The title of this topic, “Wahoo ethics,” suggests a stronger point than one I am actually making. I probably do this more often than I should, but the idea of the title is that I present an ethical theory that says you can do {x, y, z} and that others cannot do {a, b, c}. So you cheer (and say Wahoo) because you’ve always wanted to do {x, y, z} and always wanted to tell others they cannot do {a, b, c}. The point that the topic title suggests is that we just choose the ethical theory that happens to fit our whim or our desires.
That is overly simplistic, of course, because there are any number of factors that contribute to what we feel ought to be encouraged, permitted, discouraged, or forbidden. Biological, personal, and cultural factors all contribute, but the basic idea is still the same. It can hardly be reduced to whim and desire.
iivix: This does not imply that there is no (logical) theory behind one's own ethical positions, or that the logic that there is is used merely to back up ethical theories formed by convention. Doesn't it seem more accurate to say that we all have some moral intuitions that are prior to the rules of our family/ friends/ culture, and we then use logic to build on and defend these intuitions?
I think that people do have logical ethical theories underlying their beliefs about what is good and right, but I don’t think we have any evidence suggesting that human beings have moral intuitions prior to the rules of those around us. It is difficult to test, given that we are exposed to these outside influences from our birth, but there are indications that we are not born with these intuitions. Children who have not been shown love and affection from very early ages can develop serious pathologies that often lead to violence well beyond the realm of anything you or I would consider reasonable. I don’t know whether the intuition underlying the rules (as opposed to the theory underlying the rules) preceded the rules themselves. I don’t even think that they can be easily distinguished. In fact, I’m not sure whether the question of causality between ethical intuition and rules can be made coherent. However, they both precede the ethical theorizing that goes on here.
If all ethical points of view were based exclusively on one's cultural conditioning it fails to explain the persuasive nature of moral theories. By this, I mean that one's moral opinions tend to have a certain epistemic force of "being right, and being good", that other opinions (based on cultural factors) do not have. People just don't seem to think that ethical opinions are arbitrary.
These theories, I think, are persuasive because they seem to explain a reason for moral beliefs. They seem to. That’s not the same as actually doing so. If I believe in the set {x, y, z} above, for whatever reason, then a theory that implies these beliefs will, to me, seem to confirm them. But I could come up with a theory to imply nearly any set of beliefs. It seems to confirm them, but in fact, does nothing. |
