3 ms·

Question from a non-student of philosophy: Why do people use the term "ethical" as though there were a single agreed-upon "right" system of ethics? My underst

Question from a non-student of philosophy: Why do people use the term "ethical" as though there were a single agreed-upon "right" system of ethics? My understanding is that there are numerous concepts of right and wrong, some of which are very divisive. So i.e. there are people who would be widely detested for being "ethical" in unfashionable frameworks.

fasterik 3y ago
It depends on your beliefs about the status of ethics. Moral realists believe that there are independently true facts about ethics. So for a moral realist, if "X is ethical" is true, then people who believe "X is unethical" have a false belief. On the other hand, moral relativists believe that ethics is context- or culture-dependent. So for a moral relativist, "X is ethical" has no universal truth value, but must be judged in the context of a certain time, place, and set of cultural practices.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. All ethics assert a universal ethical framework. Moral relativism just offers a really complicated one.
  - fasterik 3y ago
    Maybe your objection works for a relativist who makes claims like "one ought to tolerate moral practices of other cultures". But I don't think all relativists are making that claim. Some are just rejecting any notion of objective moral truth.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. Except it doesn't. Moral relativism doesn't make any claims about the way one should behave. It's entirely consistent with a moral relativist point of view to oppose commonly accepted morality. Moral relativism merely asserts that there is no absolute arbiter of good and evil, no immutable arc of history towards freedom, no inalienable right. Everything is a matter of opinion and consensus, and consensus is always fluid.
adasdasdas 3y ago
Most people have incoherent answers to any question of right and wrong. Philosophers like to overcomplicate things and throw buzzwords too. I think it's a very difficult conversation full of emotional traps and personal biases. Once upon a time, we all shared the same moral foundation (religion) and did not have this problem.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  We were "all" wrong, but at least we agreed! (Of course it wasn't really "all" , either within one community or between communities. People in power were just better about killing the weak people were just better about silencing people who disagreed.)
  - adasdasdas 3y ago
    But I didn't say whether this was a good thing or a bad thing. In fact, I'm happy with some heterogeneity in our values, but I feel like you jumping the gun kind of proves my earlier point.

fasterik 3y ago

It depends on your beliefs about the status of ethics. Moral realists believe that there are independently true facts about ethics. So for a moral realist, if "X is ethical" is true, then people who believe "X is unethical" have a false belief. On the other hand, moral relativists believe that ethics is context- or culture-dependent. So for a moral relativist, "X is ethical" has no universal truth value, but must be judged in the context of a certain time, place, and set of cultural practices.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. All ethics assert a universal ethical framework. Moral relativism just offers a really complicated one.
- fasterik 3y ago
  Maybe your objection works for a relativist who makes claims like "one ought to tolerate moral practices of other cultures". But I don't think all relativists are making that claim. Some are just rejecting any notion of objective moral truth.
- krapp 3y ago
  >Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. Except it doesn't. Moral relativism doesn't make any claims about the way one should behave. It's entirely consistent with a moral relativist point of view to oppose commonly accepted morality. Moral relativism merely asserts that there is no absolute arbiter of good and evil, no immutable arc of history towards freedom, no inalienable right. Everything is a matter of opinion and consensus, and consensus is always fluid.

adasdasdas 3y ago

Most people have incoherent answers to any question of right and wrong. Philosophers like to overcomplicate things and throw buzzwords too. I think it's a very difficult conversation full of emotional traps and personal biases. Once upon a time, we all shared the same moral foundation (religion) and did not have this problem.

hgsgm 3y ago
We were "all" wrong, but at least we agreed! (Of course it wasn't really "all" , either within one community or between communities. People in power were just better about killing the weak people were just better about silencing people who disagreed.)
- adasdasdas 3y ago
  But I didn't say whether this was a good thing or a bad thing. In fact, I'm happy with some heterogeneity in our values, but I feel like you jumping the gun kind of proves my earlier point.