Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Moral philosophy can be broadly divided into a few categories
Consequentialism - the idea that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. For example, utilitarianism suggests that moral actions are the ones which produce the most happiness.
Deontology - the idea that there are moral laws, and that moral actions are those that follow the laws.
Virtue ethics - the idea that virtuous actions help us flourish and vicious (from vices) actions hinder us. There is also the concept that virtues exist in the middle ("golden mean") of a scale between two vices, for example bravery is a virtue between the vices of cowardice and recklessness.
Pragmatism - the idea that there can be a moral progression of society and knowledge via study and inquiry. This is not so much a category of its own, but it's compatible with the the main ones mentioned above.
On a personal note, I do not like consequentialism as a moral theory. I lean more towards pragmatic deontology but virtue ethics is also compelling.
You're making me remember a term exam I had in my only philo class, freshman world philosophy. The professor asked something like the following,
I thought this was brilliant because he got to have a room full of undergrads think and write about a real moral conflict he was having with another human, and also, good for having us use our educatuon as applied to a real question.
I can vaguely remember my answer, but I don't really remember any of the world philosophy...
It's an interesting one! I haven't taken any classes but would love to do at least an introductory one. The Great Courses has a good series on moral philosophy and I enjoyed the book How to be Perfect by Michael Schur (creator of The Good Place tv show).
That question in particular would be difficult for me to answer in a purely philosophical sense. I suppose we'd need to define what good/bad for the environment mean etc.
The birds are fed, is that good for the environment? The birds are part of the environment, so yes I guess so.
Are the birds being fed appropriate food? We'd have to ask the professor.
Are at least some of the birds invasive or causing some other trouble in the environment? Have to gather more information.
Perhaps by feeding the birds, they are not eating as much other food like insects, which can cause pest issues?
I like to think your professor would grade on both your questions and your answers. Do you remember many of the specifics in your answer or any feedback you got?
Kind of a sore memory. This might have been the exam that for years afterwards whenever I saw this professor at social gatherings. He would say, hey sem, I still have an exam to get back to you. And I'd say, okay, I'll come by your office, but I never did. We were a fairly tight knit small program, and he prof had a tradition of inviting people to his house on friday evenings for discussion or special guests, just to show you what the vibe was.
He knew i struggled with procrastination, which he didn't hold against me. He would tell me how he once turned in a paper a year past the deadline.
I might be mixing up memories. I do remember him sharing by name his favorite answer and which student wrote it, which I disagreed with. That kid was very religious and studious, and had a scripture-informed answer, but he supported with other techniques from the class, that much I remember.
How you answer the question depends on you you frame right and wrong, moral and immoral, and thinking through those decisions and questions like you were doing is what he was looking for.
Wouldn't deontology and virtue ethics be same in your description? Like virtues are those moral laws? (I never took a philosophy course btw)
Virtues are human traits, like bravery, honesty, kindness etc
Moral laws tend to be more about specific actions, like "lying is wrong", "it is good to give to charity".
They might arrive in the same place, but take different routes. In addition, with the golden mean aspect of virtue ethics, applying moral laws too much can be bad.
For instance, deontology might feel is it is wrong to lie and good to tell the truth and those will be absolutely, categorically true. Golden mean would suggest that it is possible to tell the truth too much, perhaps if we are too forthcoming with it, or too blatant/tactless with it, or needlessly offensive. I'm not a scholar on this stuff, but that's my best explanation!
That makes a lot of sense, thanks!
I got as far as foucault, and the main thing i took away was that even with wildly differing moral philosophies, two people can always come to understand each other's position if they can talk to each other long enough, though they won't always agree in the end. There is no universal truth that is true for all of us.
Is that post-modernist philosophy?
Yeah, modernity was about things to be discovered and post-modernity was all about "everything is relative to social context"