[Xmca-l] Re: Appeal for help

[Andy Blunden]

... 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
>>
>>
>