Ethical theories starts with ethical experiences
Image Source
There could be a method for doing moral philosophy that began from the manners by which we experience our ethical life. Such a philosophy would consider what we accept and feel. The manners by which we stand up to commitments and perceive duty, the sentiments of blame and disgrace. It would include a phenomenology of the ethical life.
This could be a decent philosophy, yet it is probably not going to yield an ethical theory. Ethical speculations, with their anxiety for tests, tend to begin from only one part of ethical experience which is beliefs. The common comprehension of an ethical theory takes it as a structure of propositions, which, similar to a scientific theory, gives a system to our beliefs, to a limited extent amends them.
Those underlying ethical beliefs are regularly brought in current philosophy as intuitions, however that term never again conveys the suggestions. Intuition used to be taken as a scholarly energy of landing at dynamic truths, and its application to ethics lay in the possibility that ethical truths could be gotten a handle on from the earlier by such a faculty.
Image Source
In utilizing the idea of intuition, philosophers all assumed that the manner by which we got a handle on those ethical truths was altogether similar to the manner by which we get a handle on mathematical and other vital truths. The ethical truths got a handle on by intuition could give a beginning stage to ethical theory, however not all devotees to intuition in actuality needed ethical theory, since intuition itself should give the test.
This model of intuition in ethics has been wrecked by a progression of pundits, and its vestiges that stay over the ground are not sufficiently great to welcome much history of the end result for it. The charges were that it neglected to clarify how an eternal truth could give a down to earth thought, and that it wasn't right in acclimatizing ethical truths to necessities.
If that important truths, for example, those of mathematics were apparently denied by witnesses from another culture, one would normally look in the primary occurrence for a superior interpreter, yet the circumstance with ethical beliefs isn't at all like that. The interest to intuition as a faculty clarified nothing. Say couldn't help suspecting that these truths were known, however there was no chance to get in which they were known.
Image Source
Intuition isn't quite a bit of a clarification when it is connected to what are fundamental truths, however with ethical beliefs it is more awful, for reasons that yet again need to do with social disagreement. Little as we think about it, we definitely know excessively about the clarification of ethical beliefs and their social contrasts to acknowledge a model that says there won't be any such clarification.
Intuitions, the beliefs which, when there should be a faculty, were as far as anyone knows given by it, are particularly part of the subject. These are unconstrained feelings, modestly intelligent however not yet speculated, about the response to some ethical inquiry. Intuitions don't need to be communicated in answers to inquiries concerning what to do. Some might be found in our ability to apply to some envisioned circumstance one of those more substantive ethical ideas, for example, those selecting ideals or kinds of activity.
Image Source
References:
Ethics and Experience: Life Beyond Moral Theory
Ethics
Moral Philosophy
I'll word my opinion on ethics like this:
My own thoughts are that out of all of these examples the following your gut simply cannot be considered morality at all. It's not a coherent system, it's not an approach to ethics. In fact, if you ask a child why the child stole the candy from another child and they claim "because I felt like it", who would consider this to be ethics at all?
The rule based deotologist could say stealing is wrong because God says so and because it's illegal. In other words God or law enforcement might think of them as an evil person or criminal.
The consequentialist could think it through and figure out stealing is wrong because to be labeled a thief is bad for reputation (may result in being treated negatively). In other words, other people might think of them as a bad person.
The virtue ethicist could determine stealing is wrong because they'd think of themselves as a bad person.
But a person who follows their instincts can do anything and feel pretty good about it. This behavior will lead many directly into prison, onto paths which lead to really dangerous situations and consequences. Why? Because if we look at what happens to truly impulsive people who do exactly what they feel like it then it's just not very good. Of course I have the consequence based perspective here in that I don't really focus so much on how I feel about me but more about the results of my actions or impact on others (and myself).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for this mindful.comment. What makes a person good or bad is the law. In the absence of such laws, there would be no basis whether the person is good or bad.
Whatever a person does, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody or make somebody's life miserable, he could be a good person. Who has the capacity to do good towards other people is a question of morality that lies within each personality.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Even if there were no laws there is still reputation and sentiment. So laws that are written (or unwritten) matter.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And that's where morality goes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I feel that intuition is a key ingredient to finding moral action in any given circumstance. Rules can provide some guidance as to what not to do according to previous examples or theory but each circumstance is unique and so to respond morally is a deeply creative act. Consequence based decision making is really a special case of rules based ethics, just more explicitly forward looking emphasizing the individual's own internal rule book. All rules have value because of their predictive powers.
I would see the progression of ethics as you've listed it, I like it, but would add the category of intuition as the highest - a type of return to implusiveness but transformed to a higher level.
Anyway, that's my current feeling about it. Enjoyed reading!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You're right. It still depend on the quality of the doer.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"I feel" is the first thing you said. I don't doubt that you feel. Living things tend to feel. I doubt that your feelings are mathematically correct and there is a difference.
You have this confused. There actually are no rules to consequence based decisions. It's simply do what you think will lead to the best consequences for whatever you care about. You can add rules if you find them useful, or you can be act utilitarian. It is all up to you.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Making a decision about best consequences derives from some model, hence rules. The distinction between what you 'think' and rules sounds curious. The way you phrase it sounds like you are reverting to feelings too. How can you do what you think without a model? And then you say that your goal is 'what you care about'. Not mathematical correctness after all. Amen to that!
That feelings do not have their own logic or consistency is a big call. And certainly ethics should consider the domain of feelings. Feelings must be one measure of the value of ethics, at least to most people.
But the main point that I was trying to make in relation to your view on impulsiveness was that ethics derives from a similar source. Impulsiveness could be characterised as responding to the uniqueness of a moment selfishly while in my view the highest ethics is responding to the uniqueness of a moment generously.
All rules have their origin in creative acts or intuitive insight. Rules help us recycle that creativity, whether the rules are given by others or whether we find them for ourselves. In my view the highest ethical response to a particular moment in all of its uniqueness is to intuitively create those 'rules' right there in the moment. Of course this is a goal that is difficult to achieve but it is nonetheless what we should strive for. I believe that intuitive insight motivated by an orientation towards generosity and complexity or growth is the natural result of healthy mind moving from impulsiveness, through rules and virtue to intuition.
I hear you say but mathematics! I would respond don't confuse the map for the territory or the model for the domain. Models allow us to abstract reality but reality they are not.
Anyway, I hope I made my own model clearer this time!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good point and I will clarify. Rules as in no constant unchanging rules because the rules are determined entirely by what the actor seeks as the desired outcome. So there may in fact be rules such as for how to value different outcomes, or how to choose between least bad, greatest good, or so on and so forth. But these rules aren't like deontology where it's divinely inspired, or where it's absolutism where thou shall not, no matter what the outcome is.
So the rules in this case aren't strict rules. As far as the model aspect goes, there is the mental model you have of how you think the world works. There is a trial and error or experimentation that takes place so you can find out what might happen, but you never can predict with a high degree of certainty what will happen. So while it is like math in the sense that people do try to predict outcomes and try to shape outcomes, it's not like science because predictions cannot be made in an accurate way like you can with for example particle physics.
Social science just isn't that accurate. Neither is psychology, or economics.
I would think it is more likely all actions are selfish. The person who is good to feel good about themselves is selfish. Their self esteem benefits by their actions.
The pleasure principle highlights the fact that animals seek pleasure and avoid pain. So of course feelings are considered in felicific calculus. The whole basis behind utilitarian ethics (which is based on consequentialism) is to produce the most happiness and least suffering. Why? because most animals like being happy and dislike suffering.
None of this is impulsive though. How can you know impulsively what would make you the most happy for the longest possible duration of your life? This is not easy to figure out. It takes many people a lot of years to figure that out.
As far as the question which I still don't know the answer to, whether ethics has a logical basis? It is very possible that it doesn't. I'm not sure mathematics has a logical basis either but it doesn't change the fact that mathematics is a language we can use to describe reality. I would say ethics is a field of mathematics whether or not it is based in logic.
Ethics allow us to describe social scenarios and calculate which decisions are better or worse based on what we value.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice idea. Love this
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit