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

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#31

Post by justin66 »

woodandsteel wrote: post #29
justin66 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think you understand how strong a claim you were making before, using phrases like "persuade all who are unethical" and "persuade sociopaths to become moral people."

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

Plato (probably didn't, but put that aside) used Alcibiades as a character in some dialogues. Does it go beyond that?

> 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

That is quite a different claim. It doesn't follow that such a set of principles will be somehow persuasive to all.

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#32

Post by imagist »

mcguire wrote: post #10
vivekd wrote: post #2

So the TLS's answer to the categorical imperative is "be as good as you can be I guess. . ." That has the same problems that they find in utilitarianism, only even more so. It is even more vague and even less calculable than they claim utalitarianism is. How good is a person capable of being? How do we find out how good an individual is capable of being? Are psychopaths given special allowances? What about people wit…

No, the authors seem to suggest, "be as good as the average person can be": " He excludes from the scope of ethical obligation not just the literally impossible, but also anything that is merely beyond the abilities of the normal person. Ethics cannot tell us to do what would require the impartiality of saints or the foresight of seers. " Superman is not ethically required to save the world from the giant meteor beca…

Wow, neither of you actually finished the article. Both of you are claiming the author believes viewpoints that the author presented in order to show problems with them.

Ultimately, the TLS didn't even claim a viewpoint. They merely presented a variety of opinions and critiqued them.

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#33

Post by imagist »

bleachedsleet wrote: post #4
vivekd wrote: post #2

So the TLS's answer to the categorical imperative is "be as good as you can be I guess. . ." That has the same problems that they find in utilitarianism, only even more so. It is even more vague and even less calculable than they claim utalitarianism is. How good is a person capable of being? How do we find out how good an individual is capable of being? Are psychopaths given special allowances? What about people wit…

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…

I'm not sure what basis you have for the implicit claim that we don't exist in "loose animalistic structures".

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#34

Post by imagist »

Quanttek wrote: post #8

THe author incorrectly assumes certain things about philosophy to argue for his position, which, as pointed out by others, is actually no improvement over utilitarianism etc. When he talks that philosophy never thought they are over intellectualizing ethics or making it too distant from the practical application, I have to assume he never heard of Strawson's critique or of phenomonology of ethics which both seem to t…

The author doesn't actually ever present an ethical system they believe: the article is a summary and critique of a variety of ethical systems.

Re: Philosophy vs. ethics

#35

Post by woodandsteel »

justin66 wrote: post #31
woodandsteel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think you understand how strong a claim you were making before, using phrases like "persuade all who are unethical" and "persuade sociopaths to become moral people." > Well, Plato tried to make Alcibiades into an ethical person. Plato (probably didn't, but put that aside) used Alcibiades as a character in some dialogues. Does it go beyond that? > Kant, for instance, argues we can't rely on our feelings so we…

You're right, I made too strong a claim.

However, I do think that many philosophers think that human psychology is by its nature ethically highly deficient, and the solution is philosophical argument. Take Plato and his allegory of the cave, for instance, or Kant's categorical imperative.

Post reply on HN