06-15-2021, 02:29 PM
(06-12-2021, 01:21 AM)Dill Wrote: Have you read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics? I don't think he would have considered an "inclusive foundation" of the sort that "takes all people into account" as an important goal, if at all.
Even though he wasn't Athenian, living in Athens as a "metic" (foreign resident unable to participate in the city's politics), he seems to think ethics--the blue print for morality--was pretty much the concern of male citizens, but not women or slaves. He also doesn't think discussion of ethics is suited for the young.
Further, it was a "practical" pursuit, not really to be deduced from first principles and the like. The good is determined from observation, agreement about the "virtue" of things/humans and actions appropriate to them, to the purposes for which they were designed. The ultimate goal was "happiness" and fulfilment of (free Greek male) humans' highest purpose, which involved political deliberation, which in turn required a polis, the highest form of human organization, which fostered such life. Well that's a clumsy late-night summary, but his ethics ends with a transition to his Politics, which is about creating the conditions for that ultimate good. Whether non-Greeks liked or agreed with what Greeks thought "good" was of no interest to Aristotle. Barbarians. Yet I find his argument compelling on many points--except the exclusion of non-Greek male humanity.
Seems to me you are heading in a Kantian direction*--an act is ethical, good, when it is the kind of act which would be good for everyone, if applied to anyone, a variation of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"--i.e, an act is morally good if it could be done to or for anyone, regardless of who, and without any ulterior motive, like money or favors or tribal affiliation. And he thinks we, as rational creatures, are duty bound to do such acts.
Your "agreement" criterion will raise some interesting questions, since people from different classes, cultures, ethnic histories and the like are not likely to agree on a subjective foundation. Kant, I think, was trying to get over that hump.
*Despite your Nietzschean signature.
I have many points of agreement and disagreement with Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, with one area of contention being some of his launching points, or more accurately, the initial requirements he feels are best suited from which to derive the requisites for a good, ethical or virtuous life. But I would prefer not to go too deep in the weeds on the philosophical approaches of those like Aristotle, Socrates, Hume, Kant, etc. Instead, I was hoping for a more practical and pragmatic conversation as to how we can agree on a moral system that benefits the most while doing harm to the least; and how to derive objective moral truths from a necessarily subjective standard.
For instance, what if we started with these four precepts [with the overall well-being of our species being the over-arching foundational goal]:
Life is generally preferable to death.
Pleasure is generally preferable to pain.
Wellness is generally preferable to sickness.
Flourishing in generally preferable to suffering.
It seems to me that from those, we can make many determinations as to what is moral --- if we define morality as that which provides the most benefit and does the least harm --- and even derive objective truths, despite the foundational standards being purely subjective.
In situations where larger societal issues put people / cultures in conflict with one another, I think the "Veil of Ignorance" approach is a great supplemental tool to help determine what is or isn't moral. Take slavery for example. If a person who objects to slavery and a person who condones it are searching for the correct moral answer on the subject, they only need to both imagine themselves being born into a world where there's an exactly 50/50 chance they would end up being a slave. Would they both rather enter that world with said odds, or a world where slavery is outlawed altogether, so that there's zero chance they end up a slave?
