That in itself isn’t a good definition , because it doesn’t distinguish ethics from, e.g. Medicine...and it doesn’t tell you whose well being. De facto people are ethically obliged to do things which against their well being and refrain from doing some things which promote their own wellbeing...I can’t rob people to pay my medical bills.
Promoting your own well-being only would be egoism, while ethics seems to be more similar to altruism.
Whose desires?
I guess of all beings that are conscious. Perhaps relative to their degree of consciousness. Though those are all questions which actual theories in normative ethics try to answer.
Why?
Not sure what this is asking for, but if it is “why is this analysis correct rather than another, or none?”—because of the meaning of the involved term. (Compare “why not count bushes as “trees” as well?”—“because that would be talking about something else”)
The various forms of theories in normative ethics (e.g. the numerous theories of utilitarianism, or Extrapolated Volition) can be viewed as attempts to analyze what terms like “ethics” or “good” mean exactly.
They could also be seen as attempts to find different denotations of a term with shared connotation.
This doesn’t reflect the actual methodology, where theories are judged in thought experiments on whether they satisfy our intuitive, pre-theoretical concepts. That’s the same as in other areas of philosophy where conceptual analysis is performed.
Promoting your own well-being only would be egoism, while ethics seems to be more similar to altruism
Well, yes. (You don’t have to start from.a tabular area , and then proceed in baby steps, since there is a lot of prior art)
because of the meaning of the involved term
But “desires” is not how “ethics” is defined in standard dictionaries or philosophy. It’s not “the” definition.
This doesn’t reflect the actual methodology, where theories are judged in thought experiments on whether they satisfy our intuitive, pre-theoretical concepts
That’s irrelevant. Rival theories still need shared connotation.
Promoting your own well-being only would be egoism, while ethics seems to be more similar to altruism.
I guess of all beings that are conscious. Perhaps relative to their degree of consciousness. Though those are all questions which actual theories in normative ethics try to answer.
Not sure what this is asking for, but if it is “why is this analysis correct rather than another, or none?”—because of the meaning of the involved term. (Compare “why not count bushes as “trees” as well?”—“because that would be talking about something else”)
This doesn’t reflect the actual methodology, where theories are judged in thought experiments on whether they satisfy our intuitive, pre-theoretical concepts. That’s the same as in other areas of philosophy where conceptual analysis is performed.
Well, yes. (You don’t have to start from.a tabular area , and then proceed in baby steps, since there is a lot of prior art)
But “desires” is not how “ethics” is defined in standard dictionaries or philosophy. It’s not “the” definition.
That’s irrelevant. Rival theories still need shared connotation.