[Xmca-l] Re: Appeal for help

[Christopher Schuck]

And I certainly did not mean to further complicate the discussion, in
making the meta-ethics distinction! Was just trying to provide a way back
out, so people might find it easier to focus on those other interesting
points that happen to overlap with various fields of "ethics". Like habit,
for instance....That's fascinating about the etymological link - never knew
that - most people just stop at "ethos" which has such different
connotations these days.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>