Questions to ask your ethics professor

Meta-ethics is the predominant form of philosophical inquiry into the nature of ethics. Meta-ethics rejects the direct application of fact, observation and experience to ethical theory. It narrows the scope of inquiry to an analysis of the language of ethical statements. This is done to such an extent that philosophers have lost track of the fact that the subject is about ethics and instead a preoccupation with words on a piece of paper. Meta-ethics cannot tell you much of anything about ethics; weather rape is right or wrong;; weather right and wrong ever be defined. As one looks at meta-ethics from the inside it is ever so logical, meaningful and elegant. But, apply the internal dialog to the outside world, and elegant logic begins to look more like elegant nonsense. Professors of philosophy need to be challenged on this issue. Keep in mind it is meta-ethical arguments that have obstructed the rise of a theory of evolutionary ethics saying that its logic is flawed. But what would one expect if all observation, experience and scientific fact were taken out of the development of an ethical theory? Ethical evolution is a living, dynamic phenomenon. The language of philosophy is ill-equipped to describe the complexities of evolutionary process. To see reasons why meta-ethics is the wrong language click here.

Can ethics be thought of as a science? If not, what about the evolution of ethical systems? Is there anything universal about the idea that where there are enduring cultures there are evolving moral and ethical systems?

Does moral knowledge exist? If there is, does early childhood training, school, clubs and workplace training contribute to moral indoctrination that forms the foundation of moral knowledge?

Simply because formal logic calls itself logical does this necessarily mean it is in fact logical?

If evolutionary ethics relies on science, fact, and observation it will always be rejected by meta-ethical reasoning as credible. Here is a revised definition of meta-ethics. What do you think?

  Here is a definition of meta-ethics as it relates to a more scientifically based evolutionary ethic. In general meta-ethics focuses on the meaning of words while a scientifically based ethic focuses on observation and fact. Which has the greater potential to explain the source of ethics?

Meta-ethics: For hundreds of years the predominant philosophical method of analyzing and reasoning the source of ethics. A form of logic in which the meanings of generalized words like good and moral are used to shape ethical theory. Here, the direct application of fact, science, experience, or observation is excluded from the logical process. Generalized words refer to other generalized words in an attempt to derive a specific outcome of logic. For example, meta-ethical reasoning can find no definition of the word good. Since it cannot be defined, meta-ethical logic concludes right and wrong cannot be known. The specific sense of the word good such as a good mechanic, a good carpenter, a good photograph can be known. An expert in photographs, such as a university archivalist, can describe in detail all the elements of good and bad in a photograph in artistic and technical terms. The general idea of good evolves from the many thousands of ways good is known and experienced in the real world. Meta-ethical reasoning concludes that any attempt to reason the existence of ethics in evolutionary terms will logically fail. see science & ethics for more

What is the difference between a reasoned argument and a logical one? If logic were used in the strictest sense, wouldn't the volumes of words needed to be logical be so large as to impinge on the understanding the subject under scrutiny?

Is a paradigm shift in ethics possible? Could this shift be the result of the illogic and inaction of past thinkers who spent too much time basing theory based on words grounded in other words instead of being grounded into a "real time" world of human needs, actions and experiences? 

Linguist S. I. Hayakawa differentiates between arguments of substance and arguments of symbol—"the word is not the thing, the map is not the territory." In this perspective Is the language of the naturalistic fallacy grounded in anything substantial? Here, Moore uses words such as good, goodness, morality and the like  in such a generalized way that it invites the logical conclusion that nothing can be known about these terms. Aren't these words simply symbols that evolve from specific instances of behavior that are known as good or moral? Instances that can be analyzed in a logical and consistent way. The closer a person gets to the source of words. the closer they get to the substance of that word.

Sting theory calls itself science even though it cannot exactly predict the outcome of events in the same way Newtonian physics can. In string theory the arguments and evidence are reasonable, not exact. In the same light, is it possible for there to be reasonable definitions of moral right and wrong, good and bad in the absence of an absolute definition of these terms? Does the ethical formalism of the is/ought dichotomy and the naturalistic fallacy require a level of exactness that cannot be reasonably attained?

Can there actually be first principles of ethics (i.e. universal moral principles)? Isn't the contemporary problem of resolving first principles and relativism a problem of defining ethical concepts in static terms when dynamic concepts would function much better? Structural engineering employs dynamic concepts. Static views of complex phenomenon do not work. For instance, the overwhelming complexity of constructing tall buildings require a more dynamic approach employing calculus and differential equations to solve. Can cybernetic science serve as a calculus to solve complex human phenomenon?

 

v9.5 5/28/06

The predominant method of reasoning the derivation of ethics. A form of logic in which the meanings of generalized words are used to reason the source of ethics. Here,