Metaethics

A relatively short introduction to metaethics. If you're interestied in further reading, check out this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the subject (one of the main sources for this video):
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/

Here's a similar video on the subject by LennyBound with a slightly different emphasis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv4ZZUrU27c

For those wondering about my own views on the subject: I'll just say I am hopeful about ethical naturalism. I'm sure there will be more videos to come on the subject.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• metaethics
• meta-ethics
• cognitivism
• moral
• realism
• naturalism
• subjectivism
• error
• theory
• cultural
• relativism
• divine
• command
• emotivism
• prescriptivism
• is
• ought
• open
• question
• argument
• problem

[scottforschler]

@killer4hire In sum, your question only has a determinate answer if you have a determinate theory; but since you seem interested in switching back and forth between the trivial claim that all goals come from desires (which is also ultimately unhelpful; read T. Nagel on "motivated desires"), and that we should satisfy "group" desires, your "theory" may simply be too equivocal to classify.

[scottforschler]

@killer4hire Then you've answered your original question about where this belongs in the video chart: your view is naturalistic in the ordinary sense, not the sense of having logic weight behind it, it's just 'what we do' and you have no further support for it. Of course, it relies on radically false premises: it is not what "we" do, if we = "every human being" and "it" = fulfill social desires.  Of course, you're now equivocating on the "it," switching to any desire whatsoever.

[killer4hire]

@scottforschler

It is not a "right" goal, it is what we do. This is independent from opinions about what goals should be. It is a given, a brute fact. there is nothing arbitrary about it. Yes off course it is naturalistic. I don't believe in ghosts.

It is 100% objective as it is independent from opinion.

People will pull their hand out of a flame. No opinion needed for that. Therefore the fact that desire causes all our actions is fact not value. This fact creates all goals.

[scottforschler]

@killer4hire No, you completely misunderstand yourself. Just because you call "group interest" ethics "inter-subjectivism" doesn't make it subjectivism. The latter is:  whatever YOU (or the IO, or the culture, etc.) approve of, is right. No reason to think this must = "satisfying the interests of a group." If you think doing so is an objective moral requirement, you're a moral realist. Don't know what you mean by "complimenting..."

[scottforschler]

@killer4hire Why is "to fulfill our desires" the right goal? Saying that *this* is a better or supreme goal is itself a moral judgment. Again, if you just arbitrarily *define* it as whatever satisfies personal self-interest, or social interest, or some other naturalistically-measurable quality, then your ethics is 100% naturalistic in the simple, contingent sense. But that doesn't yet show that the original definition has objective validity & authority.

[killer4hire]

@scottforschler

Morals exist to achieve a goal and that goal is to fulfill our desires and they are directly related to well-being. In order to achieve this we have emotional and cognitive capabilities. Both are naturalistic. Pain, pleasure, fear and desire are intrinsic values. There is no need to explain them as they are evident in and of themselves. That is why they generate all goals and thus oughts for us. Oughts that include taking others into account are morals.

[killer4hire]

@scottforschler

You completely misunderstand. Moral inter-subjectivism belongs under subjectivism. IOT (Ideal Observer Theory) belongs under moral realism.

The most I used refers to moral inter-subjectivism being complemented by moral egoism and IOT which complete our moral world so no "stronger" something is needed. Far from it, a "stronger something" would be redundant and unjustifiable.

[scottforschler]

@killer4hire Your description is naturalistic in the contingent sense, but you haven't explained how it is naturalistic in the stronger, analytic sense. What analytic truth *requires* us to define "moral" by "the well-being of the group"? I think there is one, but merely saying "that's what being moral is" doesn't elucidate the relationship.

[scottforschler]

@killer4hire I just told you; under naturalism.  "Maximizing group-interest," whether defined in a maximizing, egalitarian, or other ways, is a natural property. The video discussed naturalistic definitions in general, without mentioning this one in particular; you can fault it for not mentioning all varieties by name, but not for failing to have a place for this view.

BTW, "most" is not "all," which suggests that there may be something stronger yet than your def, worth looking for.

[killer4hire]

@scottforschler

It's both.

Morality is an emergent system we use to be efficient in our interactions with each other in our collective goals concerning well-being. That means the necessity of a lot of giving and taking to get the best results and a lot of failure and disagreement as we have limited information and very different visions on what strategies are the best.