That seems not biologically realistic. In practice, ethical systems are often about manipulating others not to take actions that some group regards as undesirable.
Sure it was. My perspective would be a bit different: all human moral systems have a hefty component of manipulation and punishment. Virtue ethics does so—if anything—more than most—because punishment is often aimed at preventing reoffense (either by acting as a deterrent, or by using incarceration) - and so punishers are often unusually interested in the offending agent’s dispositions—despite the difficulty of extracting them.
It’s interesting to distinguish between ethics and morality in this manner, as in ethics is for the individual’s benefit as opposed to morality which is for the benefit of the group as a whole. Which is why people speak of “medical ethics” or “journalistic ethics”, as opposed to “medical morality” and “journalistic morality”. Morality is considered as some kind of constant normative prescription, whereas ethics is sensitive to subjective dispositions and thus can vary between professions, individuals, etc.
Which is why people speak of “medical ethics” or “journalistic ethics”, as opposed to “medical morality” and “journalistic morality”.
Actually, that’s a different use of the word ethics: the rules of conduct for a group or profession. You can meaningfully say that following the rules of medical ethics is unethical and not to anyone’s benefit.
An example of what? My point was that that sentence is not a contradiction, because “ethics” in that particular definition just means following established rules of conduct, which does not necessarily coincide with the individual’s benefit or the group’s benefit.
Doctors established them in order to preserve the legitimacy of their profession. That’s my understanding, in any case.
In some cases it was to enforce a cartel (emphasis mine):
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art–if they desire to learn it–without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else. …
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Wow… hadn’t read the original, interesting. Still, that is the Oath as it was 2k years ago, and as such it is no longer part of established medical ethics. I think it’s plausible that in fact the abandonment of that section might have been necessary to preserve the profession’s legitimacy! As well as nixing the part where the Oath is consecrated by Apollo, etc.
Oh, sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that such a rule existed, just that if one did exist, it would be ethical (in the sense of being a rule of professional conduct) and unethical (in a different sense of the word ‘ethical’) at the same time. Contrast the second definition on this page with the others.
Doctors established them in order to preserve the legitimacy of their profession. That’s my understanding, in any case.
Well, many professions have established such rules, and presumably, they did so to make their professions more legitimate, as well as to give their members a guide to behavior their committees considered better.
Maybe I wasn’t either… are we actually disagreeing here? Heh.
it would be ethical (in the sense of being a rule of professional conduct) and unethical (in a different sense of the word ‘ethical’) at the same time. . . [link to some definitions]
I know the word is used in the sense of definitions 1 and 3. What I’m saying is that I think it’s more interesting to forget the moral usage altogether, and just stick with saying that ethics is #2, because when you think about it they are very distinct concepts.
I haven’t grossly stretched or distorted the everyday usage of these words, so I’m not sure why I deserve to have their dictionary definitions shoved at me (especially since ethics #2 agrees with my usage). In fact I provided examples wherein the use of these words actually differs in common speech. I’ve tried to convey why I think this subtle difference is interesting. I wouldn’t say that I was arguing with the dictionary (although there is a time to do so).
As one might expect this issue of the distinction between ethics and morality routinely comes up in undergraduate philosophy courses. I have yet to hear a professor of philosophy endorse any distinction between morality and ethics and they often are perplexed that the general public seems to think there is one. Professional usage, not common usage, is what matters when we’re thinking about issues in an academic field.
Regardless of the terms’ usages in academia, there is often a distinction in common speech. I disagree that this distinction is irrelevant. Also, having gotten to know several professional philosophers before leaving the field for mathematics, I know that they are not as confused by this distinction (or the public’s employment of it) as you suggest, even if they choose not to draw it themselves.
But it’s all moot, as
Professional usage, not common usage, is what matters when we’re thinking about issues in an academic field.
implies that any usage of ethics in opposition to the study of Aristotle’s eudaimonia was at one time as irrelevant/improper as the common usage is now. I think, while that statement might be correct for a technical field’s vocabulary, it is not alright to restrict a layman’s usage of certain philosophical terms, like ethics, in the same manner.
implies that any usage of ethics in opposition to the study of Aristotle’s eudaimonia was at one time as irrelevant/improper as the common usage is now.
Uh… ethics is the study of the good. Aristotle has arguments which conclude that eudaimonia is the highest good. But that doesn’t preclude other investigations into the good life. In any case, I have no problem at all with introducing new questions or inventing distinctions. I have a problem with amateurs working in a field and altering the usage of professionals for no good reason. It is bad form and reflects poorly on us. I really doubt that we need to change our definition of the word ethics to be capable of understanding the distinction you are trying to make.
I think, while that statement might be correct for a technical field’s vocabulary, it is not alright to restrict a layman’s usage of certain philosophical terms, like ethics, in the same manner.
A layman can use whatever words he or she likes. But if you want to study a field use the terms as others in that field use them, unless there is actually a problem with that terminology.
I’m reminded of why I left the discipline—it’s a historico-linguistic claptrap.
All I advocated for was the term’s speciation—which, I’ll add again, is already present in the dictionary as well as in common usage. I reject the notion that, in order to suggest this, I first need to be a philosopher by trade.
Axiology is the study of the good. It’s just confusing to name it “ethics” when there’s a perfectly good, more specific word to apply. I may write an entire post on this and similar vocabulary failures soon.
That’s the standard conceptual hierarchy. In any case, I was talking about Aristotle. If your point is “you should have been more clear”, fair enough. Otherwise I don’t really know what we’re talking about or why I’m getting voted down.
The dictionary simply doesn’t distinguish between these terms on the basis of who they benefit. In fact it defines ethics in terms of morality in most cases.
One caveat: One should, of course, refrain from using virtue ethics to evaluate others’ choices. It’s best to use consequentialism for that purpose.
Indeed. It’s common amongst virtue ethicists to discourage finger-wagging, and emphasize that ethics is about “what I should do”.
That seems not biologically realistic. In practice, ethical systems are often about manipulating others not to take actions that some group regards as undesirable.
I don’t think biologically realistic is the expression you were looking for.
But ethical systems can be for manipulating others, or for manipulating yourself. In the case of virtue ethics, it’s mainly for yourself.
Sure it was. My perspective would be a bit different: all human moral systems have a hefty component of manipulation and punishment. Virtue ethics does so—if anything—more than most—because punishment is often aimed at preventing reoffense (either by acting as a deterrent, or by using incarceration) - and so punishers are often unusually interested in the offending agent’s dispositions—despite the difficulty of extracting them.
It’s interesting to distinguish between ethics and morality in this manner, as in ethics is for the individual’s benefit as opposed to morality which is for the benefit of the group as a whole. Which is why people speak of “medical ethics” or “journalistic ethics”, as opposed to “medical morality” and “journalistic morality”. Morality is considered as some kind of constant normative prescription, whereas ethics is sensitive to subjective dispositions and thus can vary between professions, individuals, etc.
Actually, that’s a different use of the word ethics: the rules of conduct for a group or profession. You can meaningfully say that following the rules of medical ethics is unethical and not to anyone’s benefit.
Can you give an example?
An example of what? My point was that that sentence is not a contradiction, because “ethics” in that particular definition just means following established rules of conduct, which does not necessarily coincide with the individual’s benefit or the group’s benefit.
A rule in medical ethics which is not intended to protect/benefit either the practitioner himself or the purpose of his livelihood.
Doctors established them in order to preserve the legitimacy of their profession. That’s my understanding, in any case.
In some cases it was to enforce a cartel (emphasis mine):
Wow… hadn’t read the original, interesting. Still, that is the Oath as it was 2k years ago, and as such it is no longer part of established medical ethics. I think it’s plausible that in fact the abandonment of that section might have been necessary to preserve the profession’s legitimacy! As well as nixing the part where the Oath is consecrated by Apollo, etc.
Oh, sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that such a rule existed, just that if one did exist, it would be ethical (in the sense of being a rule of professional conduct) and unethical (in a different sense of the word ‘ethical’) at the same time. Contrast the second definition on this page with the others.
Well, many professions have established such rules, and presumably, they did so to make their professions more legitimate, as well as to give their members a guide to behavior their committees considered better.
Maybe I wasn’t either… are we actually disagreeing here? Heh.
I know the word is used in the sense of definitions 1 and 3. What I’m saying is that I think it’s more interesting to forget the moral usage altogether, and just stick with saying that ethics is #2, because when you think about it they are very distinct concepts.
It’s worth teasing out a few different definitions. There are at least four distinct concepts:
Rules of professional conduct, which do not necessarily relate to doing the right thing or anyone’s benefit at all
A normative prescription
Rules for the individual’s benefit
Rules for the group’s benefit
It seems like pointlessly arguing with the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
I haven’t grossly stretched or distorted the everyday usage of these words, so I’m not sure why I deserve to have their dictionary definitions shoved at me (especially since ethics #2 agrees with my usage). In fact I provided examples wherein the use of these words actually differs in common speech. I’ve tried to convey why I think this subtle difference is interesting. I wouldn’t say that I was arguing with the dictionary (although there is a time to do so).
As one might expect this issue of the distinction between ethics and morality routinely comes up in undergraduate philosophy courses. I have yet to hear a professor of philosophy endorse any distinction between morality and ethics and they often are perplexed that the general public seems to think there is one. Professional usage, not common usage, is what matters when we’re thinking about issues in an academic field.
Regardless of the terms’ usages in academia, there is often a distinction in common speech. I disagree that this distinction is irrelevant. Also, having gotten to know several professional philosophers before leaving the field for mathematics, I know that they are not as confused by this distinction (or the public’s employment of it) as you suggest, even if they choose not to draw it themselves.
But it’s all moot, as
implies that any usage of ethics in opposition to the study of Aristotle’s eudaimonia was at one time as irrelevant/improper as the common usage is now. I think, while that statement might be correct for a technical field’s vocabulary, it is not alright to restrict a layman’s usage of certain philosophical terms, like ethics, in the same manner.
Uh… ethics is the study of the good. Aristotle has arguments which conclude that eudaimonia is the highest good. But that doesn’t preclude other investigations into the good life. In any case, I have no problem at all with introducing new questions or inventing distinctions. I have a problem with amateurs working in a field and altering the usage of professionals for no good reason. It is bad form and reflects poorly on us. I really doubt that we need to change our definition of the word ethics to be capable of understanding the distinction you are trying to make.
A layman can use whatever words he or she likes. But if you want to study a field use the terms as others in that field use them, unless there is actually a problem with that terminology.
I’m reminded of why I left the discipline—it’s a historico-linguistic claptrap.
All I advocated for was the term’s speciation—which, I’ll add again, is already present in the dictionary as well as in common usage. I reject the notion that, in order to suggest this, I first need to be a philosopher by trade.
Axiology is the study of the good. It’s just confusing to name it “ethics” when there’s a perfectly good, more specific word to apply. I may write an entire post on this and similar vocabulary failures soon.
Ethics is a subfield of axiology, the study of the good life instead of the good state or something else.
That’s how Aristotle approached it; not all ethicists do.
That’s the standard conceptual hierarchy. In any case, I was talking about Aristotle. If your point is “you should have been more clear”, fair enough. Otherwise I don’t really know what we’re talking about or why I’m getting voted down.
I thought that the standard answer was “one is latin and the other is greek”.
The dictionary simply doesn’t distinguish between these terms on the basis of who they benefit. In fact it defines ethics in terms of morality in most cases.
Oh, good.