Political Theory

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Deist — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:32:48 GMT

OK now I understand. Thank you.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Inquisitor — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:13:25 GMT

What you're referring to sounds reminiscent of emotivism and perhaps expressivism. Intuitionism as I am referring to it is the sort G. E. Moore advocated.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Deist — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:00:20 GMT

Also the meaning of ethical intutionism that I am use too and aware of, is one that lacks moral clarification since it is the belief that morals are inherently emotional and instinct driven so they do not apply to the realm of reasonable justification. Essentially it is the belief that trying to make sense of any morality is pointless and to try and make a consistent ethical code is likewise doomed. In the end it believes ethics is no more than emotional reaction biologically or psychologically hardwired into our being.

That may be a semantic problem in this discussion that has arisen so far. Clearly the intuitionism that Inquisitor was speaking of (and correct me if I am wrong) was one that believed that ethics is something ingrained in our beings but is not beyond clarification, justification and reason.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Deist — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:20:17 GMT

I never stated that he did not rely on Kant. Afterall Nozick does agree with Rawls Ideal Observer theory which is inspired by Kant's Categorical Imperative. But it should be noted that just because he liked an idea that Kant formulated does not make him distinctly "Kantish". He had serious disagreements with Kant over his epistemology and metaphysics.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Donny with an A — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:06:44 GMT

Perhaps Nozick wasn't a Kantian, but to suggest that he didn't rely on Kant seems to go too far.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Deist — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:23:07 GMT

Thank you for pointing out Roderick Long, I have not heard of him before. True, there are very important differences between virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics. I also personally adhere to virute ethics myself as do several other followers of the Analytic school. When I mentioned deontology I was merely refering to the application of the ideal observer theory, which is considered a modern form of the categorical imperative. But it is worth mentioning that both Rawls and Nozick are not Kantian but are considered Analytical philosophers.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:31:00 GMT

Deist:
Inquisitor, I don't recall mentioning anything about teleological ethics in my post. Also have you read Nozick's "Invariances". He is not an intuitionist, at least not at the time of his death since he justifies a basic morality in the same manner as Rawls. I personally have nothing against Teleological views I just happen to disagree with the whole theory behind metaphysics. I guess I am more influenced by Wittgenstein these days and the Analytic school. All that aside I dont see the need to not be civil. After all I am sure you and I agree on alot more things then we disagree on.

There are important differences between Aristotelian virtue ethics and consequentialist theories. The deontological vs. teleological distinction fails to capture these differences. Speaking of Wittgenstein, Roderick Long is a big fan of him, is trained in analytic philosophy, and is an Aristotelian libertarian who grounds natural law and natural rights in virtue ethics.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Inquisitor — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:47:44 GMT

He seems to be an intuitionist from ASU, simply because he argues that there are certain boundaries we have, that it is intuitively wrong to violate.

As for metaphysical commitments... I don't see anything too fantastic about the Aristotelean ontology, which is what usually grounds natural law arguments - the arguments themselves are empirically and logically justified though, even if metaphysics is out of this domain.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Deist — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:59:43 GMT

Essentially it is the placement of strict logic, in the mathematical sense within a very limited area. For instance 2 + 2 = 4 is strict logic that demands realization but someting like "Liberty is right" or "Communism is correct" might be reasonable but not inherently verifiable, empirically or logically.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Deist — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:54:08 GMT

Ah I am very sorry for my confusion, I am new to talking online (past few months) and I dont know what OP stands for and I figured it meant me since I was who you replied too. By ethical intuitionism do you mean the type that GE Moore adheres too? As far as "Invariances" go he comes round to a similar contract theory for mutual gain. I have not read "Anarchy State and Utopia" in seven years so my memory on it is very foggy.

As far as what I mean by metaphysics I will just paste an excerpt from wikipedia (I know it is not the most reliable source but this paragraph sums up my particular view):

"Another view is that metaphysical statements are not meaningless statements, but rather that they are generally not fallible, testable or provable statements. That is to say, there is no valid set of empirical observations nor a valid set of logical arguments, which could definitively prove metaphysical statements to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or about the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifiable. That idea could be changed in a non-arbitrary way, based on experience or argument, yet there exists no evidence or argument so compelling that it could rationally force a change in that idea, in the sense of definitely proving it false."

Once again sorry for the confusion and accusation.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Inquisitor — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:43:27 GMT

I know you didn't, hence I said: to the OP. Perhaps I should've separated my remarks to you. As for Nozick, I haven't read Invariances, but in Anarchy, State and Utopia he most definitely offers an intuitionist basis for rights.

What metaphysics do you mean in particular? Its ontological commitments?

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Deist — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:35:00 GMT

Also I think Teleological ethics has done much good, especially since I enjoy the natural law approach and realize that libertarianism is deeply in debt to it. I just have a problem with metaphysical theory.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Deist — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:13:00 GMT

Inquisitor, I don't recall mentioning anything about teleological ethics in my post. Also have you read Nozick's "Invariances". He is not an intuitionist, at least not at the time of his death since he justifies a basic morality in the same manner as Rawls. I personally have nothing against Teleological views I just happen to disagree with the whole theory behind metaphysics. I guess I am more influenced by Wittgenstein these days and the Analytic school. All that aside I dont see the need to not be civil. After all I am sure you and I agree on alot more things then we disagree on.

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Magnus — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:11:09 GMT

Trevor Goodchild: The will to evil is like an iron in a forge, there is only one way to shape it right - with a conscience which is the fire! My children, Judy and Bambara, it was for them that I created the custodian, an artificial conscience, a fire for those who have none!

Re: Deontological vs Teleological Ethics

Brainpolice — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:28:23 GMT

I really have to wonder why so many libertarians are Kantians.