The nature of the INTELLECTUAL PRACTICE known as ethics and morality

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

This is strictly about the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality. Please make your responses about that asking of certain questions, generation of certain kinds of theories, teaching of certain kinds of concepts, etc. that collectively constitute the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality. If the latter is A, and if you are going to bring up evolution by natural selection, then you should say that A is a product of evolution.

This is not about any substantive rule, principle, folkway, social more, etc. Please do not say that the prohibition of murder was selected through natural selection because when members of a group do not kill each other it increases their chances of survival. That is not what this thread is about. Nothing like that is what this thread is about. This thread is about the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality--the practice of asking questions about right and wrong, constructing theories like Utilitarianism, teaching concepts like wisdom, etc. These days it seems that departments of Philosophy at colleges/universities in the West have a monopoly on the practice. As the academic discipline of Philosophy struggles to maintain its relevance and funding the questions asked under the sub-discipline of ethics/morality and the methods employed to answer them are becoming more and more technical and looking more and more like the natural sciences, some have observed. Topics like virtue, the meaning of life, etc. are becoming increasingly marginalized as topics like bioethics, environmental ethics, etc. get all of the attention, some have observed. Nonetheless, all kinds of people in all kinds of positions engage in that intellectual practice to some degree, and they address all kinds of questions/issues/topics. It happens 24 hours a day in this sub-forum at Christian Forums.

However, a lot of people never engage in that intellectual practice known as ethics and morality. They do not know the major questions, theories, concepts, etc. of ethics and morality, let alone work on them. Ask them, say, what wisdom is and they probably will not be able to give you a definition. Ask them for their thoughts on hedonism and they will probably have no idea what you are talking about, even though hedonism describes how they live their lives. Sure, they have concepts like right and wrong, and they have opinions about what actions correspond to them respectively. However, they are not aware of and do not contribute to the systematic intellectual practice known as ethics and morality.

Wow, as I make the question clearer and more focused some of the obvious things that it points to are starting to fall into place. That intellectual practice--formal or informal--known as ethics and morality is probably overwhelmingly the work of privileged, white, Western males. Everything always seems to lead to the postmodern worldview.

Anyway, what is the nature of that intellectual practice known as ethics and morality? Is it a tool? Is it a ritual? Is it a game? Is it to solve problems? Is it to satisfy curiosity? Is it to cure boredom? Is it to control people? Is it to manipulate people? Why should the average person care about it? Does it really produce anything practical that people can apply to their lives? Is it a necessity? Could we all live without it? Why are most people ignorant of it? Why do a minority of people endlessly argue and debate within it?

Will the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality still exist 100 years from now? What will it look like? The academic discipline of Philosophy could be absorbed into Biology, Neuroscience, Evolutionary Psychology, etc. and completely disappear. The capitalist emphasis on things being commodified and markets dictating outcomes is gradually being extended to everything in existence. Right now you can enjoy viewing the sky without the structure of markets. Do not be surprised, however, if viewing the sky is eventually something that somebody owns the rights to and that you have to pay for--with the price determined by markets, of course. The social sciences, humanities and fine arts are being phased out of higher education--they do not create jobs, we are told. Instead of continuing to have the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality we could end up with, say, nothing but pop-psychologists competing for consumers' money and the right to give us the information that we have traditionally derived from systematically thinking critically about things like, "What is right?", "What is wrong?", etc.

I can say with certainty this much about the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality: a lot of people who participate in it act like it has high intrinsic value; like it is extremely important that it is done right; and like it is the definition of being human. Therefore, surely you can understand that if a person does not see what all of the fuss is about and finds very little from that fuss that he can apply to his life that he would be led to question the nature and necessity of that fuss.

I have tried to say that the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality ought to be a tool that people can use to meet their needs and that, therefore, it is to be expected that the value of that tool, how it is used, and how much it is used is going to vary from person to person. If that is the true nature of ethics and morality, people sure do not act like it.

 

[quatona]

I do not think of ethics&morality as an intellectual practice.
I think of the "systematic intellectual practices" concerned with E&M as post-hoc rationalizations and the attempt of abstraction.
I think we can live without it, and I think we can live better without it. I hope it will be overcome eventually.

If you are looking for something that helps people meet their needs, I think the better approach would be to start from their needs.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Anyway, what is the nature of that intellectual practice known as ethics and morality? Is it a tool? Is it a ritual? Is it a game? Is it to solve problems? Is it to satisfy curiosity? Is it to cure boredom? Is it to control people? Is it to manipulate people? Why should the average person care about it? Does it really produce anything practical that people can apply to their lives? Is it a necessity? Could we all live without it? Why are most people ignorant of it? Why do a minority of people endlessly argue and debate within it?

It is many of the things you mentioned. And it is also an attempt by men who do not know how to walk by the Spirit of God to create rules and laws in order to bring order into their society, yet the morals and ethics are always biased. They always will be biased when men are creating the rules.

"The Christian...life is dynamic. Each situation, like each person, is novel. The command of God is not a general rule, or collection of rules. It is always particular for a person at this moment, in this situation. In the unity recovered through grace, in the union with God, we are in the presence of quite a different ethical orientation. It can only be lived in Christ. There is no Christian life without the action of the Holy Spirit, without His inspiration and guidance. The necessity for God's intervening to guide our lives puts an end to our pretending to erect a Christian morality. Christian living does not exist as a morality; for he who lives it, lives by it. He does not follow commandments nor achieve objectives. He lives by the word of God which nourishes him, guides him, and carries him. There is not one Christian life. There are as many Christian lives as there are Christians. One lives in ever-surprising novelty. (Jacques Ellul - To Will and To Do. Pilgrim Press. 1969. pg. 201-219)

"Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of those things, except perhaps as a joke. Every one there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light. But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes." (C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity. Macmillan Publishing. 1978. pgs. 130,131)

 

[Givemeareason]

I do not think of ethics&morality as an intellectual practice.
I think of the "systematic intellectual practices" concerned with E&M as post-hoc rationalizations and the attempt of abstraction.
I think we can live without it, and I think we can live better without it. I hope it will be overcome eventually.

If you are looking for something that helps people meet their needs, I think the better approach would be to start from their needs.

Ethics and Morality are their most basic need. To say it is not is to reduce it to the level of merely eating. The problem today is people have reduced it to a mere set of rules to follow. It is an ongoing process from which to live and REALIZE.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For me its about rational attraction to being, within the context of our limitations. Undeerstanding me, why bother withh Platos cave? Modern tecnological ethics makes the 'trebuchet' redundant. We want zap, not thud. We should utilise the latest tech rather than obsess over classics. apologies for typos. the op is right about needs and instrumentality excetpting needs are mouldable but not automatically desirable or efficient, like differing types of engine. as the latest science is so powerful we ought to regulate it. it expresses our intelligence but threatens our being. so we prioritise! rationality is is easyish to grasp, so now we can focus on the practice. its like science, the inception first and thereafter the developments having a shared basis and essence.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I do not think that it is accurate to say that the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality serves a regulatory function. Some of its outputs, such as laws or social norms, might serve a regulatory function, but the practice itself does not serve a regulatory function.

If it does serve a regulatory function, what is it regulating? If it is regulating B, could B be regulated by something else? Would something else be more effective at regulating B?

If, say, it regulates society, is its decline (again, the discipline of Philosophy appears to be in the process of disappearing; again, the liberal arts are under attack--they do not create jobs, we are told; again, the phenomenon of markets dictating outcomes is increasingly encroaching on everything in existence) a sign of the end of society as we know it?

 

[Givemeareason]

I do not think that it is accurate to say that the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality serves a regulatory function. Some of its outputs, such as laws or social norms, might serve a regulatory function, but the practice itself does not serve a regulatory function.

If it does serve a regulatory function, what is it regulating? If it is regulating B, could B be regulated by something else? Would something else be more effective at regulating B?

If, say, it regulates society, is its decline (again, the discipline of Philosophy appears to be in the process of disappearing; again, the liberal arts are under attack--they do not create jobs, we are told; again, the phenomenon of markets dictating outcomes is increasingly encroaching on everything in existence) a sign of the end of society as we know it?

But what can we do to stop the end of society? Only government can stop this and government is being absorbed by it as well. It is the failure of democracy by bending free will into ignorance while giving them the illusion of still having free will. It is the illusion of Democracy in which its participants seem to feel that live and let live means we are to ignore each other. I see no force great enough to stop this in the US other than Christianity but it has become a tool leading us into failure as well. The problem with Christianity is the complacency of the many while acquiescing to the needs of the few. Yet while ignorance is exposing itself there is still hope that it destroys itself. And I am wondering about that. With all the forces of ignorance aligning against society failure is seeming inevitable. It is becoming imperative that humanity get back up and become more proactive than ever before.

 

[quatona]

Ethics and Morality are their most basic need. To say it is not is to reduce it to the level of merely eating.

No. Eating is one of the basic needs, metaphysics is one of the higher needs. To say that isn´t a statement of value, and even less is it reducing anything to anything.
Please keep in mind that the OP didn´t talk about ethics&morality in general, but about ethics&morality as an intellectual practice, and I responded accordingly. IMO an intellectual practice is not a basic need.

The problem today is people have reduced it to a mere set of rules to follow.

Yes, I agree: That´s a problem.
Another problem: Some people reduce it to an intellectual exercise.

It is an ongoing process from which to live and REALIZE.

I agree.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Another problem: Some people reduce it to an intellectual exercise...

Who has done that?

 

[quatona]

Who has done that?

You did, for purposes of this discussion.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

You did, for purposes of this discussion.

That is like saying that I reduced politics to the practice of the science called Political Science. No, I did not reduce anything to anything else. I focused in on a particular phenomenon and questioned its nature and necessity.

Just because somebody asks that only A be discussed does not mean that B or anything else has been reduced to A.

 

[quatona]

That is like saying that I reduced politics to the practice of the science called Political Science. No, I did not reduce anything to anything else. I focused in on a particular phenomenon and questioned its nature and necessity.

Just because somebody asks that only A be discussed does not mean that B or anything else has been reduced to A.

Well, you certainly drew conclusions based on the assumption that intellectual exercise is the core of ethics and morality.
You also appeared to picture things as though fulfilment of one´s needs depends on the intellectual exercise "ethics and morality".
Maybe I am misunderstanding you completely, but I wouldn´t know why you are so concerned with the intellectual exercise when you wouldn´t feel it was essential for ethics and morality.

 

[outsidethecamp]

I do not think that it is accurate to say that the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality serves a regulatory function. Some of its outputs, such as laws or social norms, might serve a regulatory function, but the practice itself does not serve a regulatory function.

If it does serve a regulatory function, what is it regulating? If it is regulating B, could B be regulated by something else? Would something else be more effective at regulating B?

If, say, it regulates society, is its decline (again, the discipline of Philosophy appears to be in the process of disappearing; again, the liberal arts are under attack--they do not create jobs, we are told; again, the phenomenon of markets dictating outcomes is increasingly encroaching on everything in existence) a sign of the end of society as we know it?

Morals and ethics are meant to regulate behavior as opposed to being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ and allowing his behavior and character to be made manifest in our mortal bodies by His Spirit.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I do not think that it is accurate to say that the intellectual practice known as ethics and morality serves a regulatory function. Some of its outputs, such as laws or social norms, might serve a regulatory function, but the practice itself does not serve a regulatory function.

If it does serve a regulatory function, what is it regulating? If it is regulating B, could B be regulated by something else? Would something else be more effective at regulating B?

If, say, it regulates society, is its decline (again, the discipline of Philosophy appears to be in the process of disappearing; again, the liberal arts are under attack--they do not create jobs, we are told; again, the phenomenon of markets dictating outcomes is increasingly encroaching on everything in existence) a sign of the end of society as we know it?

Stuff like Plato, Aritstotle, Kant etc are all attempts at guiding action, and are expressions of something like an unconscious self and society preservation instinct. So ethics is like the unconscious wish to survive, expressed unwittingly in fancy terms and inefficiently. A bit like predarwinian biology - the great chain of being and all that jazz - was neither hit or miss, but half way there.

In a sense its sad to see the "old masters" disappear, if thats whats happening. Especially if the pressuress are merely financial. Beacuse we ought not ground and motivate ourselves primarily, or fundamentally in money matters. You cant worship God (and therefore do justice to our "imago dei" or image of God within), and serve money at the same time. The value of money is derivative from the value of life, and that stems from facts about phenomenological psychology etc. Our "inner being" is what counts, and we coulnt our money and blessings because of this.

If we merely serve money it could be the end. If ethics is rational, and helps us live and survive etc we ought to pursue it. Theres no guarantee or even rule of thumb that at merely making money will not flush the ecosystem down the pan.

MAybe thereas a conspiracy. The "big boys" know the meaning of life (thanks to the likes of you and me) but now they want money and power, and to supress the ordinary man. Some form of exclusivism and elitism, which feels bitter at the common person having as much credible insight as they do. One law for the rich, and one law for the poor, philosophiclaly speaking.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If it does serve a regulatory function, what is it regulating? If it is regulating B, could B be regulated by something else? Would something else be more effective at regulating B?

Its regulating attraction to being in a fairly rational manner. I am a locus of care (sorge) for the value of being, IMO, and ethics is for the most part symbolic but not explicitly conscious attempt at expressing this in a sustainable and intelligent way, either for person or collective. I dont think attempts at ethics are spandrels, like wierd by products of psychic forces selected for other functions, rather they are like rudimentary tools.

We can improve on them, when we update our knowledge of the nature of the game we play. Just like a doctor who understands a physical rather than spiritual basis for medicine, and has people focused on the job in a rational, intelligent manner. He'll obviously be better off when able to see the actuality, rather then the smokey illusions and phantom limbs of impure thought.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Its regulating attraction to being in a fairly rational manner. I am a locus of care (sorge) for the value of being, IMO, and ethics is for the most part symbolic but not explicitly conscious attempt at expressing this in a sustainable and intelligent way, either for person or collective. I dont think attempts at ethics are spandrels, like wierd by products of psychic forces selected for other functions, rather they are like rudimentary tools.

We can improve on them, when we update our knowledge of the nature of the game we play. Just like a doctor who understands a physical rather than spiritual basis for medicine, and has people focused on the job in a rational, intelligent manner. He'll obviously be better off when able to see the actuality, rather then the smokey illusions and phantom limbs of impure thought.

But the overwhelming majority of the debates within ethics and morality seem to be people trying to win political battles in whatever way they can, including by obscuring reality. Reading the words of people going back and forth splitting hairs over when personhood begins does not leave me with a clearer picture. On the contrary, it leaves me no closer to understanding what position I should take on abortion or how I should act from that position. It certainly does not leave me with any greater understanding of the gravity of the issue of abortion or any appreciation of its importance. It seems to be nothing more than people narcissistically defending their own viewpoint, not people having any empathy for others or any concern about their need to understand, find answers, etc.

If clarity is the purpose of ethics and morality then people should present as many viewpoints as possible and as much as possible treat each viewpoint with the same level of respect.

When ethics and morality is consistently approached in an adversarial, winner-takes-all, wedge-issue-focused manner it marginalizes people who are preoccupied with other things such as their own moral questions, their own concerns, etc. If nothing called "ethics and morality" ever gets around to addressing those preoccupations then it is reasonable to question the true nature, usefulness and necessity of ethics and morality.

The dearth of empathy on display here for those who might be marginalized by ethics and morality is further evidence that maybe it really isn't something that is concerned with people's lives.

 

[quatona]

But the overwhelming majority of the debates within ethics and morality seem to be people trying to win political battles in whatever way they can, including by obscuring reality. Reading the words of people going back and forth splitting hairs over when personhood begins does not leave me with a clearer picture. On the contrary, it leaves me no closer to understanding what position I should take on abortion or how I should act from that position. It certainly does not leave me with any greater understanding of the gravity of the issue of abortion or any appreciation of its importance. It seems to be nothing more than people narcissistically defending their own viewpoint, not people having any empathy for others or any concern about their need to understand, find answers, etc.

That´s exactly what you get from treating E&M as an abstract "intellectual exercise". Desperate post-hoc rationalisations in a field that isn´t, at its core, rational.
If your goal is to fulfill needs, start from the needs of people. If your goal is having empathy, don´t pretend you get there by intellectualit exercise.

Look, you yourself aren´t behaving empathically (by your own standards). Read through your post. Although you aren´t discussing a particular moral question, you are doing exactly what you are complaining about: Judging people, making uncharitable assumptions about their motives, etc. - and you are doing it on a pretty wide scale: not only with those who disagree with your moral stances, but with everyone participating in the discussion.

As long as people (driven by the urgency they feel moral questions have) think about this field in terms of "right and wrong", there won´t be any progress.

If clarity is the purpose of ethics and morality

I´m a little bit confused, because you seem to demand a different purpose with each new post.
First it was intellectuality, next it was fulfilling needs, next empathy, next clarity.

then people should present as many viewpoints as possible and as much as possible treat each viewpoint with the same level of respect.

1. It seems that all viewpoints are represented in these discussions, quite fine. By different persons, of course. That´s why people talk to each other.
2. While I am all for respectful interactions, I do not really see how respect of all helps clarity.

When ethics and morality is consistently approached in an adversarial, winner-takes-all, wedge-issue-focused manner it marginalizes people who are preoccupied with other things such as their own moral questions, their own concerns, etc. If nothing called "ethics and morality" ever gets around to addressing those preoccupations then it is reasonable to question the true nature, usefulness and necessity of ethics and morality.

I am not following you with the winner-takes-it-all thing. People never win a moral and ethics discussions. (They may win political discussions, though).
But I agree that an intellectual exercise might be the wrong tool, considering the "true nature" of E&M.

The dearth of empathy on display here for those who might be marginalized by ethics and morality is further evidence that maybe it really isn't something that is concerned with people's lives.

Correct. The way it is done here, it is predominantly an abstract intellectual exercise, ooncerned with right vs. wrong.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

That´s exactly what you get from treating E&M as an abstract "intellectual exercise". Desperate post-hoc rationalisations in a field that isn´t, at its core, rational...

Yes, the thread is specifically about an intellectual practice--an intellectual practice often found under the heading "ethics and morality", such as in the academic discipline of Philosophy.

No, nobody has treated anything as anything else. An intellectual practice is being treated as an intellectual practice.

If your goal is to fulfill needs, start from the needs of people...

I do not recall saying anything about having a goal.

I do recall saying that I believe that the purpose of a certain intellectual practice ought to be to function as a tool that people can use to meet their needs. Just like how empirical science ought to ultimately be about meeting people's needs.

Therefore, things like science should not be used to, say, control people. Unless, of course, someone can somehow show that controlling people is a bona fide need that some people have.

If your goal is having empathy, don´t pretend you get there by intellectualit exercise...

The statement was about having empathy for people in their relationship to an intellectual practice, not about an intellectual practice being a means to empathizing.

Look, you yourself aren´t behaving empathically (by your own standards). Read through your post. Although you aren´t discussing a particular moral question, you are doing exactly what you are complaining about: Judging people, making uncharitable assumptions about their motives, etc. - and you are doing it on a pretty wide scale: not only with those who disagree with your moral stances, but with everyone participating in the discussion...

No, I have created at least three threads trying to get people to help me see ethics and morality from their perspective. Trying to empathize, in other words.

As long as people (driven by the urgency they feel moral questions have) think about this field in terms of "right and wrong", there won´t be any progress...

I have no idea what people think about it in terms of.

I always thought that ethics and morality is about the way that things ought to be. Not the way that people think things ought to be. Not the way that people want things to be. The way that things ought to be, period.

But nobody--nobody here, at least--other than me seems to see it that way. Instead we have people saying things like, "Morality is just people's opinions".

I´m a little bit confused, because you seem to demand a different purpose with each new post.
First it was intellectuality, next it was fulfilling needs, next empathy, next clarity...

No, I have consistently maintained that ethics and morality ought to be a tool that people use to meet their needs. It is just like how in Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction Paperback, Stephen Gaukroger says that objectivity is not "the view from nowhere"--we practice objectivity to meet our needs, he says.

 

[quatona]

Yes, the thread is specifically about an intellectual practice--an intellectual practice often found under the heading "ethics and morality", such as in the academic discipline of Philosophy.

No, nobody has treated anything as anything else. An intellectual practice is being treated as an intellectual practice.

What I am trying to get across:
You don´t arrive at the purposes you have in mind (increased empathy, fulfilment of needs) by means of intellectual practice. No way.

I do not recall saying anything about having a goal.

Yes, you said "purpose", sorry. Doesn´t change my point, though.

I do recall saying that I believe that the purpose of a certain intellectual practice ought to be to function as a tool that people can use to meet their needs. Just like how empirical science ought to ultimately be about meeting people's needs.

And I am saying that this tool is counterproductive in regards to your purpose. Of course, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....

Therefore, things like science should not be used to, say, control people. Unless, of course, someone can somehow show that controlling people is a bona fide need that some people have.

Yes, I agree: I don´t want science be used to control people. I also don´t want E&M be used to control people. Of course, we all have our different ideas what "controlling people" means. Thus, even if we can agree on this abstract, we might mean completely different things.

The statement was about having empathy for people in their relationship to an intellectual practice, not about an intellectual practice being a means to empathizing.

Not sure I understand completely.
I am totally aware how important "intellectual practice" in your approach to E&M is to you. I can empathize, I can acknowledge that it must have served you well until now (or else it wouldn´t be your favourite tool) - yet I can´t help thinking that there are better tools.

No, I have created at least three threads trying to get people to help me see ethics and morality from their perspective. Trying to empathize, in other words.

Well, I don´t feel that empathy is about understanding an intellectual perspective, in the first place.
On another note (and it´s entirely possible that I have just missed those parts) I don´t recall many post in which you have expressed that which you call "empathy" (i.e. an acknowledgment or understanding of their viewpoints) towards the people who responded to your questions. Not saying you don´t have it - just saying that you possibly could do better in getting it across.

I always thought that ethics and morality is about the way that things ought to be.

That´s not how everyone thinks about it, but let´s for now stick with your concept.
To me it´s perfectly obvious that controversial discussions about "oughts" will eventually lead to holy wars rather than to empathic exchange of thoughts or fulfilment of needs.

Not the way that people think things ought to be. Not the way that people want things to be. The way that things ought to be, period.

I´m not sure I understand the difference, for any practical purpose and the situation on a discussion board. Last time I checked, nobody here had anything to offer but their own ideas about the way things ought to be (no matter how intensely they affirmed that it wasn´t their opinion, but a fact).

But nobody--nobody here, at least--other than me seems to see it that way. Instead we have people saying things like, "Morality is just people's opinions".

I have made a completely different observation: There are plenty of moral objectivists around.
Unfortunately, confessing to objectivism doesn´t mean you are objective nor does it mean you are able to demonstrate it.
And that´s the problem: Even if you happen to be in hold of an objective truth but can´t demostrate it, your contributions will be received as just another opinion on the matter.
That´s why the never-ending abstract arguments for the existence of objective morality are catching my suspicion: You´d just have to demonstrate moral facts, and the entire discussion (about the existence of objective morality) would be obsolete.

No, I have consistently maintained that ethics and morality ought to be a tool that people use to meet their needs.

You have also consistently maintained that ethics and morality ought to be about the way that things ought to be.
I have serious problems reconciling those "oughts", at least I have no idea how to pursue them simultaneously.

It is just like how in Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction Paperback, Stephen Gaukroger says that objectivity is not "the view from nowhere"--we practice objectivity to meet our needs, he says.

Well, I totally disagree. If I were to summarize my thoughts on those keyterms, it would be something like this:
Pretending objectivity is a widely spread but suicidal tool when it comes to having our needs met. At the very best, it is a longwinded deviation.