- That most general and fundamental subfield of the ethical sciences, playing the foundational role to them that physics plays to the physical sciences, is what I think deserves to be called "ethics" simpliciter. That field's task would be to catalogue the needs or ends, and the abilities or means, of different moral agents and patients, like how physics catalogues the functions of different particles.
- Building atop that field, the ethical analogue of chemistry would be to catalogue the aggregate effects of many such agents interacting, as much of the field of economics already does, in the same way that chemical processes are the aggregate interactions between many physical particles.
- Atop that, the ethical analogue of biology would be to catalogue the types of organizations of such agents that arise, and the development and interaction of such organizations individually and en masse, like biology catalogues organisms.
- Lastly, atop that, the ethical analogue of psychology would be to catalogue the educational and governmental apparatuses of such organizations, which are like the self-awareness and self-control, the mind and will so to speak, of such organizations. — Pfhorrest
What about descriptive ethics? — Pantagruel
I don’t see how any of this tells someone what they should do? It just seems to be cataloguing what people need and want, and the results of that. It reads like the first level is simply psychology, second is economics, third is political science and the last is.... also political science.
I don’t see where ethics comes into the picture. Knowing that people want food, and the consequences of the they all the way to a political level, doesn’t seem to have anything to do with ethics. — khaled
What’s an “appetite” that’s not a desire or intention? What are these “hedonic experiences”? — khaled
And just as those physical sciences have over time largely supplanted religious authority in the educational social role, so too I hold that these ethical sciences should in time supplant state authority in the governmental social role, as I will elaborate upon in a later thread. — Pfhorrest
“Emic Ethnography” would be better referred to as just ‘ethnography’ as the former is like saying ‘a dark shade of black’. If not some clarification would be useful. — I like sushi
On top of the above there is the niggling issue of defining ‘science’. I’m sure you’ve done this elsewhere, but a reminder of your position is probably worth mentioning in the OP. — I like sushi
ethical sciences – contingent, a posteriori applications of the philosophy of morality and justice – are the bridge to ever more useful businesses, in the same way that the physical sciences are the bridge from the philosophy of reality and knowledge – of which they are contingent, a posteriori applications – to ever more useful technologies. — Pfhorrest
That's just a natural or physical (i.e. descriptive) science when you get down to it, a study of what peoples' ethical beliefs are, rather than a study into which ethical beliefs are the correct or incorrect ones. — Pfhorrest
I don't see why that is any reason not to include it. — Pantagruel
Why "satisfy all of our appetites"? And explain what makes that answer both "ethical" and "scientific". Thanks.I am of the peculiar opinion that applied ethics is not properly speaking a branch of philosophy at all, but is rather the seed of an entire field of underdeveloped ethical sciences, parallel to the physical sciences, concerned not with building theories (descriptive models, complex beliefs) to satisfy all of our sensations or observations, but instead strategies (prescriptive models, complex intentions) to satisfy all of our appetites. — Pfhorrest
Why "satisfy all of our appetites"? And explain what makes that answer both "ethical" and "scientific". — 180 Proof
So by science in general I mean an investigation that hinges on appeal to experiences, which is therefore a posteriori, and can shed light on contingent matters. In contrast to a philosophical investigation that is entirely a priori, independent of specific experiences, and so can only reach conclusions about what is necessary or impossible.
The distinction between physical or descriptive sciences (the usual sense of "science" today) and the ethical or prescriptive sciences I'm discussing here is the distinction between empirical experience (or sensations) and hedonic experience (or appetites): an experience that inclines one to think or feel that something is or isn't true or real, vs an experience that inclines one to think or feel that something is or isn't good or moral. — Pfhorrest
That description by authority becomes the norm the masses are expected to obey.These domains barely tolerate restriction by rule of law.
What would be the general motivation to adoption? — Pantagruel
So "ethical science" is like medical science or human ecology (my preferred analogue) or moral psychology ... — 180 Proof
It seems like this is simultaneously a principle that everyone must have already learned as children, but somehow also a controversial opinion among learned people — Pfhorrest
Nobody I know of denies that you can, but plenty of people, anyone opposed to altruism or hedonism, denies that it matters to: anti-altruists denying that other people's anything matters, anti-hedonists denying that anybody's appetites matter. — Pfhorrest
I am of the peculiar opinion that applied ethics is not properly speaking a branch of philosophy at all, but is rather the seed of an entire field of underdeveloped ethical sciences — Pfhorrest
I disagree. The sciences I've mentioned also explain optimal functioning of its subjects (agents) and therefore prescribe in situ strategies for avoiding or correcting suboptimization (e.g. ill-health/morbidity; unsustainable commons/negative sum conflicts; and maladaptive vices/pathologies, respectively). 'Subjective data' do not inform those models sufficiently enough to improve their explanatory powers or predictive efficacy. As far as I can tell, Pfhorrest, each is an example of an objective (i.e. subjectivity / pov-invariant for the most part) theoretical discourse.So "ethical science" is like medical science or human ecology (my preferred analogue) or moral psychology ...
— 180 Proof
I’m not sure that’s accurate, since AFAIK those fields are empirical investigations, that at most describe what people are like and how they react to various things, in the third person. — Pfhorrest
If that is accepted then the rest should follow for anyone who can keep up with the logic (which NB does have novel implications as well as drawing novel connections between disparate well-known things). — Pfhorrest
Why on earth would anyone do that???To find out what's good or bad, walk some miles in other peoples' shoes, put yourself in their places, experience for yourself what it's like to go through what they go through, and if necessary figure out what's different between you and them that might account for any differences that remain in your experiences. — Pfhorrest
No. What children are taught isn't empathy, it is projection under the guise of empathy.It seems like this is simultaneously a principle that everyone must have already learned as children,
Would you empathize with Hitler, see things from his perspective, see, how from his perspective, what he did was good and right? — baker
Extreme egalitarianism? — baker
And what would such extreme empathy have to do with finding out what's good or bad?? — baker
Then you wouldn't be "walking in his shoes" to begin with. You wouldn't be empathizing, you'd be projecting, following your own agenda.Yes, but not to agree with him, but to understand his deeper motives and find alternate ways of satisfying them that don't so deeply dissatisfy others'. — Pfhorrest
No. For one, this is not how the world works.Extreme egalitarianism?
Yes, otherwise known as altruism. Everyone matters. Everyone.
You're not answering my question.And what would such extreme empathy have to do with finding out what's good or bad??
What do you think "good or bad" even mean? Because this just sounds like a bizarre question to me.
Because for a psychologically normal person, the Why is supposed to go without saying, be something that the person takes for granted.When we're setting out to do anything, there's two things to ask ourselves: why to do it / why should something come to be the case, and how to do it / how does something come to be the case? We've got all of the descriptive sciences, including the ones you're talking about, investigating the second type of question, the "how does", to great results.
But we barely have any systemic investigation into the first question, the "why should". — Pfhorrest
Philosophically I'm committed to there not being any (ultimate) 'why that does not beg the question' (precipating infinite regresses); so well-tested, validly inferred heuristic / causal "hows" suffice in the breach.A prescriptive science, structured from intrinsic – domain specific – hypothetical imperatives (e.g. if optimal health, then maintain homeostasis by ... ) — 180 Proof
this is not how the world works. — baker
Do you believe in objective morality? — baker
Because for a psychologically normal person, the Why is supposed to go without saying, be something that the person takes for granted. — baker
"the why" belongs to philosophical speculation — 180 Proof
Philosophically I'm committed to there not being any (ultimate) 'why that does not beg the question' (precipating infinite regresses) — 180 Proof
Then you wouldn't be "walking in his shoes" to begin with. You wouldn't be empathizing, you'd be projecting, following your own agenda. — baker
If you're already sure you know what's right and wrong, then why randomly empathize with others?? — baker
You're not answering my question. — baker
For two, what you're describing sounds more like codependence or borderline personality disorder symptoms. — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.