Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philosophy vs. ethics

the-tls.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#21

Post by _yosefk »

lettergram wrote: post #5
bleachedsleet wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? External supernatural force? We are then met with the old questions of "which one" along with the problem of interpretation (do we take Levitical restrictions on beard trimming literally, f…

> But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? Thats actually why I argue objectivism as being aligning better with what's possible within the field of ethics. The whole idea is you can only morally do what you want, without intential…

One problem is defining what "intruding on others' happiness too much" means - it's not obvious how to derive from this principle the hours when making loud noises within city limits is OK, or what about necrophilia in public, or pollution, etc. Almost anything I do might make someone very unhappy and I'm not sure what philosophical principle can be used to distinguish cases where I should stop doing it from cases where I should be able to reply "toughski shitski."

Another problem is whether it's OK to require a thirsty person in a desert to give up all their assets in exchange for water, and whether it's OK for the thirsty person to knock you out and take the water in response; most people would side with the thirsty guy for what I think are very good reasons in terms of the practical implications while objectivists would not.

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#22

Post by lettergram »

_yosefk wrote: post #21
lettergram wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? Thats actually why I argue objectivism as being aligning better with what's possible within the field of ethics. The whole idea is you can only morally do what you want, without intential…

One problem is defining what "intruding on others' happiness too much" means - it's not obvious how to derive from this principle the hours when making loud noises within city limits is OK, or what about necrophilia in public, or pollution, etc. Almost anything I do might make someone very unhappy and I'm not sure what philosophical principle can be used to distinguish cases where I should stop doing it from cases wh…

To your first point, making someone unhappy isn't unethical. Making loud noise pretty much at all, is infringing on people's freedom. No one will bicker if you can't avoid the sound like starting a car, but if you play a loud TV it's unethical. Necrophilia is totally fine by this ethical standard, as it disgusting you is not infringing on your freedom (to say sleep, as the noise example). Pollution is a tough one, but trying to minimize it would be more ethical as it infringes on less people, etc.

To your other problem, I fully understand the practical implications. Knocking the guy out and stealing his water is pretty unethical. However, coming to equitable terms is fairly easy. More humans can think one step ahead and just gouging the guy for all his posetions means he won't help you in the future. Long term, that is bad for you, thus you'll likely not charge too outrageous

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#24

Post by skissane »

bleachedsleet wrote: post #3

It seems to me the author incorrectly assumes morality is the same as ethics. Morality is more individualistic whereas ethics are externally imposed rules from which one may derive their morality. A Biblical absolutist for instance uses the ethics of the Bible as a foundation for their moral code, but that still does not determine that one will lead to the other. As a society it may indeed behoove us to follow an eth…

A lot of people seem to think that "ethics" and "morals" mean something different–but those people who think this rarely seem to agree on what exactly the supposed difference is, nor have I ever seen anyone who thought this able to cite an authoritative source for their proposed distinction. The difference between "ethics" and "morals" is etymological – the first word comes from Greek, the second word comes from Latin. The traditional and historically well-established usage is that they are synonyms–most dictionaries and thesauruses treat them as such.

Part of the issue, I think, is the term "moral" often has religious/traditional/conservative connotations, whereas the word "ethical" often has more secular/progressive connotations. But, a difference in connotation does not require a difference in denotation. And many of the proposals to define these words differently rely on secularist assumptions, about a distinction between a "personal" or "private" and "public" sphere, which is a distinction which appeals to secular progressives but which many religious conservatives will question.

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#25

Post by dragonwriter »

bleachedsleet wrote: post #3

It seems to me the author incorrectly assumes morality is the same as ethics. Morality is more individualistic whereas ethics are externally imposed rules from which one may derive their morality. A Biblical absolutist for instance uses the ethics of the Bible as a foundation for their moral code, but that still does not determine that one will lead to the other. As a society it may indeed behoove us to follow an eth…

> It seems to me the author incorrectly assumes morality is the same as ethics.

Morality and ethics are the same thing, in general/philosophical sense ("ethics" has a specific meaning in a government/political sense which is distinct from morality -- or perhaps rather a specific subset of morality -- but that's clearly not relevant here.)

> Morality is more individualistic whereas ethics are externally imposed rules from which one may derive their morality.

This is a creative distinction, but not one that is generally held as the definition of either term.

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#27

Post by tomlock »

I'd say that all questions of "good" are philosophically underpinned, so ethics is always preceded by some philosophy, whether or not "philosophers" are around or not.

The article already begins by proposing that since ethics appears early in the life of a culture, without philosophers, their contribution of theory is unnecessary. This claim already builds a theory of what constitutes "good" contributions, which is a philosophical theory.

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#28

Post by _yosefk »

lettergram wrote: post #22
_yosefk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem is defining what "intruding on others' happiness too much" means - it's not obvious how to derive from this principle the hours when making loud noises within city limits is OK, or what about necrophilia in public, or pollution, etc. Almost anything I do might make someone very unhappy and I'm not sure what philosophical principle can be used to distinguish cases where I should stop doing it from cases wh…

To your first point, making someone unhappy isn't unethical. Making loud noise pretty much at all, is infringing on people's freedom. No one will bicker if you can't avoid the sound like starting a car, but if you play a loud TV it's unethical. Necrophilia is totally fine by this ethical standard, as it disgusting you is not infringing on your freedom (to say sleep, as the noise example). Pollution is a tough one, bu…

You might see logical consistency in the above; I see a bunch of things tied not by any logic but solely by the fact that a set of people agree with all these things.

For instance, why is making noises infringing on your freedom from noise, but the requirement of silence is not an infringement on your freedom to make noises? Freedom from noise and freedom to make noises are both "freedoms" and one comes at the expense of the other. What is the way to weigh their relative importance which is universally applicable to other cases and not rooted in culture or personal preference?

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#29

Post by woodandsteel »

justin66 wrote: post #19
woodandsteel wrote: post #7

Philosophical discussion of ethics often seems to assume that we can take up some point outside it, and erect or discover a set of ideas that will build it up from nothing, and persuade all who are unethical. Actually almost all of us are always already operating within an elaborate set of ethical beliefs, and there is no way we can escape believing them. What we instead do is try to improve them. It is somewhat like…

> Philosophers often think they can construct a set of arguments that will persuade sociopaths to become moral people Do you have an example or two of this? (I bet you don't)

Well, Plato tried to make Alcibiades into an ethical person.

The basic assumption behind much ethical philosopher is that human beings are naturally amoral and so they need to persuaded by a set of ironclad arguments as to what is good and that they should be good. Kant, for instance, argues we can't rely on our feelings so we need to have a set of absolutely clear moral principles to follow. Bernard Williams became famous for arguing this is not the case.

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#30

Post by woodandsteel »

woodruffw wrote: post #14
bleachedsleet wrote: post #3

It seems to me the author incorrectly assumes morality is the same as ethics. Morality is more individualistic whereas ethics are externally imposed rules from which one may derive their morality. A Biblical absolutist for instance uses the ethics of the Bible as a foundation for their moral code, but that still does not determine that one will lead to the other. As a society it may indeed behoove us to follow an eth…

In ethical theory/moral philosophy, ethics and morality are the same thing. Both are concerned chiefly with two questions: what we ought to do given what is (unless you're Hume), and whether what has been done is good (or just, or right).

My impression is the two terms are not exactly the same, with some vague differences in connotations, but a great deal of overlap, and often used interchangeably.

By the way, this is general problem in philosophy, as compared with other fields. Many standard terms are inexact in their meanings, and used differently by different philosophers. So for instance, some philosophers use the term ontology to mean the same thing as metaphysics, and others make a strong distinction between the two. Heidegger even switched his meanings between his early and later career.

Indeed, there isn't even a standard definition for the term philosophy itself.

Post reply on HN