Ethics' come in 3 categories:
- Duty-ethics: Here is what you must do, must not do.
- Value-ethics: Do whatever it takes to accomplish this web of goals.
- Virtue ethics: Be this kind of person...with your actions creating the self.
Furthermore...as per a post earlier in the month (about Boudreaux's podcast)...I find that all interesting ethical theories are rule-based, not act-based. So...even consequentialist theories do not ask you to judge the ultimate effects of your particular action, but rather all actions in the category of actions like yours...and act towards the best rule, not the best specifics.
I personally find virtue ethics the most compelling (and solipsistic) of the ethical theories. The goal is self-perfection...what kind of person do you want to build yourself into? In short...an admirable person. What kind of person is admirable? Well...that's the hard part.
- observe what is admirable to others.
- observe what is admirable to the self.
Posts
5 comments:
So in short, your ethic system is just to be admirable, i.e. cool?
And your epistemology comes from "what should I believe in order to be cool?
Obama is widely admired, so is he a good person?
Chaves is widely admired in his country, is he a good person?
Gaddhafi (RIP) was widely admired among his tribe. Was he a good person?
Spandrell,
My ethics and epistemology FIRST rest on the notion that there are NOT any good answers to most of the questions. Any serious study of the topic results in a mishmash of incoherence.
There are 3 standard answers in philosophy to the ethics question:
"What to do"
1. What makes ME an admirable person.
2. What results in positive outcomes.
3. What I am obligated to do.
3 is highly unimpressive to me, and 2 is lower precedence than 1.
But the core issues are that you don't have any more choices (pick one or more of the three)...and there are NO justifications for anything "above".
David Schmidtz (referenced several times) points out that the mere fact of having goals among other entities (like me) creates a rather solid prudential ethics all by itself.
So...more complex by a lot.
So this whole analytical philosophy thing is all about figuring out things by oneself.
Cool with me. But it does seem a bit.. sad, as an end to 2600 years of philosophy.
Spandrell,
It's more that you can't justify from deductive reason ANY of the positions normally thought.
I've got another one coming.
To be fair, if all that 2600 years of philosophy gives us is that you have to work it out for yourself; then that is actually a significant advance over the previous position that whatever the man with the longest beard says is what you have to do.
(I say this as a man with a very short beard.)
Post a Comment