Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bumharmony t1_ivak0wl wrote

Ethics starts from that ethical judgments become conflicted, not from alleged ”ethical agnosticism”.

For example we don’t ponder whether theft is wrong somehow in general but how to solve situations where people have different ideas of theft.

8

Fallacy_Spotted t1_ivapfkj wrote

In many cases some people would say that theft is morally correct. Like stealing food during a famine from the exploitative nobles exporting said food for profit like during the Irish famine.

11

The_Starter_Captain t1_ivau5ra wrote

So then you have to argue the morality of nobility. The same for the morality of any "governing" body in a society. No easy answers outside of subjectivity.

7

Until_Morning t1_ivcpu6r wrote

I have tried to read that first sentence over and over again and it's just not working...

1

bumharmony t1_ive5sdb wrote

It just means that we are not to ponder whether there is a ready ethical code somewhere in historical texts, in nature or religious texts that wait for our discovery. Ethics are constructed as a social contract although Kant is sometimes seen as a proponent of moral realism, that there is ready moral principle for all and you just need to *understand it correctly*, which leads to circularism and fideism.

It just means that philosophy is aporematic, that is, it starts from the discovery of a conflict and attempts to resolve that conflict, not from bibliophilic motives for example. Specific fields of study, like that of theology, can be a mere hobby, but philosophy can not be a hobby I think.

1

Until_Morning t1_iveg836 wrote

Interesting. I think I can grasp this concept on a rudimentary level. I still think the first sentence was worded super weirdly though 💀

1