[Xmca-l] Re: Appeal for help

Fri Jul 8 07:00:10 PDT 2016

The BBC seems somewhat an ironic source for ethics - especially with everything that is happening in Britain right now what withthe Chitcotte report (sp?) and the Brexit, where BBC played no small part.

But I thought habit was actually the nub of the current debate on ethics - especially virtues ethicists vs. the communitarians.  Didn't McIntyre argue in AFTER VIRTUE that virtue ethicists had destroyed the role of ethics by focusing on it as a deontological enterprise (that damn Kant again).  That perhaps we were better off taking our ethics from habit because it gave us a social base. Something we could follow with true cause, something to trust in rather than something to aspire to - a branch of what Annalisa refers to as normative ethics.  I guess McIntyre does not consider himself a communitarian but he makes an argument.

We are going through an intense crisis in ethics here is the United States that just got raised four or five notches last night.  I fear the role that proclamations of virtue will play in the days of head, yet I can't think of any other road out of this dark time.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 8:19 AM
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Appeal for help

Perhaps xmca could take a break from discussing Ethics while everyone studies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 8/07/2016 10:03 PM, Jonathan Tudge wrote:
> I think that virtue ethicists influenced by Aristotle would be 
> cautious about linking virtues and habits. A habit may be simply 
> rule-governed.  For example, I follow the rule to always say "thank 
> you" when given a gift and always give, in return, a gift of equal 
> value, but I do so without understanding why I should express thanks.  
> I can hardly be said to have the virtue of gratitude.  That's why 
> neo-Aristotelians invoke the concept of phronesis, or practical 
> wisdom.  I have to understand the meaning of expressing thanks and 
> engaging in grateful behaviour, as well as doing it on a regular basis (when appropriate), and that comes with experience.
>
> In case anyone's interested, fuller thoughts on this issue appear in 
> Tudge, Freitas, & O'Brien (2015). The virtue of gratitude: A 
> developmental and cultural approach. * Human Development, 58*, 281-300.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jon
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Jonathan Tudge
>
> Professor
> Office: 155 Stone
>
> http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
>
> Mailing address:
> 248 Stone Building
> Department of Human Development and Family Studies PO Box 26170 The 
> University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 
> USA
>
> phone (336) 223-6181
> fax   (336) 334-5076
>
> http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge.html
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:30 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-makin
>>> g 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
>>
>