Texts on Morality

[Rores28]

I'm fairly firmly planted in the moral relativist camp and I'd like to get some recommendations on books that offer problems or alternatives.

My main requirement is that they not be religious or maybe a better word is dogmatic in nature. I don't want... killing is bad because God says so etc...

I'd also like to read possible alternatives to scenarios such as these:

Would you actively kill one person to save two?

Would you actively kill a child to save two adults.

Would you actively torture a child in order to save 100,000 peoples' lives?

etc...

[Dodo25]

Ethics is my favorite subject, I think I've got the perfect books for you. All of them changed the way I think about morality and thus life in general.

'Practical Ethics' by Peter Singer
This books presents an almost shockingly self-consistent and logical approach to ethics. It deals with issues and values(?) of the environment, life (animals or human, including euthanasia and abortion), money (foreign aid and immigration policies) and 'the law' and justice itself. It also gives some good reasons for being moral in the first place.

'The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values' by Sam Harris
The title sais it all. The thoughts aren't really new, but they're applied in quite a revolutionary way, it also includes reasons for choosing an axiom for ethics at all. The rest you can guess by the title.

'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
This is an authobiography, I know at first sight this must seem like a very strange suggestion. But I think this book really captures the problems of moral relativism. It's also a nice alternation after all that technical philosophy (altough I must emphasize that the books above are, despite their intellectual density, well readable). Anyway, Ayaan was raised as a Muslim in Somalia. She escaped from a forced marriage and received asylum in the Netherlands. So she came from fundamentalist third world Islam to a Western democracy. The change in society and human values couldn't be more drastic. Totally astonished by the new world she finds herself in, Ayaan studied political sciences and became a spokesperson for human rights, especially concerning females in muslim countries. She currently lives in the US under very heavy police protection, because she received countless death threats, some of them having resulted in the murderings of people she had worked with.

Edit: As for the questions, I think I have sound answers for all of them, and I think I can convince people why my answers are better than answers that differ. However, I'm not going to answer here because some people will be shocked and I'm not in the mood to start a huge discussion. If you're interested in my answers (which represent the messages of the books I posted), I can send them in a PM.

[OrphanPip]

Peter Singer is probably the most famous ethical philosopher alive today. Although, I think Singer is a bit extreme at times.

It couldn't hurt to get some sort of general text on ethics to start with though. It helps if you have a comfortable understanding of Bentham and early Utilitarian writing to get where Singer is coming from.

Kant is a big player in ethics, but he's famously difficult to read, it's much easier to read about him.

[Rores28]

Thanks for the recommendations. And sure send me ur opinions Dodo.

[Theunderground]

I find singer an absolute nutcase and a hypocrite.
A guy whose intellect has got in the way of common sense. (like 99% of philosophers.)
Sam Harris has some fantastic views for a scientist. Quite promising.

Most 'textbooks' or academic books on ethics are just intellectual games and do not take into account feelings,emotions and the existentially embedded nature of humans.
Great Literature i feel can give us a clue,as can other peoples actual experiences on specific issues.
Finally,i feel many dont seem to trust themsleves enough to work out their own practical morality.

[Dodo25]

I find singer an absolute nutcase and a hypocrite.

Why?



Sam Harris has some fantastic views for a scientist. Quite promising.

This makes no sense; Sam Harris is advocating the same sort of ethics Singer is!



Most 'textbooks' or academic books on ethics are just intellectual games and do not take into account feelings,emotions and the existentially embedded nature of humans.

What's the 'existentially embedded nature of humans'?

[Theunderground]

Because Mr singer is suggesting that some animals have the more capacity for suffering than babies and thus concluding we should show more care for the animals. All this guff about animals being equated with humans is beyond idiotic.
Also mr singer suggests we are immoral if we dont save third world children by donating huge amounts of our income to them.
He is a hypocrite because when his mother was dying he did exactly the opposite of what his ideals said to do,he discusses this in his book.
Sam harris was advocating a kind of neurolgical and 'inbuilt' human nature which tended to dislike harm,and that this founded the basis of an 'objective' morality. If he has started on a quest to save the 'ape' then i disagree with him on that issue. For a scientist at least hes trying to explore some kind of practical common sense morality,which is very commendable.
The existential embedded nature of man is the fact that he has experiences unique to himself which cant be intellectualized by another person in a lab.And the fact that emotions,feelings and free-will seems to be almost ignored in the 'calculus' of ethics mr singer and other dogmatists prescribe.

[Dodo25]

Babies vs. Chimps
Imagine your the head of an architecture business, and you are looking for a new architect. You get lots of applications. Is it justifiable to ignore all applications from women, simply because on average, women are worse at spatial-imagination (true fact) than men? Certainly, that would be wrong, because the woman best at it is certainly better than the majority of men! So discriminating against someone because of averages of a group he/she/it belongs to is bad. The job should be given to the applicant with the best relevant qualifications.

Take this reasoning to animals: Human infants aren't self-aware, they don't see themselves as beings existing over time. They can certainly suffer pain, but they don't have memories or future plans. They live in the moment. Some other animals on the other hand, i.e. chimpanzees, are self-aware to a surprising extent. So if we stop the discriminating labelling of groups ("humans are holy and chimps are just stupid animals") and instead look at the actual facts that matter (capacity to suffer, emotionally as well as physically), it turns out that adult chimps suffer much worse than human infants. Of course, infants have caring parents too which suffer when the infant suffers, but we're looking at the 'intrinsic' value of baby life (or we could just assume we're talking about orphans). Suddenly, performing cruel experiments on chimps seems more outrageous than doing the same thing on human infants.

There's nothing wrong with this reasoning, and calling someone 'nutcase' for stating it is just ignorant.

Hypocrisy & Emotions
Singer indeed spent a lot of money to help his mother in her illness. But he also donates a huge amount of his income to charity and lives as a strict vegetarian. Nobody is perfect. Furthermore, he also makes the good point that it does make sense, to some extent, to care specially for one's relatives. Our shared desire for social connections has deep biological origins and is important for happiness; if nobody gave a damn about his/her family most people would be less happy. So he doesn't '"ignore emotions and human nature" as you seem to strawmanize it.

[OrphanPip]

Because Mr singer is suggesting that some animals have the more capacity for suffering than babies and thus concluding we should show more care for the animals. All this guff about animals being equated with humans is beyond idiotic.

Well I agree with Dr. Singer in that many animals do have more capacity for suffering than infants. I don't agree with his position that it would be morally permissible to kill a small infant if it were possible to do it painlessly. Though that is one of his most extreme positions. Although, that is a bit of misrepresentation of his opinions. As a preference utilitarian he places value on human desires, which arise out of rationality and self-consciousness, and since babies lack those characteristics less so than humans, killing a baby is less morally reprehensible than killing a human being. It is not singer's position that there is nothing wrong with killing babies. His defense of these ideas is internally consistent, I don't accept preferential utilitarianism, but I don't see anything idiotic in the ideas.



Also mr singer suggests we are immoral if we dont save third world children by donating huge amounts of our income to them.

It's logically consistent with utilitarian moralities, that's not even a mildly unusual opinion.



He is a hypocrite because when his mother was dying he did exactly the opposite of what his ideals said to do,he discusses this in his book.

He actually said that his sister was involved and if he had complete control his mother might not have lived as long as she did.



Sam harris was advocating a kind of neurolgical and 'inbuilt' human nature which tended to dislike harm,and that this founded the basis of an 'objective' morality. If he has started on a quest to save the 'ape' then i disagree with him on that issue. For a scientist at least hes trying to explore some kind of practical common sense morality,which is very commendable.

Meh, Harris is a second rate philosopher, trying to derive an ought from an is.



The existential embedded nature of man is the fact that he has experiences unique to himself which cant be intellectualized by another person in a lab.And the fact that emotions,feelings and free-will seems to be almost ignored in the 'calculus' of ethics mr singer and other dogmatists prescribe.

Meh again, I reject this because I accept the assumptions of scientific materialism. I'm not sure you quite understand Singer, feelings and emotions are central to his ethical arguments. You just seem to think that humans are magic and so animals couldn't possibly have similar biochemical processes going on in their brains.

[Theunderground]

The replies from the two aformentioned posters just underlines me how sick are the arguments presented by Singer,and those who try to defend his logic.
To say that animals suffer more than infants or that babies lack self-conciousness and rationality is a consequence of a warped mentality. Anybody that has children could disprove this nonsense without any ludicrous dialectics.
Real life is not about being 'internally consistent' in logic.
We kill animals everyday to eat,are we thus by singers logic mass murderers? Are the two poster vegans then? Or is hypocrisy again present?
Anybody that cant distinguish between human beings and animals (no matter how allegedly intelligent a scientist claims some animals are.) or wants to equate the two as similiar or equal is a misanthrope.
You show me one mother one earth that would agree with your reasoning in practice?
Singer only takes into account HIS emotions and his logic,anybody with children and any humanity would never fall for his idiocy.

[OrphanPip]

To say that animals suffer more than infants or that babies lack self-conciousness and rationality is a consequence of a warped mentality. Anybody that has children could disprove this nonsense without any ludicrous dialectics.

No, it is an inarguable fact that an adult chimp is capable of more rational behavior, and is more self-aware, than a recently born infant.



Real life is not about being 'internally consistent' in logic.
We kill animals everyday to eat,are we thus by singers logic mass murderers? Are the two poster vegans then? Or is hypocrisy again present?

I think you missed the point yet again. I do not agree with Singer, I said there was nothing idiotic about his arguments. Logical consistency is tantamount to judging the quality of an argument. I am not a consequentialist like Singer, I am quite happy being a speciesist. Yet, I am not as disingenuous as to try and defend that position by dismissing it as idiotic with no actual attempt at addressing his positions. Calling Singer a hypocrite is not an adequate rebuttal of his positions, it doesn't address anything other than Singer's personality, which is irrelevant to the quality of his argument.



Anybody that cant distinguish between human beings and animals (no matter how allegedly intelligent a scientist claims some animals are.) or wants to equate the two as similiar or equal is a misanthrope.

Uh, so what? You're merely trying to defend your dislike of Singer off of an a priori bias. Moreover, it's a strawman. To say that some animals are deserving of more ethical consideration than some humans is not misanthropic, because it does not deny that humans deserve moral consideration; nor, does it deny that most humans deserve more moral consideration.



You show me one mother one earth that would agree with your reasoning in practice?
Singer only takes into account HIS emotions and his logic,anybody with children and any humanity would never fall for his idiocy.

You're missing the point again. You seem to think Singer is advocating early infanticide, when he is merely saying it is morally equivalent to the slaughter of some animals.

I have a question for you, is it morally permissible to torture a cat for your own amusement?

[Rores28]

Theunderground I don't know why you keep responding to these sickos... I think anyone with half a brain could see how disturbed they are and that they are merely rationalizing their own proclivity for raping and mutilating malnourished kittens.

[OrphanPip]

Theunderground I don't know why you keep responding to these sickos... I think anyone with half a brain could see how disturbed they are and that they are merely rationalizing their own proclivity for raping and mutilating malnourished kittens.

I'm not quite sure how the mechanics of the raping would function with a kitten.

[Theunderground]

It is amazing how humans use so called 'logic' and dialectics to argue the unarguable.
Its a huge copout when people think science or philosophy constitute 'facts' about the human condition.
Let me ask,WHO determines how rational or self concious a chimpanzee is?
And then who determines that they are more 'rational' then a baby?
For a start a baby understands other humans better than an adult chmipanzee. Or do you think a chimp can make the average human aware of its needs better than a baby?

Not every argument that seems 'logically' consistent therefore is free from idiocy in the real world.
Rather than refuting every argument made by misanthropes why not just state the bloody great case for humans treating humans as a priority? Or do you want me to prove that with some syllogisms? By pure logic zenos paradox and such like means movement is impossible and the hare will never catch the tortoise...Do you need me to refute this or will real life be sufficient?
And finally,as to your strawman (and you seem not to know what a strawman is.) i dont need to torture a kitten,nor do i need a law to tell me not to torture a kitten. What i do know,is a human comes before a kitten in terms of priorities. I doesnt mean if i prioritise humans that i therefore am cruel to animals,that is false reasoning.

[OrphanPip]

It is amazing how humans use so called 'logic' and dialectics to argue the unarguable.
Its a huge copout when people think science or philosophy constitute 'facts' about the human condition.
Let me ask,WHO determines how rational or self concious a chimpanzee is?
And then who determines that they are more 'rational' then a baby?
For a start a baby understands other humans better than an adult chmipanzee. Or do you think a chimp can make the average human aware of its needs better than a baby?

Pshh, it's laughable that you don't realize that the exact same could be said right back to you. When you favor the infant over the adult chimp, who exactly determines how rational or self-conscious the human infant. Chimps can learn sign language to communicate needs, something a 5 day year old infant can't do. Chimps can recognize their reflection in a mirror. Chimps can use tools. In fact, bonobo chimpanzees can light fires with lighters and play pac-man. 10 day old infants cry don't even have the ability to differentiate shapes properly by sight, or significantly levels of manual dexterity. Your position is merely that humans are magic.

If you want to deny that adult chimps show much higher levels of intelligence than a newborn infant you're just delusional.



Not every argument that seems 'logically' consistent therefore is free from idiocy in the real world.
Rather than refuting every argument made by misanthropes why not just state the bloody great case for humans treating humans as a priority?

No I agree humans should be treated as a priority, I disagree with your weak ad hominem attacks against Singer and you're skirting of any real attempt to address them.



Or do you want me to prove that with some syllogisms? By pure logic zenos paradox and such like means movement is impossible and the hare will never catch the tortoise...Do you need me to refute this or will real life be sufficient?

Quite simply, Zeno's paradoxes are easy to refute through logical arguments. It is merely a weak argument to just state you disagree with something and consider that an adequate rebuttal.



And finally,as to your strawman (and you seem not to know what a strawman is.) i dont need to torture a kitten,nor do i need a law to tell me not to torture a kitten. What i do know,is a human comes before a kitten in terms of priorities. I doesnt mean if i prioritise humans that i therefore am cruel to animals,that is false reasoning.

No, I'm afraid you don't know what a strawman argument is. I didn't make any oversimplifications of your argument. I was merely trying to lure you out to admit that animals can be harmed, and thus must be morally relevant beings. You just revealed how ridiculous your own position is. Merely because Singer admits that animals are deserving of moral recognition, does not mean that Singer is prioritizing animals over humans.

[Dodo25]

No need to address the lousy arguments again, OrphanPip successfully took care of that.


We kill animals everyday to eat,are we thus by singers logic mass murderers? Are the two poster vegans then? Or is hypocrisy again present?

Why use 'again' if it has been pointed out that your former claim was wrong? You don't even respond to the arguments, why should I bother to explain to you anything (i.e. the difference between intrinsic value of life and merely degrees of suffering), if you don't even bother to read it?


Theunderground I don't know why you keep responding to these sickos... I think anyone with half a brain could see how disturbed they are and that they are merely rationalizing their own proclivity for raping and mutilating malnourished kittens.

I'll just assume that this is bad sarcasm, because the alternative would make you look like a complete idiot, especially since you're the moral relativist here.

[Theunderground]

Its clear that folks who love this kind of dialectical argument are either in love with greek syllogisms ('all greeks are liars said the greek''!) ,are on some power superiority kick to glorify their abstract theories or worse of all,if they really believe this stuf,then i suggest they re-examine themselves and ask themselves from which perspective are they looking at this issue from? Are they humans or some kind of martian gods instructing us infallibly in white coats?
Do your arguments benefit humans in any way? Would you state the case for a chimp above a member of your family who has alzheimers or a mental illness? (obviously then their rationality and self image descend below that of a monkey due to illness.)
And just finally,many scientific studies show that anglo saxons have a higher IQ than other races,by your resoning do these anglo saxons therefore have more capapcity for pain and thus merit more priority in medical situations?
I can anticipate your cries of 'strawman' and 'false anology' but this is your false logic taken to its conclusion.
There is no need to refute singers logic just as there is no need to argue the case for water being a liquid. Its self evidently false.
Whats next,forced organ donations in the name of utiliarianism from the 'less rational' lower classes to the 'cleverest' people and the great apes?

[Rores28]

Its clear that folks who love this kind of dialectical argument are either in love with greek syllogisms ('all greeks are liars said the greek''!) ,are on some power superiority kick to glorify their abstract theories or worse of all,if they really believe this stuf,then i suggest they re-examine themselves and ask themselves from which perspective are they looking at this issue from? Are they humans or some kind of martian gods instructing us infallibly in white coats?
Do your arguments benefit humans in any way? Would you state the case for a chimp above a member of your family who has alzheimers or a mental illness? (obviously then their rationality and self image descend below that of a monkey due to illness.)
And just finally,many scientific studies show that anglo saxons have a higher IQ than other races,by your resoning do these anglo saxons therefore have more capapcity for pain and thus merit more priority in medical situations?
I can anticipate your cries of 'strawman' and 'false anology' but this is your false logic taken to its conclusion.
There is no need to refute singers logic just as there is no need to argue the case for water being a liquid. Its self evidently false.
Whats next,forced organ donations in the name of utiliarianism from the 'less rational' lower classes to the 'cleverest' people and the great apes?

I think Dodo and Pip may have just gotten served.

[OrphanPip]

Do your arguments benefit humans in any way? Would you state the case for a chimp above a member of your family who has alzheimers or a mental illness? (obviously then their rationality and self image descend below that of a monkey due to illness.)

You're merely taking a position of speciesism because you think humans are magic, which is fine. I only objected to your clear misunderstanding of Singer and your attempt to misrepresent his arguments. I don't agree with Singer, I don't know how often I have to repeat that.



And just finally,many scientific studies show that anglo saxons have a higher IQ than other races,by your resoning do these anglo saxons therefore have more capapcity for pain and thus merit more priority in medical situations?
I can anticipate your cries of 'strawman' and 'false anology' but this is your false logic taken to its conclusion.

Um, well beside anglo-saxons not being a racial group. This is not what Singer argues. If our basis for discriminating in favor of humans over animals is the intelligence and capacity for suffering of animals, then Singer's argument holds up. This is the basic argument of Utilitarian morality. Singer merely logically extended the implications of utilitarianism to animals. Note that Singer is a preference utilitarian, so he does not support the forced exploitation of some humans for the benefit of others. Thus, why he doesn't support animal testing for the benefit of human beings. Your assessment of Singer is the actual opposite of Singer's philosophy. He doesn't even support killing a chicken to feed yourself, how the hell do you think harvesting human beings follows from his philosophy.

It does not follow from Singers arguments that higher intelligence means more moral worth, it only follows that a certain base level of intelligence is necessary for something to have moral worth. Why else to do we exclude plants from moral consideration of harm, why do we exclude most animals, if not on the basis that they are not rational and thinking beings.

I don't think you understand what false logic means either. You are arguing against an argument that has never been made by Singer. You do not want to engage with Singer's argument, you would rather resort to slander and misrepresentation.



There is no need to refute singers logic just as there is no need to argue the case for water being a liquid. Its self evidently false.
Whats next,forced organ donations in the name of utiliarianism from the 'less rational' lower classes to the 'cleverest' people and the great apes?

I think you first better go actually read Singer and come back when you understand what he is arguing. Your a priori assumption is that humans are magical beings automatically worth more that others, which is a common stance of deontological ethical systems. I am largely a deontologist, mostly influenced by the convergence of utilitarianisms and systems of legalism like those found in the works of philosophers like Mill, so I would likely agree with you on how human beings should be treated. I only object to your weak level of intellectual engagement with the subject matter, and your outright dismissal of an argument without any attempt to really engage with the topic.

You're trying to argue that Singer is saying something he clearly isn't.

[Dodo25]

I'm always too late, everything's been said.

It's not even worth bothering actually if you two (Rores and underground) can't even accurately summarize the position you're arguing against. The only interesting aspect here is that OrphanPip understands the reasoning but is still against it. May I ask why?

Edit: I don't plan on starting a huge discussion, I'm just curious.

[OrphanPip]

I'm always too late, everything's been said.

It's not even worth bothering actually if you two (Rores and underground) can't even accurately summarize the position you're arguing against. The only interesting aspect here is that OrphanPip understands the reasoning but is still against it. May I ask why?

Edit: I don't plan on starting a huge discussion, I'm just curious.

I don't think utilitarianism on its own provides a substantial basis for an effective ethical system. One thing utilitarianism gives us is a standardized way to look at the harm/good our actions cause, it's further removed from arbitrary bias than religious morality.

Thus, I prefer a system of legalism, from a pragmatic standpoint. John Stuart Mill argued for the harm principle, that the only things which we can justifiable limit other human beings from doing is harming others. This principle, in large part, arises from utilitarian assumptions of what is good or bad. Added to that is a principle of equality of rights for all human beings. In order to prevent abuses of such a system of moral regulation, we need clearly defined barriers of moral objects. Therefore, I would consider it morally necessary to imbue an infant with all the rights of an adult, and any human being no matter their health status. In general, this viewpoint is ethical Liberalism, a principle that what is ethically good is what allows the greatest freedom of the individual to achieve what they wish, without harming others. Though I would differ from Libertarian interpretations of this because I believe in "rights to" and not merely "rights from." The great moral question then becomes where the line of impeding the rights of others is drawn, because if we are to assure human rights to things, like health and education, it necessitates a certain imposition on others, i.e. taxes.

[Dodo25]

One thing utilitarianism gives us is a standardized way to look at the harm/good our actions cause, it's further removed from arbitrary bias than religious morality.


Not just that, I don't think there is no arbitrary bias left.

I believe I understand you. Our views might differ much less than you might think. You too are using utilitarianist reasoning. What differs would simply be the weighting.

Think of it this way:
Your reasoning against 'allowing ethically relevant differences about human beings' is, I would guess, slippery slope and the threat of diminishing the 'value of human life' in general. In order to prevent that, you come up with the 'necessary fiction' of human rights. If you thought that this step would actually decrease well-being, you wouldn't have introduced it.

What I'm trying to say is that everyone somehow tries to 'maximize well-being and reduce suffering'. The question would then be whether you're right about possible negative consequences of adopting radical utilitarianism.

It's the same with giving extra consideration to family ties. Some degree of nepotism should be practized even amongst utilitarians, because family is in our biology, and strong family ties increase happiness.

It has been pointed out that utilitarianism would lead to a double-standard. Philosophers can make their perfect ethical decisions in their ivory towers, but normal people will always rely on some simple rules and intuition. Thus, full human rights even for infants and Alzheimer patients might not be such a bad idea. Altough, when a grossly disfigured baby is kept alive suffering for weeks, costing a lot money and doomed to die soon anyway, one starts to wonder what the point of it is and why one shouldn't just kill it.

[Aula Regis]

I would recommend the following:

1. Ethics: Inventing Good and Evil (John Mackie).

2. A Treatise of Human Nature (David Hume).

3. Beyond Good and Evil (Friedrich W. Nietzsche).

As for your question, I am guided (in a pragmatic sense) by feeling. I would probably kill one person to save two, if that felt better. I nonetheless contend that a moral judgement about what one ought to do cannot rationally be made.

[Theunderground]

Those who need 'logical syllogisms' and try to put human wants under the third person objective of science seem to me trapped in their own intellectual dialectic web. I mean do you need reasons to justify your existence and worth?
A mother/fathers priority is their children and no amount of mumbo jumbo or philosophical correctness is going convince those worth their salt to believe in some kind of abstract inhuman ethics from people who are basically hand ringers with over active imaginations. When ever do these weird scenarios come up in actual life?
The only possible use of certain utiliarian HUMAN theories is in the distribution of medical care to competing priorities.But i suggest monkeys are not in this scenario.
I think folks need to remember the intellect is a tool to benefit humans,we are not slaves to theories which are harmful to humans. We dont need a narrative which fixes our ethics/needs and wants. Communism was one such previous utilitarian disaster...

[OrphanPip]

Those who need 'logical syllogisms' and try to put human wants under the third person objective of science seem to me trapped in their own intellectual dialectic web. I mean do you need reasons to justify your existence and worth?
A mother/fathers priority is their children and no amount of mumbo jumbo or philosophical correctness is going convince those worth their salt to believe in some kind of abstract inhuman ethics from people who are basically hand ringers with over active imaginations. When ever do these weird scenarios come up in actual life?
The only possible use of certain utiliarian HUMAN theories is in the distribution of medical care to competing priorities.But i suggest monkeys are not in this scenario.
I think folks need to remember the intellect is a tool to benefit humans,we are not slaves to theories which are harmful to humans. We dont need a narrative which fixes our ethics/needs and wants. Communism was one such previous utilitarian disaster...

I don't think you're appreciating how utilitarianism should be used. It is a way to frame ethical discourse, and a useful way. We should examine why we think certain things are wrong and why certain things are right. When we leave things up to intuition, we often end up with bad morals. Liberal philosopher Martha Nussbaum, famous as an advocate of the capabilities approach to international justice, has a book on how disgust and "obvious intuition" are so often used to oppress minorities. Your moral intuitions are taught, though I would agree they arise out of some natural qualities, and really what you want to support is a stagnation of moral progressiveness, and blind faith in the status quo. 300 years ago, many things which were morally obvious are now considered reprehensible.

Most importantly, we need these discussions so that we can function as societies, we can't have everyone doing what they personally think is right, it will just cause conflict. How do we then reach compromises on ethical controversies without discourse on the subject. We should have multiple ways to look at how we determine what is morally right/good, and a discourse so that we can have a debate and progress. Is it so self-evident that animals should be without any moral consideration? It is unacceptable to merely dismiss a moral argument out of hand, it implies that we are absolutely sure of what is good/right and our intuition could never be wrong. If we can't justify why we believe something, how do we distinguish our beliefs from any other baseless bigotry.

If utilitarianism is an inhuman ethic, what is a human ethic?

Edit: Also, the communism thing is funny considering that Adam Smith was a utilitarian philosopher, and democratic liberalism arose from utilitarian thought as well. The only difference between communism and capitalism is the methods, the goals are both utilitarian. Moreover, both incorporate differing deontological philosophies of rights.

[Theunderground]

One has to know what one stands for as an individual and what is acceptable from an individual perspective,then we can bargain and trade with the 'ethics' of how to deal with others.
My main problem is the way people use ethical theories to claim some kind of 'totality' or unity in what we ALL stand for. Sorry,society is composed of individuals,not some abstract average worked out by ethical philosophers.
Now i stated previously that in some cases where the resources of a group of individuals has conflicting prorities then ethical theories may help come up with some provisional ideas to help. But in general i would say real ethics is in reality a synergy of the laws of the land,conscience and individual wants. You cant standardise human wants in the abstract or have agreement on theories which dont work in reality. The church also tried this...

[OrphanPip]

One has to know what one stands for as an individual and what is acceptable from an individual perspective,then we can bargain and trade with the 'ethics' of how to deal with others.
My main problem is the way people use ethical theories to claim some kind of 'totality' or unity in what we ALL stand for. Sorry,society is composed of individuals,not some abstract average worked out by ethical philosophers.
Now i stated previously that in some cases where the resources of a group of individuals has conflicting prorities then ethical theories may help come up with some provisional ideas to help. But in general i would say real ethics is in reality a synergy of the laws of the land,conscience and individual wants. You cant standardise human wants in the abstract or have agreement on theories which dont work in reality. The church also tried this...

Individual conscience, desire, and the law are all part of ethical philosophy though. If we can establish an ideal in a perfect abstract, then we can work from there to approach the ideal in the real world. Ideas of individual liberty started out in the philosophical works of Thomas Paine and John Locke, and it took less than a 100 years for those ideas to be put into practice (at a nebulous level mind you) in the USA.

[Theunderground]

To be honest i think ideas on individual liberty have always existed. Every newborn understands this perfectly well!!!
Those masses who have been deceived into believing in religion or universal morality have a first step to recovery with some of the works you mentioned,and the 'existentialism' contribution to morality helps a great deal as well.
But though it helps to give a framework to allow for practical human liberty,those 'ideals' and 'laws' always fall short and/or are exploited by the powerful. This is where indivdual morality tries to redress the shortfall from the 'ideal' to the real.
Morality exists to serve individuals,not vice versa.
'Social contract'. But what comes first the duty to society or duty to yourself? And further,duty to the abstract or to the real?

[Heteronym]

I recommend you read Mary Midgley's work. I've read three books by her so far and have not been disappointed yet: Beast and Man; Mind and Heart, Wickedness.

Here are some notes about one of her most interesting essays. (http://www.drury.edu/ess/values/MMidgley.html)