Justifying ethics

[kalu]

I have been thinking about this question for a while, how do we justify our ethical conceptions? I'm less interested in what the specific content of someone's ethics is, than how someone would justify such a framework, ie. perhaps using epistemology. There have been many interesting philosophical attempts to answer this question. For example, Emmanuel Levinas' conception of ethics as a kind of first philosophy (we are met with the demand of the Other, which resists incorporation into our ontology). There's also the "analytic" approach, epitomized by John Rawls, which admittedly deals with ethics on the "surface", rather than at a deep philosophical level. From my cursory readings, the Rawlsian type appears rather vague (ie, "theory of the good"). In my opinion though, if we are to really avoid the pitfall of intuitionism, it would seem at a certain point we must take up the Levinasian attitude of attempting to formulate ethics at a fundamental level; even if that very attempt leads to the idea that "we have an ethics in relation to exactly what we can't formulate or interrogate, ie. the Other."

Also, ethics for me is tied to other critical concepts like emancipation and freedom, which are of course central to most radicals' relation to the world. So, how do we justify our use of these concepts?

[Hit The North]

Why does it matter that our ethics should be philosophically justified?

Ethics work when they are justified by those we interact with. Why do we need to justify them to philosophers?

[kalu]

Why does it matter that our ethics should be philosophically justified?

Ethics work when they are justified by those we interact with. Why do we need to justify them to philosophers?

Who said anything about justify to philosophers? That's just one example, ie. justifying your ethical system by referencing epistemology. I am saying that since these can be admittedly vague notions, how do we explain how we come to certain conclusions, ie. about what freedom is. That's an extremely relevant question to whatever struggle you're engaged in. It's not enough to maintain the attitude, "I know what's wrong when I see it," because that uncritical reflex can lead to sticky situations when trying to justify one's very political direction.

[black magick hustla]

Why does it matter that our ethics should be philosophically justified?

Ethics work when they are justified by those we interact with. Why do we need to justify them to philosophers?

you dont need to justify them to philosophers, but to people who hold radically different ethics.

anyway, i dont think its possible to justify them in the same sense its impossible to justify your taste for chocolate

[Nwoye]

It seems to me that in most situations we judge comprehensive ethical systems (utilitarianism, kantianism, etc) based whether or not they produce outcomes in accordance with our intuitive notions justice. There are of course all those famous hypothetical situations like "there is a train hurdling down a track towards five people and the only way to stop it is to throw someone in front of the train - is this the ethical solution?". When we apply kantian ethics to that situation for example, we get the answer no, we can't throw a guy in front of the train because that means violating his status as an autonomous being, and any outcome acquired by unethical means is inherently unethical. But this doesn't gel well with our intuitive notions of justice, as it seems strange to us to allow 5 people to die just to spare this one person. So we end up either a) reframing our ethical approach or b) throwing aside kantian ethics altogether.

The point I'm trying to make here is that whenever we propose an ethical system, we judge its validity based on intuitive notions of right and wrong - we're not really constructing new ethical systems, we're just articulating the ones we've always held (even if they're subconscious in a sense). So to me it makes more sense to understand where we get our preconceived notions of ethics (culture, superstructure, innate human qualities, experience, reason, etc) then to go creating whole new ones.

idk if that makes sense.

[black magick hustla]

its outrageous there are actually "professional" ethicists. i bet its a profession built upon hot air. i challenge the idea that there is a way to meaningfully create a "framework" of ethics without resorting to some mad apriori judgement

[Lord Hargreaves]

Why does it matter that our ethics should be philosophically justified?

Ethics work when they are justified by those we interact with. Why do we need to justify them to philosophers?

The issue of morality only comes up when moral disagreement happens to surface - the existence of "morality" itself presupposes that there be more than one morality; morality (like capital) only exists in the plural. It is a kind of circular reasoning I guess, but I think it is true

Thus, your question seems to suppose ethics is uniform, and might be found guilty of perpetuating the totalitarian myth of social transparency, or else simply dissolves the issue of ethics in tautology

[Lord Hargreaves]

For example, Emmanuel Levinas' conception of ethics as a kind of first philosophy (we are met with the demand of the Other, which resists incorporation into our ontology) [...] In my opinion though, if we are to really avoid the pitfall of intuitionism, it would seem at a certain point we must take up the Levinasian attitude of attempting to formulate ethics at a fundamental level; even if that very attempt leads to the idea that "we have an ethics in relation to exactly what we can't formulate or interrogate, ie. the Other."

Hey Kalu - yeah, I too am becoming increasingly interested in Levinas's ethics as a kind of counterweight to recognition theory and the discourse ethics of Jurgen Habermas. I think it would be a great asset if these two conceptions of ethics could be put into some kind of productive tension

[kalu]

The point I'm trying to make here is that whenever we propose an ethical system, we judge its validity based on intuitive notions of right and wrong - we're not really constructing new ethical systems, we're just articulating the ones we've always held (even if they're subconscious in a sense). So to me it makes more sense to understand where we get our preconceived notions of ethics (culture, superstructure, innate human qualities, experience, reason, etc) then to go creating whole new ones.

idk if that makes sense.

Yeah, I kind of get what you're saying. This also reminds me of Foucault's ethics, which is produced by the very "governmentalization" of society.

Still, I think the value of developing the philosophical implications of ethics should not be ignored, as they may provide other insights into developing social critique, particularly related concepts like "emancipation."

Hey Hargreaves, could you discuss a bit more about Habermas' ethics? I have read little about him, and nothing by him.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Hey Hargreaves, could you discuss a bit more about Habermas' ethics? I have read little about him, and nothing by him.

I'm about to undertake some heavy reading on Habermas, for a seminar presentation I need to give in 4 weeks and a term paper I need to submit in January. I feel I'd be able to give you a fuller account of Habermas after I'm much more well-read myself, so I'll definitely get back to you (or post something on RevLeft about him) soon