/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10925188]

Do books on ethics actually tell us anything we don't instinctively know regarding morality?

Let me explain. There's a supposed distinction between prescriptive ethics ("how should people act?") and descriptive ethics ("how do people think they should act?").

Now take a book on prescriptive ethics, like Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. Notice that when someone tries to make an argument against Kant's system, they would very likely try to apply it to a real-life scenario and show an absurd conclusion (the well-known counter-example is lying to a murderer to save your life). The point here is that we use our instinctual morality to determine whether an ethical framework works or not.

Nobody actually turns to philosophical works to decide whether they should or shouldn't do something. He knows that he should or shouldn't, and uses that belief to verify the validity of the work.

Hence, all ethics is really descriptive, because if intuitively something doesn't feel right, regardless of how logical it might be, nobody will take the system seriously.

The question is, then, what's the point of ethics as a branch of philosophy if we're all just relying on our built-in moral compass to operate in the world?

[Anonymous No.10925220]

>people instinctively understand morality and ethics
When was the last time you interacted with a human being?

[Anonymous No.10925226]

>>10925220
Whether they act in a certain way has no reflection on whether they believe they're acting in the right way.

People know they shouldn't steal, but they still do. Not at all surprising - reading ethics isn't going to make you a good person.

[Anonymous No.10925229]

As you said, the point of prescriptive ethics is to figure out how people should act. Even if nobody acted as they really should and just went off their intuition this does not diminish prescriptive ethics one bit. Also, I don't buy into the idea that we should appeal to our intuition to determine if an ethical system works or not. It is true that many people do that as you pointed out but that doesn't mean its the appropriate approach to take. Also, if there is in fact a true prescriptive ethics system it would still be true whether or not people acted it out so idk why you are somehow coming to the conclusion that all ethics is descriptive if no one takes prescriptive systems seriously.

[Anonymous No.10925235]

>>10925188
There's people who ask themselves "How should I act?"
Ethic and moral philosophy try to answer that question

[Anonymous No.10925236]

>>10925226
You didn't answer my question

[Anonymous No.10925237]

>>10925226
Stop peddling intuitionist bullshit please. People have different intuitions.

[Anonymous No.10925249]

The only thing I got from ethics is how we should get our morals or act them out.

For example, Stirner telling me to give a middle finger to everybody else or Plato telling me not to do evil even if I might be harmed by it.

Saying stuff like "stealing is wrong" is the status quo understanding, explaining why I think it is wrong is interesting, proposing other ways of moralizing is interesting.

[Anonymous No.10925263]

>>10925229
>Also, I don't buy into the idea that we should appeal to our intuition to determine if an ethical system works or not
What can we use to judge it then, other than whether the consequences make sense or not?

[Anonymous No.10925274]

>>10925237
>People have different intuitions
Exactly, which is why people adhere to different ideologies (moral, political, economical etc.)

This actually reinforces my point - the systems of ethics are basically just one person's intuitions, and the followers of the systems are those who agree with it.

[Anonymous No.10925284]

>>10925235
Thanks for this wonderfully insightful post but that doesn't answer the question of HOW someone can answer that question other than using their own intuitions, which renders the whole exercise pointless because if we're just using intuitions then we don't need to answer the question explicitly.

[Anonymous No.10925297]

>>10925274
respond to this >>10925229 because I was using the term intuitionist as its used philosophically. I didn't just mean "prescriptive ethics is real because people have different intuitions" like you seem to have understood me

[Anonymous No.10925314]

>>10925263
logic, reasoning, thought, etc. the intuitionist position is based on a noncoginitivist conception of ethics which is total bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10925315]

>>10925297
>>10925229
>Even if nobody acted as they really should and just went off their intuition this does not diminish prescriptive ethics one bit

Let's ignore how people behave in real life for a moment and focus on principles. Take the Golden Rule. You might agree

[Anonymous No.10925323]

>>10925315
I don't agree with the golden rule

[Anonymous No.10925362]

>>10925188
a descriptive argument can interact with a prescriptive argument, they don’t have to be the same type of morality. For example, I may decide not to flip the switch in the trolley problem after reading a book that explains what I “should” do

[Anonymous No.10925374]

>>10925229
>>10925297

(Accidentally hit submit before finishing the post. Trying again.)

>Even if nobody acted as they really should and just went off their intuition this does not diminish prescriptive ethics one bit
Let's ignore how people behave in real life for a moment and focus on principles. Take the Golden Rule. You might agree with the rule and not act in accordance with it, but that's irrelevant if you agree with it in principle. So you're right, actions do not diminish rules - the rules could still be something we strive for but not achieve.

If nobody, however, actually thought the Golden Rule was a good principle to live by, it would have failed as a system of prescriptive ethics. How can a principle be right when nobody thinks we should live by it? This is my point, if nobody takes prescriptive ethics seriously because intuitively it makes no sense, then how can you possibly consider it worthwhile?

Let's take some examples. If you explain utilitarianism to someone and they come up with a situation where a utilitarian doctrine would lead to a ridiculous outcome, it would be very hard to convince them that utility is a useful metric. Just because something looks good on paper is irrelevant if nobody buys it.

[Anonymous No.10925384]

>>10925249
>Plato telling me not to do evil even if I might be harmed by it.
Where did you get that impression? Pursuing the good is always good. Also Plato thinks we never willingly do evil, only mistakenly pursue what we wrongly think is good.

[Anonymous No.10925418]

>>10925374
>If nobody, however, actually thought the Golden Rule was a good principle to live by, it would have failed as a system of prescriptive ethics.
No, it would not have failed. The only way it could fail is if it was false. The system which answers the question "what ought people do" does not fail if no one does it because doing what you ought to do is entirely separate.
>How can a principle be right when nobody thinks we should live by it?
If its right then what people think about it doesn't change that.
>This is my point, if nobody takes prescriptive ethics seriously because intuitively it makes no sense, then how can you possibly consider it worthwhile?
Because what makes a prescriptive ethics system "worthwhile" is if it is true. A true system is true whether or not people believe it. What your intuitions say about things have no bearing on whether or not the thing is true or false.

[Anonymous No.10925424]

>>10925418
>No, it would not have failed. The only way it could fail is if it was false. The system which answers the question "what ought people do" does not fail if no one does it because doing what you ought to do is entirely separate.
I didn't say this. Reread the sentence. I sad "if nobody thought it was a good principle", not "if nobody lived by it".

[Anonymous No.10925435]

>>10925424
the rest of the quote says "to live by" you fucking slimy piece of shit

[Anonymous No.10925440]

>>10925418
>No, it would not have failed. The only way it could fail is if it was false. The system which answers the question "what ought people do" does not fail if no one does it because doing what you ought to do is entirely separate.
>If its right then what people think about it doesn't change that.
>Because what makes a prescriptive ethics system "worthwhile" is if it is true. A true system is true whether or not people believe it. What your intuitions say about things have no bearing on whether or not the thing is true or false.

Okay all three of these statements are essentially saying "a system is right if it is right". This is a tautology and you're not actually saying anything. Who could judge the veracity of something as subjective as morality?

[Anonymous No.10925446]

>>10925384
I got it from Gorgias I think

Anyways it doesn't matter where the idea of "Don't do anything evil even if it might kill you" comes from.

It's an idea that is rarely talked about, rarely argued for, that's why it's valuable.

[Anonymous No.10925456]

>>10925440
>Who could judge the veracity of something as subjective as morality?
stop trying to pass off your own view as a defining feature of morality. we've been discussing an objective moral system in this thread (kant's ethics) so no shit I've been saying that if his system is true it would be true whether or not other's believed him.

and no, I wasn't just saying a tautology in my post. I was disagreeing with you on the question of what makes a prescriptive moral system worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.10925501]

>Nobody actually turns to philosophical works to decide whether they should or shouldn't do something. He knows that he should or shouldn't
they're called codes of conduct

[Anonymous No.10925585]

>>10925456
If Pythagoras' theorem is correct it would remain correct whether or not people believed it.

Unfortunately, ethics is not mathematics. I'm not saying that we should judge ethics democratically, but it's a bit ridiculous to accuse me of using my opinions as a defining feature when it's all I have to go by.

Let me quote Mill:

>There exists no moral system under which there do not arise unequivocal cases of conflicting obligation ... They are overcome practically, with greater or with less success, according to the intellect and virtue of the individual

Even he agrees that moral systems always have exceptions, and it is up to the agent to act in accordance to them only when it makes sense. Every moral philosopher would concede that we should not blindly follow rules, but to use our own conscience.

[Anonymous No.10925624]

>>10925284
There's a whole field called metaethics that talks about this
>which renders the whole exercise pointless
This is beyond retarded. Even if we agree that a truth can never be achieved (which is a premise on your part more than anything) you cannot deny that this exercise has practical effects. A simple example would be self driving cars.

[Anonymous No.10925625]

>>10925585
You're trying to make the case that no moral philosopher believes there is any moral system that has no exceptions yet that is exactly what Kant believed. Kant praised following moral law out of respect for the moral law, or what you called "blindly following rules"

[Anonymous No.10925629]

>>10925624
What are these practical effects? Everybody's using their own values when making decisions. Most people have never even read any ethics and ethics does not on a large scale alter traditions of culture, which are much more influential.

>self-driving cars
No.

[Anonymous No.10925641]

>>10925629
There's this thing called "Law". Also yes, self driving

[Anonymous No.10925643]

>>10925625
>Kant praised following moral law out of respect for the moral law
Well this is certainly convenient since he gets to follow his own maxim.

I could quite easily come up with my own treatise and act all smug because I live by it out of respect for it LMAO

[Anonymous No.10925650]

>>10925641
*self driving cars or things like "should we give everybody universal healtcare?" "should NEETs be killed en mass"? And so on and so forth
>traditions of culture
which is greatly influenced by philosophy
our world is a product of the enlightement

[Anonymous No.10925651]

>>10925641
Legal precedent is created largely through democratic practices. Also no, writing academic papers on the ethics of self-driving cars will not stop Google from manufacturing them.

[Anonymous No.10925654]

>>10925643
you're just being intellectually dishonest now, done chatting with you. you said every moral philosopher agrees with x and I pointed out a major moral philosopher who disagrees with x and you just act as if that didn't prove you wrong.

[Anonymous No.10925658]

>>10925654
Fair enough, I didn't mean it that way, I just found it funny that he viewed himself as virtuous for following his own dogma. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.10925683]

>built-in moral compass
Lol what

[Anonymous No.10925692]

>>10925284
Same reason why you'd ask a friend for advice.

[Anonymous No.10925701]

>>10925188
There is only one universal moral rule and it is the NAP

[Anonymous No.10925751]

>>10925188
>The question is, then, what's the point of ethics as a branch of philosophy if we're all just relying on our built-in moral compass to operate in the world?
Because people have varying intuitions which lead to disagreement. The point of ethics is to resolve that disagreement found in people.

[Anonymous No.10925766]

>>10925284
The institution of philosophy is, at least it's supposed to be, an institution that encompasses all others, since it is focused on the observation and analysis of all life which includes all institutions within it.

[Anonymous No.10926399]

Aren't arguments like the trolley problem or "lying to a murderer" appealing to intrinsic contradictions or limitations of the system rather than being "here's an intuitively wrong conclusion of your system" though?

[Motoko No.10926418]

according to kant all morality is already known a priori

the etical dilemmas that arise from his moral philosophy stem from the difficulty to articulate intuitions, i dont think kant would say you should tell the axe killer the truth, he wrote an essay about it and he only rebels against the claim that lying is permitted in this case

omission is possible

[Anonymous No.10926463]

>>10926418
>stem from the difficulty to articulate intuitions
Where does he say this? I agree 100%. Our intuitions are complex and can't be summarised in a few maxims.

I do think, however, that it's kind of a cop-out to say omission is the solution.

[Motoko No.10926474]

>>10926463
he never says this, but its a direct consequence of his system, there are moral truths and they are a priori meaning everyone already understands them, any confusions or dilemmas then can be reduced to misunderstandings or failing to bridge the gap between articulated knowledge and intuitive knowledge, kant calls these "dark concepts" or something

anyway, what i mean is the case isnt clear when we discuss an issue like the axe killer thought experiment, i dont think that according to kants system telling him the truth is required, merely lying is not allowed

[Anonymous No.10926487]

>>10925274
Yeah cause philosophical reflection is just a derivative of instinctual being.

[Anonymous No.10926565]

>>10926474
and to be fair "you don't lie to him you just tell him to fuck off" seems like a strong intuition to me, in the context of the thought problem