Which ethical theory is most intellectually appealing to you (poll attached)

[philstudent1991]

I've never done a poll before so I apologize if this messes up and wastes everyone's time...

[MattDest]

I know people are going to split hairs about poll options (and perhaps justifiably - what about non-cognitivism, moral relativism, etc.?), but I think this could be a neat poll to do. I put utilitarianism, because I think some form of consequentalist reasoning that relies upon broadly utilitarian considerations is our best moral reasoning tool. 

[Establishment]

I know people are going to split hairs about poll options (and perhaps justifiably - what about non-cognitivism, moral relativism, etc.?), but I think this could be a neat poll to do. I put utilitarianism, because I think some form of consequentalist reasoning that relies upon broadly utilitarian considerations is our best moral reasoning tool. 

 

You could just label them all under: "WRONG OPINIONS."

[dgswaim]

I voted 'Other.' I guess in some ways I hold to a combination of many, and perhaps in some more significant sense I find them all lacking. If pressed, my view falls under something like Levinas' ethics of encounter... but I don't know.

[greencoloredpencil]

I voted other. I'm particularly a fan of the type of contractualism given by Scanlon. 

[ta_pros_to_telos]

Virtue ethics. I'm drawn to a form of Aristotelian particularism, though not quite as radical as Dancy. 

[pro_Tonto]

Longtime lurker ... but I'm a sucker for a poll.

 

Voted 'Other' because I'm all about climbing the mountain

 

I have a lot of time for Scanlon and Kantian contractualism, but also have the sense that they're missing a big chunk of the normative world.

[Gnothi_Seauton]

Longtime lurker ... but I'm a sucker for a poll.

 

Voted 'Other' because I'm all about climbing the mountain

 

I have a lot of time for Scanlon and Kantian contractualism, but also have the sense that they're missing a big chunk of the normative world.

I appreciate the aim of On What Matters, but it seems to me that it is more of a reduction than a unification.  I think what Parfit shows is that, with some modifications to Kantianism and Contractualism, both can be reducible to some sophisticated form of Rule Consequentialism.  Basically, I'm not sure how the Kantian and Contractualist elements add to the Consequentialist elements of Parfit's theory.  This is not necessarily a criticism.  I'm interested if others have the same take.

 

I also selected "Other," though not because there is some other theory to which I subscribe, but rather because I think all the options have problems and I don't subscribe to any particular normative ethical theory.  My interests are geared more towards metaethics.  I think the differences between and among these theories become starker at the metaethical level.  

 

Also, to pro_Tonto, welcome! 

[objectivityofcontradiction]

'Wrong life cannot be lived rightly.' 

 

...with that being said, among the current metaethical lit, I find myself reading loads in the avenues of moral particularism and moral [normative] realism, both of which seem to me to resonate with the general thrust of several of Adorno's minimal ethical prescriptions. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

I find it interesting that metaethical views and normative views are presented together on the poll. I don't have any normative views, but I do have metaethical views, which are a form of antirealism. 

[philstudent1991]

I find it interesting that metaethical views and normative views are presented together on the poll.

That's a good point. I guess it's because skepticism and nihilism are common enough views, but aren't really normative, as I imagine adherents could vary quite widely on a given moral dilemma. I could have perhaps put "consequentialism" or "deontology" rather than utilitarianism and Kant, but I figured this is the most precise way to do it.

 

I am surprised by the diversity of opinions, and at how many people marked "other". It makes me happy that this storied philosophical debate is alive and well!

[pro_Tonto]

I think what Parfit shows is that, with some modifications to Kantianism and Contractualism, both can be reducible to some sophisticated form of Rule Consequentialism.  Basically, I'm not sure how the Kantian and Contractualist elements add to the Consequentialist elements of Parfit's theory.

 

Something like that (though not Kantianism as such but Kantian contractualism; and not Contractualism as such but Scanlon's contractualism). Not exactly reduction either. The position I think is that the best versions of those views recommend the same normative principles as the best consequentialist view.

 

In any case it is a pretty extraordinary conclusion. And I find it pretty convincing.

[ianfaircloud]

I've never done a poll before so I apologize if this messes up and wastes everyone's time...

 

This was a great idea!  Thanks for putting it together.

 

I voted 'Other.' I guess in some ways I hold to a combination of many, and perhaps in some more significant sense I find them all lacking. If pressed, my view falls under something like Levinas' ethics of encounter... but I don't know.

 

I voted other, but for a different reason. I'm just undecided. Actually, I think being 'undecided' is a good place to be. I'm very much in the midst of exploration. Kant's view is so attractive, but it has major problems. I do not see how Kant's view preserves our intuition that people can willfully commit a moral wrong. On the other hand, contractualism (of the Scanlon sort) is, in my view, not "what we're going for" when it comes to ethical theory. I think it explains away ethics, in effect. I think virtue ethics isn't action-guiding enough.  I think utilitarianism defies some deeply held intuitions about value.

 

(I'm not going to explain or defend any of the above points. It's a take-it-or-leave-it thing. If what I'm saying doesn't strike you as at least somewhat correct, then that's cool.)

[burroughs]

I voted Kantianism, though I already regret that vote. It seems to me that the interesting disagreements aren't between Kantians & Utils, though those can be reasonably fruitful, but instead between kinds of Kantian (between (say) Korsgaard & everyone else). So, Kantian constructivism, but qualified in two ways. First, it only resembles the form of Kantian constructivism, as these things are filled out so very differently by different people. Second, my preference is mostly an aesthetic one, and I tend to fear that a reasonable inference from past failure would have me hold the position only very tentatively.

Edited February 20, 2014 by burroughs

[TheVineyard]

I too am interested in the conflation of normative and metaethical positions presented in the poll. I have to consider myself an error theorist metaethically (so I chose nihilist), but I think that as a practical matter, encouraging a form of consequentialism is a nice cultural tradition that I prefer.

Edited February 20, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Mavngoose1]

I'm surprised by the number of virtue ethicists.

[alethicethic]

I'm surprised by the number of virtue ethicists.

Right? Although, I have a pretty weak definition of virtue ethics. I think that what is most useful about VE theories is their focus on character, moral cultivation, and moral psychology. So, that's compatible with different ways of slicing up what bears value. I chose VE because I'm mainly interested in moral psych & cultivation.

[Establishment]

I know nothing about virtue ethics except for the very broad things one could find online. Anyone have recommended readings?

[PRising]

I'm wondering what people have in mind when they vote for "virtue ethics." Are we talking an interest or agreement with Neo-Aristotelians like Philippa Foot, Gavin Lawrence, Rosalind Hursthouse, etc. (and there is a wide range of agreement/disagreement among these people), or something else? 

[philophilosopher]

I voted virtue ethics,  based on my appreciation for Plato and Aristotle's ethics and various attempts to adjust or re-frame the basic framework that those titans of thought provided us. Such attempts include Nussbaum and Sen, MacIntyre, and most recently Richard Kraut, among others. I am particularly fond of MacIntyre, who writes so well and clearly (though some times makes short shrift of others' thoughts).

 

Establishment, I highly recommend After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre; it beautifully situates virtue ethics within the contemporary climate of moral philosophy, while touching on many other things.

[alethicethic]

I know nothing about virtue ethics except for the very broad things one could find online. Anyone have recommended readings?

 

It can be useful to think about some Confucians as virtue ethicists of a sort. I recommend starting with Mengzi if you're into moral psychology. Hackett has a very good and cheap translation, by Bryan Van Norden.