Ethics IS a part of Philosophy ...

[2PhiloVoid]

As a former student of Philosophy at the university level, it has come to my attention that there are a few folks who don't realize that the field of Ethics is actually a branch of Philosophy.

This is a fact, and one that is readily seen within the curricular structures of just about any major university. An example of such is something like Medical Ethics which I took at the university. That class was classified as a philosophy class, not merely as an "ethics" class or a "medical" class. The same was the case with my Business Ethics class. It too was a form of philosophical study, not merely pertaining to the study of "business." There are also standard classes on Ethics which usually fall under the curricular designation of, again, Philosophy, not merely "Ethics and Morality."

So, what does this mean? It means that if and when we take up the mantle of moral inquiry, we're automatically entering into and DOING PHILOSOPHY, it just happens to be 'moral philosophy." It also means that we're automatically opened up to Epistemological and Metaphysical considerations which can, and often do, overlay and are, at times, instrumental within the very conceptual structures of whichever form of Ethics or Ethical systems we are considering or evaluating. These various branches of Philosophy have overlay with one another and are not wholly separate by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there anyone here on this forum who isn't aware that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy? If not, it's time to get educated about this fact.

It's time to get this straight because I see too many instances of various people implying and/or asserting that Ethics isn't Philosophy. This shouldn't be happening and this confusion needs to come to an end.

Comments and complaints or other unjustified counter-arguments may be posted below ...


Thank you for your time!

 

[Ligurian]

As a former student of Philosophy at the university level, it has come to my attention that there are a few folks who don't realize that the field of Ethics is actually a branch of Philosophy.

This is a fact, and one that is readily seen within the curricular structures of just about any major university. An example of such is something like Medical Ethics which I took at the university. That class was classified as a philosophy class, not merely as an "ethics" class or a "medical" class. The same was the case with my Business Ethics class. It too was a form of philosophical study, not merely pertaining to the study of "business." There are also standard classes on Ethics which usually fall under the curricular designation of, again, Philosophy, not merely "Ethics and Morality."

So, what does this mean? It means that if and when we take up the mantle of moral inquiry, we're automatically entering into and DOING PHILOSOPHY, it just happens to be 'moral philosophy." It also means that we're automatically opened up to Epistemological and Metaphysical considerations which can, and often do, overlay and are, at times, instrumental within the very conceptual structures of whichever form of Ethics or Ethical systems we are considering or evaluating. These various branches of Philosophy have overlay with one another and are not wholly separate by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there anyone here on this forum who isn't aware that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy? If not, it's time to get educated about this fact.

It's time to get this straight because I see too many instances of various people imply and/or assert that Ethics isn't Philosophy. This shouldn't be happening and this confusion needs to come to an end.

Comments and complaints or other unjustified counter-arguments may be posted below ...


Thank you for your time!

Agreed. But... good and bad seem to be abstract terms, these days.

"ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles."

Ethics | Definition, History, Examples, Types, Philosophy, & Facts

Ethics, the philosophical discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. Its subject consists of fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be...

www.britannica.com

Philosophy breaks down in the Greek as philo-sophia, the love of wisdom. Can't teach that on a Paul-based forum, IMO.
From what I've been reading, the Philosophers were (to all intents and purposes) teaching Greek theology, back in the day.
That's probably why this forum cancelled the Philosophy subforum...

 

[Ken-1122]

Is there anyone here on this forum who isn't aware that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy? If not, it's time to get educated about this fact.

Why does it matter?

 

[public hermit]

I didn't realize this was an issue, but there is a lot I don't realize. I think the classical approach was to build up from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics and then finally arriving at political philosophy or philosophy regarding the polis. That changed in the modern era when epistemology usurped the place of metaphysics. Gee, thanks, Descartes!

 

[Robban]

As a former student of Philosophy at the university level, it has come to my attention that there are a few folks who don't realize that the field of Ethics is actually a branch of Philosophy.

This is a fact, and one that is readily seen within the curricular structures of just about any major university. An example of such is something like Medical Ethics which I took at the university. That class was classified as a philosophy class, not merely as an "ethics" class or a "medical" class. The same was the case with my Business Ethics class. It too was a form of philosophical study, not merely pertaining to the study of "business." There are also standard classes on Ethics which usually fall under the curricular designation of, again, Philosophy, not merely "Ethics and Morality."

So, what does this mean? It means that if and when we take up the mantle of moral inquiry, we're automatically entering into and DOING PHILOSOPHY, it just happens to be 'moral philosophy." It also means that we're automatically opened up to Epistemological and Metaphysical considerations which can, and often do, overlay and are, at times, instrumental within the very conceptual structures of whichever form of Ethics or Ethical systems we are considering or evaluating. These various branches of Philosophy have overlay with one another and are not wholly separate by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there anyone here on this forum who isn't aware that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy? If not, it's time to get educated about this fact.

It's time to get this straight because I see too many instances of various people implying and/or asserting that Ethics isn't Philosophy. This shouldn't be happening and this confusion needs to come to an end.

Comments and complaints or other unjustified counter-arguments may be posted below ...


Thank you for your time!

Paul in Athens,
Gives the impression that Athens was the mecca for philosophers.

Acts of the Apostles 17:16-34

That is what comes to mind with me at least.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed. But... good and bad seem to be abstract terms, these days.

Yes, good and bad are often relativized these days, but I'm not concentrating on that since it's a separate topic. I just want to make the plain point that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy and that when we're doing Ethics, we're also doing what moral philosophers do, however intensively and from whatever angle of perspective we may do so.

That's all this thread is about.

"ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles."

Ethics | Definition, History, Examples, Types, Philosophy, & Facts

Ethics, the philosophical discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. Its subject consists of fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be...

www.britannica.com

Philosophy breaks down in the Greek as philo-sophia, the love of wisdom. Can't teach that on a Paul-based forum, IMO.
From what I've been reading, the Philosophers were (to all intents and purposes) teaching Greek theology, back in the day.
That's probably why this forum cancelled the Philosophy subforum...

I actually think we should be able to teach this on a Paul-based forum, IMO. I don't think Paul had anywhere near a wholistic disregard for philosophy; it's was what he was as humanistic philosophy rather than Christ-centered philosophy that he had a problem with.

So, even today, we should be able to talk about Ethics, recognize that it is a branch of shared philosophy, and discuss ethical and moral topics from different vantage points. Humanists will address Ethcs and morality from a Humanist vantage point: Christians will address the same topics, but from a Christian vantage point.

What we have in common as either Humanists or Christians is that we're all interesting in vetting out the nature of Ethics. It's just that we're all doing a form of philosophy when doing so. There are implications in this, and like threads in a spider-web, these conceptuals ties and overalys can't be cut without bringing down the whole enterprise. We need to see less of both Humanists and Christians thinking that they can even talk about Ethics and Morality in some kind of conceptual vaccum, somehow apart from the other branches of Philosophy. To do so is to be in a place void of justification. It's also a place void of any real influence or social sway.

On a practical level, this means for me that I will more or less ignore any person who tells me that I'm wrong if they can't demonstrate epistemological and/or metaphysical justification for why I should consider their Ethical and Moral evaluations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't realize this was an issue, but there is a lot I don't realize. I think the classical approach was to build up from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics and then finally arriving at political philosophy or philosophy regarding the polis. That changed in the modern era when epistemology usurped the place of metaphysics. Gee, thanks, Descartes!

That's one debate that is definitely out there. And I do so like Descartes "Discourse on Method."

However, this thread is really more or less about some of the reasons that Philosophy on the whole is dismissed and erroneously seen to be either irrelevant or corrupting. ... I just want various folks to be better aware that if they didn't realize it already, Ethics actually is a branch of Philosophy. For people to be counted as educated and show that they are without slipping into a kind of self-made solipsism, they'll need to acknowledge the fact that when we "do" Ethics and Morality, we're also inescapably doing Philosophy (whether we like that fact or not).

There are some people out there, PH, who don't seem to realize this. The funny part is that I think even Paul the Apostle realized that Ethics is a part of philosohy, but there's a large number of certain folks who don't think he did realize. Maybe it's because they've misinterpreted him.

Anyway, I already know that you do know, so I don't need to educate you. Lol!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why does it matter?

It matters to anyone who wants to be either: 1) morally influential in society, and/or 2) concerned about unnecessary censorship and the like.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paul in Athens,
Gives the impression that Athens was the mecca for philosophers.

Yes, at that time Athens was the philosophy central. But in this thread, we're not primarily focused on what philosophy was in Athens during the 1st century.

We're focused on how folks conceptualize the nature of Ethics and Morality but mistakenly think it's not philosophy here, in the Present World, 2023.

Acts of the Apostles 17:16-34

That is what comes to mind with me at least.

Yes, that is an excellent passage. It has always been one of my favorites to consider ...

 

[Ligurian]

I actually think we should be able to teach this on a Paul-based forum, IMO. I don't think Paul had anywhere near a wholistic disregard for philosophy; it's was what he was as humanistic philosophy rather than Christ-centered philosophy that he had a problem with.

So, even today, we should be able to talk about Ethics, recognize that it is a branch of shared philosophy, and discuss ethical and moral topics from different vantage points. Humanists will address Ethcs and morality from a Humanist vantage point: Christians will address the same topics, but from a Christian vantage point.

Paul probably would have been reading Plato and Aristotle et al, when he made that remark about empty philosophy... remember, he also said the Greeks seek wisdom... and mentioned what he calls the "unknown God"... which the Greeks actually called the "unnamed God"... aka, the First Cause.

The Jews called all other ethnic-religions "Pagan" or "Heathen", and the Greeks said much the same of them... hence, the hatred of Josephus against the Hellenes.

Maybe Philosophy has changed a lot since I took Philosophy 101, but I remember thinking that they were actually talking about The First Cause. You can't read Plato or anyone who ever read him and not know that Greek Theology is anything but Humanistic. Didn't they teach Plato in any of your Philosophy classes? Do they teach that the Greek Philosophers were Humanists? or is that only your idea?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paul probably would have been reading Plato and Aristotle et al, when he made that remark about empty philosophy... remember, he also said the Greeks seek wisdom... and mentioned what he calls the "unknown God"... which the Greeks actually called the "unnamed God"... aka, the First Cause.

It's possibe that Paul read Plato or Aristotle, but we can't really know for sure outside of speculation. So, I'm not one to make Paul out as an advocate of Philosophy in general. I think he was familiar with aspects of Greek thought and was at times indignant with the uses it was put by the Greeks, especially if it was used rhetorically to criticize Jewish faith in God and/or Christ. Still, I don't think Paul's insistence to be careful of the philosophy which was reigning at his time means that he thought it was all "bad" through and through. He just found his "first principles" in God and Christ.

The Jews called all other ethnic-religions "Pagan" or "Heathen", and the Greeks said much the same of them... hence, the hatred of Josephus against the Hellenes.

Yes, I think you're right.

Maybe Philosophy has changed a lot since I took Philosophy 101, but I remember thinking that they were actually talking about The First Cause. You can't read Plato or anyone who ever read him and not know that Greek Theology is anything but Humanistic. Didn't they teach Plato in any of your Philosophy classes? Do they teach that the Greek Philosophers were Humanists? or is that only your idea?

I don't think Philosophy classes have changed all that much in the last 20 years, but honestly, I'm sure that you know a lot more about Plato and the history of Platonism than I do. "We" barely either read him in any of my classes. From the notes and the textbook I have from back then, it looks like we covered a few excerpts from Plato's Republic and Crito.

My designation of Greek Philosophers as 'humanistic' is my own little passing comment, and as I said, you probably know how to get into the nitty gritty of the Greeks much, much better than I could. Fortunately, for the sake of this thread, we don't have to know anything about ancient Greek Philosophy to realize that, presently, Ethics is a branch of Philosophy. Of course, I don't need to tell you this because you've already known this.

 

[FireDragon76]

As a former student of Philosophy at the university level, it has come to my attention that there are a few folks who don't realize that the field of Ethics is actually a branch of Philosophy.

This is a fact, and one that is readily seen within the curricular structures of just about any major university. An example of such is something like Medical Ethics which I took at the university. That class was classified as a philosophy class, not merely as an "ethics" class or a "medical" class. The same was the case with my Business Ethics class. It too was a form of philosophical study, not merely pertaining to the study of "business." There are also standard classes on Ethics which usually fall under the curricular designation of, again, Philosophy, not merely "Ethics and Morality."

So, what does this mean? It means that if and when we take up the mantle of moral inquiry, we're automatically entering into and DOING PHILOSOPHY, it just happens to be 'moral philosophy." It also means that we're automatically opened up to Epistemological and Metaphysical considerations which can, and often do, overlay and are, at times, instrumental within the very conceptual structures of whichever form of Ethics or Ethical systems we are considering or evaluating. These various branches of Philosophy have overlay with one another and are not wholly separate by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there anyone here on this forum who isn't aware that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy? If not, it's time to get educated about this fact.

It's time to get this straight because I see too many instances of various people implying and/or asserting that Ethics isn't Philosophy. This shouldn't be happening and this confusion needs to come to an end.

Comments and complaints or other unjustified counter-arguments may be posted below ...


Thank you for your time!

That's an important point.

In Lutheranism, ethics is also considered separate from theology- something that isn't done in alot of other Christian traditions. In fact, a few Lutherans (usually of the radical sort) even doubt that there can be such a thing as a distinctive "Lutheran ethics", outside of ethics related to preaching, the sacraments, and ecclesial affairs.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's possibe that Paul read Plato or Aristotle, but we can't really know for sure outside of speculation. So, I'm not one to make Paul out as an advocate of Philosophy in general. I think he was familiar with aspects of Greek thought and was at times indignant with the uses it was put by the Greeks, especially if it was used rhetorically to criticize Jewish faith in God and/or Christ.

It's possible Paul was familiar with at least some Greek philosophers, because he is quoted citing Greek philosophers in Acts (assuming Acts is a relatively reliable account of Paul's speeches).

 

[Whyayeman]

I actually think we should be able to teach this on a Paul-based forum ...

I can never understand why there is so much emphasis on Paul here when Christ hardly gets a mention. It is almost as it these were Pauline Forums at times.

(Of course ethics is moral philosophy. I am a little surprised that the point needs to be made.)

 

[public hermit]

That's one debate that is definitely out there. And I do so like Descartes "Discourse on Method."

However, this thread is really more or less about some of the reasons that Philosophy on the whole is dismissed and erroneously seen to be either irrelevant or corrupting. ... I just want various folks to be better aware that if they didn't realize it already, Ethics actually is a branch of Philosophy. For people to be counted as educated and show that they are without slipping into a kind of self-made solipsism, they'll need to acknowledge the fact that when we "do" Ethics and Morality, we're also inescapably doing Philosophy (whether we like that fact or not).

There are some people out there, PH, who don't seem to realize this. The funny part is that I think even Paul the Apostle realized that Ethics is a part of philosohy, but there's a large number of certain folks who don't think he did realize. Maybe it's because they've misinterpreted him.

Anyway, I already know that you do know, so I don't need to educate you. Lol!

It's been a long time since I've brought this up, but I wish they would reopen the philosophy section. It could have subsections representative of the classical approach: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy. That might also help make the point of this thread. "See, y'all, it's a subsection of philosophy!"

 

[FireDragon76]

I can never understand why there is so much emphasis on Paul here when Christ hardly gets a mention. It is almost as it these were Pauline Forums at times.

(Of course ethics is moral philosophy. I am a little surprised that the point needs to be made.)

Paul's writings are actually the earliest writings we have in the New Testament, and are therefore the earliest witnesses to Christian theology and doctrine.

 

[Stephen3141]

Although it is customary in some Protestant groups to consider "morality" and "ethics" to be separate categories, it is common in philosophy to consider moral-ethical (ME) models.

This "larger" view of moral theory is good, as many people differ on the boundary between "morality" and "ethics". And the larger view allows discussion of these proposed boundaries.

I would say also, that some Christian groups tend to categorize "philosophy" as useless argumentation, but at the same time, they appropriate all sorts of philosophical arguments that they find useful. This is holding to a double standard, which is often not recognized by those who are in groups that regularly do this. Honesty calls us to point out these double standards, and doing this does not negate politeness or precision in discussions.

 

[Whyayeman]

Paul's writings are actually the earliest writings we have in the New Testament, and are therefore the earliest witnesses to Christian theology and doctrine.

To me this seems an odd use of the word 'witness', since the two never met. Paul was not there for the events of the Bible. In what sense was Paul a witness?

 

[FireDragon76]

To me this seems an odd use of the word 'witness', since the two never met. Paul was not there for the events of the Bible. In what sense was Paul a witness?

That's not completely true.

1) Paul had a visionary experience of the risen Christ, at least that is recorded and generally accepted by Christians as such.
2) Paul received instructions from the Christian community in Syria concerning the Gospel. Paul was familiar with early Christian creedal statements, rites, and hymns.

 

[Robban]

.