#ethical philosophy

[traaansfem]

Had some really interesting ideas about how we could teach ethical philosophy if we ever decided to

Specifically, an assignment designed to make people come to conclusions about the possibilities for misuse of ethical frameworks when extrapolated beyond reason.

So. Here's the assignment.

Under at least two of the following ethical frameworks- utilitarianism, ethical universalism, virtue ethics, and legalism, justify two diametrically opposed viewpoints on a policy decision, and write one argument for each position, each under the same ethical framework. Bonus points may be allocated for using the same arguments and reaching distinct conclusions on what ought to be done in light of that. (Maybe require at least some of the same arguments? Workshopping it)

Then, as a followup assignment/corollary/metacognitive exercise, examine which arguments could be used for both sides, and pick through them for fallacies, points at which a rebuttal could be used to dismiss them, disprove them, or otherwise overcome them, and identify overlapping flaws held in both essays.

The point of this assignment being, determine how the misuse of ethical frameworks can lead to the justification of goals not supported by reason, logic, empathy, etc.

No ethical system is perfect, and it is a moral responsibility to be aware of flaws within them, and correspondingly, potential flaws in your thinking.

Do not become slipshod of reason.

[aroxbetchio]

if you enjoyed the amazing digital circus, watch bojack horseman

if you did not enjoy the amazing digital circus, watch the good place

if you want a new perspective on ethical philosophy, switch these around

both are philosophical shows (and objectively, some of the greatest pieces of media of all time) that dive into the balance between the influences of one’s actions and their actions themselves, accountability, and how to change.

you might think that they’re just comedies at first, but they’re ‘normie-baiting’ you (i know, great way to put it). the first season of both of these shows will give an illusion of being lighthearted comedies, but i promise you, they’re not, and if you be patient, you will not regret it.

and i’m so fucking serious. bojack horseman IS NOT just another adult comedy, not even in the slightest, its deeply philosophical, it’s a social-psychological narrative that explores generational trauma, addiction, misogyny, how we appoint meaning to things, and the importance of accountability and change.

[cybergrapeuk]

Hit the Target Turned into a Dog.

Would You Pull the Lever?

[butcherrypie]

@sickofthis666 you actually raise, for once in the entire conversation, a good point, that requires analysis. Yes, people who believe something in their daily lives will also likely believe it within a consensual sexual context. A man who likes to hit his wife without her consent in a nonsexual context would likely also enjoy hitting his wife if she consented to it too. This is can be reduced to an if-then statement of

"If someone enjoys performing an action or engaging with an idea outside of the context of consensual sex, then they will enjoy performing that same action or engaging with that same idea within the context of consensual sex."

(consensual here defined as having consented not only to sex but also to the actions being performed/beliefs being engaged with)

I think we can both agree on this statement, therefore we don't need to have rigour in justifying it for the purposes of this conversation.

however, pro-kink and anti-kink stances differe here with the addition of a therefore:

"If someone enjoys performing an action or engaging with an idea outside of the context of consensual sex, then they will enjoy performing that same action or engaging with that same idea within the context of consensual sex.

therefore:

If someone enjoys performing an action or engaging with an idea within the context of consensual sex, then they will enjoy performing that same action or engaging with that same idea outside the context of consensual sex."

This is a non sequitur, and we're going to fit the second statement, or statement 2 to the most basic of sex scenarios to see why it isn't true: The act of penetrating a partner.

"If someone enjoys the act of/the idea of penetrating a partner within the context of consensual sex then they will enjoy the act of/the idea of penetrating a partner outside the context of consensual sex"

This is a statement that we can both agree is false, and so as before we will not rigorously dismantle it for the sake of brevity.

With that, we can see how statement 2 is false, but that means we now need to consider why statement 2 is false.

Statement 2 argues that for all people, the presence or absence of consent is negligable when it comes to their enjoyment of something, but for the vast majority of people, the absence of consent will make something infinitely less enjoyable. This is because of empathy. You know that you would not enjoy something that you did not consent to, then if you were to consider doing something to someone that they did not consent to, you would know that they would not enjoy said thing, and you can empathise with that. Therefore, you will not enjoy doing something to someone they did not consent to. This is also just the golden rule; "If I do not enjoy things done to me without my consent, I ought not to do things to people without their consent."

It is only through the absence of empathy for the person you are considering that consent becomes irrelevant to your own enjoyment. Notably this does not mean that the only people who do not care about consent are those who lack the capacity for empathy, the primary perpetuators of nonconsensual acts are those who have selective empathy.

And finally, this brings us to our conclusory statement:

It is true that:

Enjoying something done to or with a person without their consent requires an absence of empathy for that person, whilst enjoying something done to or with a person with their consent can be done with or without empathy for them.

Therefore:

You cannot assume that someone who engages in something with the consent of the persons involved has an absence of empathy, and therefore the capacity to enjoy the said thing without said consent.

And further:

You can only assume that someone enjoys engaging in something without the consent of the persons involved if they have demonstrated that enjoyment

That is the core foundation of not only kink, but also basic social respect.

Thank you, thank you, your applause is too kind, too kind. I'll be here until the heat death of the universe, folks!

[crooked-wasteland]

Hey! What books about philosophy do you recommend for starters?

Have a good day!

The book of Philosophy for people who have absolutely zero understanding of where to start or what philosophical theory is:

No I am not kidding. At the very beginning of the book, Collins quotes fundamental beliefs of philosophy from Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, and Jean-Jaques Rousseau as well as poet William Wordsworth (because art and philosophy are intrinsically entwined).

All three of these philosophers are embodied in different characters of the book. Dr. Gaul and her belief that all people are fundamentally cruel, violent and without empathy is taken directly from Hobbs while Lucy Grey is more hopeful, believing that people are first and foremost cooperative and desire community. Young President Snow is caught in between them, attempting to formulate his own world view that ultimately settles on the quote from Rosseau.

The reason I recommend something like this and not an actual textbook is because it shows the way these philosophies practically play out. Snow actively argues against Gaul when he ends up killing a tribute, claiming that such barbarism is not what he is. Only out of necessity did he commit the action, it's clear the act of violence is one that fundamentally shakes his sense of self. Such acts are inhuman even to him, it was due to forces outside of his control.

Like Rousseau says in his quote: "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."

And I would like to point out that Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau are all from a specific branch of philosophy on ethics called Natural Law Theory. To be frank this is the branch of ethical philosophy I dislike the most, but it is also the foundational philosophies of the United States. Which is why these philosophers should be familiar to most Americans.

If you wish to know more on the general overview of different branches of philosophy, Russ Shafer-Landau's book The Fundamentals of Ethics is not a bad choice.

However

Shafer-Landau has some extremely weak arguments in some cases as he attempts to critique some theories while missing other major issues that could generally come from misappropriating specific rules of theory. This is not a book you can simply read and feel like you learned something. Unfortunately philosophy as a whole is like that. It is far more fluid and requires a critical eye to really dig into. It's a great book for an overview of what philosophical theories and branches there are and a general overview of what they believe, as well as some genuinely good criticism, but it isn't at all perfect. Philosophy requires a critical eye and that's why I would start with Collins' work.

It's easier to be critical when the characters and the story feel more accessible and it can help build some of this critical thinking to question what someone is telling you, regardless of their perceived positions of authority.

There is another book that is a compilation of essays from philosophers, edited together by Shafer-Landau called The Ethical Life that I personally feel is an obligatory companion to his fundamentals.

[omegaphilosophia]

Comparing the Ethics of Materialists, Idealists, and Dualists

The ethical views of materialists, idealists, and dualists differ based on how they understand reality—what exists, what matters, and what drives human behavior. Their metaphysical commitments shape how they think about right and wrong, value, responsibility, and the good life.

1. Materialist Ethics

Ontology: Only physical matter exists. Consciousness, values, and morality are products of the brain or social constructs.

Ethical Emphasis:

Empiricism & Consequences: Ethics tends to be consequentialist (e.g., utilitarianism), focusing on outcomes and material well-being.

Hedonism or Physicalism: Some materialists promote pleasure or the reduction of suffering as the highest good.

Social or Biological Determinism: Moral behavior may be seen as a product of evolution, culture, or neurobiology.

Examples: Epicurean ethics (seeking pleasure without pain), Marxist ethics (morality as shaped by material conditions), and modern utilitarianism.

2. Idealist Ethics

Ontology: Reality is fundamentally mental, spiritual, or based in ideas. The physical world is secondary or illusory.

Ethical Emphasis:

Moral Absolutism: There are eternal, unchanging moral truths.

Spiritual or Intellectual Perfection: Ethics aims to align the soul with the Good, Truth, or divine order.

Inner Duty over External Outcome: Doing what is right may be more important than practical consequences.

Examples: Plato’s ethics (the Good as an eternal form), Immanuel Kant (duty-based ethics grounded in rational will), and some religious moral philosophies.

3. Dualist Ethics

Ontology: Both mind and matter (or soul and body) exist as distinct substances.

Ethical Emphasis:

Tension Between Flesh and Spirit: Ethical struggle often involves mastering bodily desires in favor of rational or spiritual ideals.

Freedom and Responsibility: Dualism supports a strong sense of moral agency and personal responsibility.

Moral Law as Bridging Realms: Ethics may involve reconciling the physical and spiritual through moral discipline or divine guidance.

Examples: Christian ethics (body vs. soul), Cartesian views of will and reason, or Stoicism (reason over emotion).

Each framework raises different ethical questions:

Materialists ask: What causes suffering and how can we reduce it?

Idealists ask: What is right regardless of the consequences?

Dualists ask: How do I align my actions with both body and soul?

[iguanalysis]

"The impossible according to the totality of what is questioned, according to the totality of beings, objects and determinations, the impossible according to the history of facts, has occurred: there is a history of the question, a pure memory of the pure question which in its possibility perhaps authorizes all inheritance and all pure memory in general and as such. The question has already begun—we know it has—and this strange certainty about an other absolute origin, an other absolute decision that has secured the past of the question, liberates an incomparable instruction: the discipline of the question. Through (through, that is to say that we must already know how to read) this discipline, which is not yet even the inconceivable tradition of the negative (of negative determination), and which is completely previous to irony, to maieutics, to epochê, and to doubt, an injunction is announced: the question must be maintained. As a question. The liberty of the question (double genitive) must be stated and protected. A founded dwelling, a realized tradition of the question remaining a question. If this commandment has an ethical meaning, it is not in that it belongs to the domain of the ethical, but in that it ultimately authorizes every ethical law in general. There is no stated law, no commandment, that is not addressed to a freedom of speech. There is therefore neither law nor command­ment which does not confirm and enclose—that is, does not dissimulate by presupposing it—the possibility of the question. Thus, the question is always enclosed; it never appears immediately as such, but only through the hermetism of a proposition in which the answer has already begun to determine the question. The purity of the question can only be indicated or recalled through the difference of a hermeneutical effort."

— Jacques Derrida, Violence and Metaphysics: An Essay on the Thought of Emmanuel Levinas (1967).

[catgirltoes]

i made an alignment chart, tag yourself