[Xmca-l] Re: Appeal for help

[Greg Thompson]

I'm sorry to use the term "ethics".
Andy, do you have a preferred set of terms?
Seems like this might be a fertile area to develop CHAT approaches to.
-greg

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Anyone have suggestions of writings on ethics from a CHAT perspective?
>
> Also, I was quite taken by Annalisa's linking ethics to "habit" precisely
> because this is the way that I would like to construe ethics - embodied
> habits/dispositions (person X habitually responds to a particular type of
> situation with behavior Y). To say anything more requires invoking one
> ethical framework or another (and even my definition does this since the
> construal of "a particular type of situation" as such necessarily already
> invokes cultural meaningfulnesses that are also likely to entail ethical
> frameworks).
>
> -greg
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>> ... and this is really not the forum for clarifying these issues of
>> Ethics, honestly.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>> On 8/07/2016 11:36 AM, Christopher Schuck wrote:
>>
>>> Much of this last interchange seems to be as much about meta-ethics as
>>> normative ethics. Andy chooses to identify ethics with human activity in
>>> terms of practical norms (and some epistemologists argue that practical
>>> reason is inherently normative). Others might see it more in terms of
>>> "ideal good" (as Annalisa put it). If we're discussing how ethics is to
>>> even be conceptualized and approached (e.g. questioning dichotomies of
>>> "good" and "evil", whether a priori or a posteriori is relevant, virtues
>>> as
>>> opposed to criterion-based consequentialism) - we're getting into
>>> meta-ethics. For what that's worth.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you are describing Normative Ethics, not Ethics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, "ethics" does derive from the Greek word for "habit"
>>>> (????).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A habit seems to have a lack of awareness in it. Certainly habits are
>>>> hard
>>>> to break, which is why we hope to have good habits, not bad ones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless you would like to define what you mean by "Practical norms" it
>>>> seems to be an "amoral" phrase to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Typically, as I understand it, ethics is the study of human morality in
>>>> the attempt to define what is good and right, vs. not good and not
>>>> right so
>>>> one can determine what is proper actions to live by (what habits are
>>>> worth
>>>> having). I consider that to be a consideration of values a priori. In
>>>> terms
>>>> of what is ideal or hypothetical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Normative ethics seems to be a study of actions a posteriori, after the
>>>> fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that I do not like to use the terms "evil" or "wrong" and
>>>> prefer to orient from the relations of what is good and what is right.
>>>> This
>>>> avoids dichotomies, and it allows for a spectrum of something being more
>>>> right, or having more goodness than something else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Getting back to utilitarianism, I still see it as a justification for
>>>> economics, that is, economics as practiced today, which is usually not
>>>> done
>>>> scientifically, though it is very mathematical in nature. To measure
>>>> utility requires all kinds of strange formulae, and that's why I used
>>>> the
>>>> metaphor hall of mirrors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still, I prefer to consider utility as a projection, than a reflection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eating humans has a projected value of goodness in one society, but not
>>>> in
>>>> another.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not harming myself or others seems to have a universal application, and
>>>> so
>>>> it doesn't seem to be a projected subjective value, but a reflected
>>>> one, if
>>>> I may claim that a projected value is relative and subjective while a
>>>> reflected one is a universal, objective value.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Happiness is also a universal, objective value. I don't know anyone who
>>>> doesn't value happiness. However what makes people happy is a projected,
>>>> subjective value. That's where utility comes in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For what that is worth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson