form of it is practically branded into their brain. They will recognize when somebody gets more than their fair share, and will become mad at this, for example. This is very different from mathematics in my mind.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  .
  - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
    That was an invitation for you to comment, not to be rude :P > What you're talking about has nothing to do with what philosophers do, which is talk about how things ought to be. How is that of any use? It's not like people are going to drop what they're doing and change their morals because ethics professors said so. That would be ridiculous. > Your metaethical position is just one among very many and there are arguments for and against it and all the others. It's not special. You can say that against anything, really.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > That was an invitation for you to comment, not to be rude :) I'm sorry, deleted my original comment. I totally misread you. > How is that of any use? It's not like people are going to drop what they're doing and change their morals because ethics professors said so. That would be ridiculous. Yeah, that's a question a lot of people have, but it does happen. People do read Aristotle and change their mind. People go to them with questions and they influence other academics. Overall, I'd say it's mostly not very successful and they're mostly ignored... > You can say that against anything, really. I meant to emphasize argumentation here, but also the lack of consensus. There's consensus in many fields, even in on many issues in philosophy.
      - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
        Hehe, fair enough. I was a bit ruder than normal too in my response. Thanks for the reply.

TimPC 4y ago

No it’s not. There are two major schools of ethics, deontology and utilitarianism. The later is about maximizing happiness and doesn’t believe that people have unalienable rights. So we can’t agree on the concept of rights at all never mind an enumerated list.

guerrilla 4y ago
Sorry, seems like you're either in over your head here or misunderstood what I said. Both deontology, utilitarianism and all other major schools of ethics* are justified a priori. This is common, introductory, knowledge in philosophy. Virtually nobody considers ethics an empirical science. That being said, descriptive and experimental ethics have made tiny inroads very recently. * It doesn't really work like that today anyway; it's a decision tree of "schools."

dj_mc_merlin 4y ago

I do not know ethics, nor any branch of philosophy (as my below comments show, the issue I could discuss was the "law" part). However, what I have never understood is how does the a priori science of ethics map onto real life, where morality is borne out of emotions and instinctual human social conditioning. I think it's rather obvious from observing young humans that they do not discover ethics from first principles, but some form of it is practically branded into their brain. They will recognize when somebody gets more than their fair share, and will become mad at this, for example. This is very different from mathematics in my mind.

guerrilla 4y ago
.
- dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
  That was an invitation for you to comment, not to be rude :P > What you're talking about has nothing to do with what philosophers do, which is talk about how things ought to be. How is that of any use? It's not like people are going to drop what they're doing and change their morals because ethics professors said so. That would be ridiculous. > Your metaethical position is just one among very many and there are arguments for and against it and all the others. It's not special. You can say that against anything, really.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > That was an invitation for you to comment, not to be rude :) I'm sorry, deleted my original comment. I totally misread you. > How is that of any use? It's not like people are going to drop what they're doing and change their morals because ethics professors said so. That would be ridiculous. Yeah, that's a question a lot of people have, but it does happen. People do read Aristotle and change their mind. People go to them with questions and they influence other academics. Overall, I'd say it's mostly not very successful and they're mostly ignored... > You can say that against anything, really. I meant to emphasize argumentation here, but also the lack of consensus. There's consensus in many fields, even in on many issues in philosophy.
    - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
      Hehe, fair enough. I was a bit ruder than normal too in my response. Thanks for the reply.