Norms

[brightlights]

If something is normative it serves as a rule for all other things falling under its jurisdiction. For instance, there are several versions of the Les Miserables musical production, but it's the original production that serves as a norm for all the rest. The original production shows us what the play was intended to be. You could even take it further back and say that the Victor Hugo novel is actually the norm for all variations of Les Miserable. Anyone who tries to retell the story either obeys the norm or deviates from it, but Victor Hugo's novel is unquestionably the norm. Throw out Victor Hugo's work and it's no longer Les Miserables.

Are there any ethical norms? What would this mean? Since ethics deals with persons and an ethical norm would have to be talking about what a person is supposed to be. Since Les Miserables is a story with many different manifestations and retellings the norm is the normative story. In the same way an ethical norm would have to be a normative person. Ethics, therefore, is intensely personal and cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or laws.

Therefore for ethics to be normative in any way there must exist somewhere and at some time a normative person. So if God does not exist there can be no ethical norms.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'll post this reply here too.

Are there any ethical norms? What would this mean?

I think you are using the term 'ethical norms' in an abnormal way. An 'ethical norm' normally means sentences about how one should act. So ethics is pretty much by definition normative. eg: 'Do not murder'. Maybe the way you are using it is normal too though.

Norm (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since ethics deals with persons and an ethical norm would have to be talking about what a person is supposed to be.

I'd say it's more about how someone should act... but I suppose it might sometimes include how someone should be.

Since Les Miserables is a story with many different manifestations and retellings the norm is the normative story. In the same way an ethical norm would have to be a normative person. Ethics, therefore, is intensely personal and cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or laws.

Why a normative person, rather than a normative set of principles? One doesn't need a perfectly rational person for one to be rational or logical. There are just certain reasonable ways to think.

Therefore for ethics to be normative in any way there must exist somewhere and at some time a normative person. So if God does not exist there can be no ethical norms.

If when you use the word 'norm' you mean there must be an existing thing to point to as the original, then yes, morality doesn't have a norm. Something can be right or wrong without having a thing to point to as the perfect version of it.

 

[jayem]

Are there any ethical norms? What would this mean? Since ethics deals with persons and an ethical norm would have to be talking about what a person is supposed to be. Since Les Miserables is a story with many different manifestations and retellings the norm is the normative story. In the same way an ethical norm would have to be a normative person. Ethics, therefore, is intensely personal and cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or laws.

Therefore for ethics to be normative in any way there must exist somewhere and at some time a normative person. So if God does not exist there can be no ethical norms.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean there must be an ethical benchmark, or standard? Even if so, I don't see why it must have a supernatural origin. As I see it, ethical norms are biological. They are behavioral instincts which we evolved as social primates. They obviously vary in strength among individuals, and can be heavily modified by acculturation. But at the most fundamental level, ethical standards are a function of how our brains are wired. They exist because they promote social cohesion. Which increases the survival and subsequent reproductive success of species like ours.

BTW, the original version of something is not necessarily the best, or most optimal. And for biological functions, those terms are only relevant in the context of a specific environment. If the environment changes, a species goes extinct if it can't evolve.

 

[Paulos23]

The norm is what works for the most people for the longest time. So any behavior that doesn't damage or destroy to the point of them stop being a coherent group (or civilization if you will).

Which is why seemingly core morals such as do not kill and do not steal still exist. On the whole, societies that follow that in the majority last longer, even when it becomes necessary to break them for a short time (i.e. war, stealing bread to feed kids, etc.).

Some of these have lasted so long that it becomes hard for a new ethic or moral to supplant an old one. But it does happen.

 

[brightlights]

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean there must be an ethical benchmark, or standard? Even if so, I don't see why it must have a supernatural origin. As I see it, ethical norms are biological. They are behavioral instincts which we evolved as social primates. They obviously vary in strength among individuals, and can be heavily modified by acculturation. But at the most fundamental level, ethical standards are a function of how our brains are wired. They exist because they promote social cohesion. Which increases the survival and subsequent reproductive success of species like ours.

This is an explanation of why we evaluate but it does not say anything about whether or not our evaluations are normative. You're saying that our ethical sentiments correspond to behavior that's advantageous for survival. But the question of norms is: "what's a human being supposed to be?" This can't be answered from a purely biological standpoint. Biology just tells you what a human being is, not what a human being ought to be.

BTW, the original version of something is not necessarily the best, or most optimal. And for biological functions, those terms are only relevant in the context of a specific environment. If the environment changes, a species goes extinct if it can't evolve.

This is true. The original batman is a joke compared to the complexity that the character has taken on over the years. So many people have contributed to making him more complicated and real. But the discussion of norms is different. There is still a normative batman. No matter what writers add to his character, batman will always be Bruce Wayne, his parents will always have been murdered when he was a boy, he will always have Alfred the faithful butler, etc... Remove these norms and he is no longer batman.

 

[durangodawood]

...Since ethics deals with persons and an ethical norm would have to be talking about what a person is supposed to be.

Not quite. Ethics deals with how a person is supposed to behave.

I dont understand how we need a prototype for, say, the ethical norm of not-murdering.

 

[brightlights]

Not quite. Ethics deals with how a person is supposed to behave.

I dont understand how we need a prototype for, say, the ethical norm of not-murdering.

An ethics that only deals with behavior is stunted. Because people are more complicated than their behavior ethics has to be looking at the whole person. Behavior comes from thinking, desires, commitments, emotions, goals, etc... the inner person. We need an ethics that can deal with the whole person if ethics is to be legitimate.

 

[jayem]

An ethics that only deals with behavior is stunted. Because people are more complicated than their behavior ethics has to be looking at the whole person. Behavior comes from thinking, desires, commitments, emotions, goals, etc... the inner person. We need an ethics that can deal with the whole person if ethics is to be legitimate.

Sounds like you're saying that ethical philosophy needs to be emotionally satisfying. Is that right? But isn't that really a personal idiosyncracy?

 

[brightlights]

Sounds like you're saying that ethical philosophy needs to be emotionally satisfying.

Not necessarily. It just needs to be real. An ethical philosophy that only looks at behavior is naive.

 

[durangodawood]

Not necessarily. It just needs to be real. An ethical philosophy that only looks at behavior is naive.

Not sure that you are using the right word here. "Ethics" really is about how you behave with respect to others.

Sounds like you are more interested in what makes a fully spiritually developed person.

 

[brightlights]

Not sure that you are using the right word here. "Ethics" really is about how you behave with respect to others.

I disagree. I think ethics is more generally dealing with how we should live. And because life is more than behavior ethics deals with more than behavior.

Kant's normative ethical principle can be applied to our behavior, thinking, desiring, committing, speech. Etc...

But looking at it from another perspective, there isn't a clear distinction between behavior and the inner life. Thinking is a behavior. So is desiring, committing, and making goals. Emoting is a behavior too. So all of this falls into the jurisdiction of ethical evaluation.