These reactions are for ethics what measurements of time and distance are for physics—the evidence. The reason ethicists use hypotheticals like the runaway trolley and the unwilling organ donor is that different normative theories predict different intuitions in response to such scenarios.
This is analogous to saying that, when humans display a consistent bias in tests of reasoning, it’s evidence that our theories of logic are wrong.
We should be looking at our ethical intuitions and trying to come up with theories that predict future ethical intuitions.
You mean that the study of ethics is the search for sophisticated arguments to justify what we wanted to do in the first place?
I don’t dismiss what you’re saying; there is something wrong with our understanding of ethics when they all describe ways that people don’t act. When a pastor bemoans that people are incapable of acting good, it means that he doesn’t understand what “good” is. But you’ve gone to the other extreme. You’re undefining “normative”. You’ll only end up studying evolutionary psychology under the name of ethics.
This is analogous to saying that, when humans display a consistent bias in tests of reasoning, it’s evidence that our theories of logic are wrong.
But in reasoning we have a standard other than our intuitions for determining the right answer. So if you give someone a standard loss aversion scenario and they get it wrong you can show mathematically that they would have averaged a larger gain by a chance on the winnings. But there is no reason to think we know the math of morality and if multiplying utility by persons gives us answers that are contrary to our intuitions the thing to do seems to be to revise the math, not the intuitions. Now there might be independent reasons to keep the math and independent reasons to doubt our intuitions. But an automatic denial of intuitions, just to keep your current ethical theory just is privileging the hypothesis.
You mean that the study of ethics is the search for sophisticated arguments to justify what we wanted to do in the first place?
I’d say normative ethics is the process of formalizing and generalizing our intuitions. This can help solve tough cases where our intuitions don’t give clear answers. So in that sense ethical theories can provide justifications for tough cases. But I think that justification comes from our intuitions about the easy cases, not anything in the theory itself.
I think you mean something different by “ethics” than I do. I’m more of a realist. I’m not much interested in an ethics whose purpose is to describe human behavior. I’d rather use a different term for that.
If you’re trying to take a God’s eye view, in order to design a friendly AI and chart the future course of the universe, then the approach you’re suggesting would be overly anthropocentric.
My realism might be weaker than yours but I think I was just confusing in part of the OP. Normative ethics isn’t about explaining our intuitions (even though I say that, I misspoke). It is about what we should do. But we have no access to information about what we should do except through our ethical intuitions. There are cases where our intuitions don’t supply answers and that is why it is a good idea to generalize and formalize our ethical intuitions so that they can be applied to tough cases.
Let me ask you, since you’re a moral realist do you believe you have moral knowledge? If so, how did you get it?
This is analogous to saying that, when humans display a consistent bias in tests of reasoning, it’s evidence that our theories of logic are wrong.
You mean that the study of ethics is the search for sophisticated arguments to justify what we wanted to do in the first place?
I don’t dismiss what you’re saying; there is something wrong with our understanding of ethics when they all describe ways that people don’t act. When a pastor bemoans that people are incapable of acting good, it means that he doesn’t understand what “good” is. But you’ve gone to the other extreme. You’re undefining “normative”. You’ll only end up studying evolutionary psychology under the name of ethics.
But in reasoning we have a standard other than our intuitions for determining the right answer. So if you give someone a standard loss aversion scenario and they get it wrong you can show mathematically that they would have averaged a larger gain by a chance on the winnings. But there is no reason to think we know the math of morality and if multiplying utility by persons gives us answers that are contrary to our intuitions the thing to do seems to be to revise the math, not the intuitions. Now there might be independent reasons to keep the math and independent reasons to doubt our intuitions. But an automatic denial of intuitions, just to keep your current ethical theory just is privileging the hypothesis.
I’d say normative ethics is the process of formalizing and generalizing our intuitions. This can help solve tough cases where our intuitions don’t give clear answers. So in that sense ethical theories can provide justifications for tough cases. But I think that justification comes from our intuitions about the easy cases, not anything in the theory itself.
I think you mean something different by “ethics” than I do. I’m more of a realist. I’m not much interested in an ethics whose purpose is to describe human behavior. I’d rather use a different term for that.
If you’re trying to take a God’s eye view, in order to design a friendly AI and chart the future course of the universe, then the approach you’re suggesting would be overly anthropocentric.
My realism might be weaker than yours but I think I was just confusing in part of the OP. Normative ethics isn’t about explaining our intuitions (even though I say that, I misspoke). It is about what we should do. But we have no access to information about what we should do except through our ethical intuitions. There are cases where our intuitions don’t supply answers and that is why it is a good idea to generalize and formalize our ethical intuitions so that they can be applied to tough cases.
Let me ask you, since you’re a moral realist do you believe you have moral knowledge? If so, how did you get it?