mytwocentsshowmanyss t1_islq65q wrote on October 16, 2022 at 10:38 PM

Serious question here as an outsider who has failed to get into philosophy: why is this a fun or necessary topic to talk about? It seems to be a wordy circumlocution around what it means to do the right thing. And it all seems kind of petty and unimportant especially when compared to the very simple idea of do the right thing.

Iamjacksplasmid t1_ism8z2t wrote on October 17, 2022 at 1:01 AM

I can only speak for myself, but for me it's interesting because it suggests that to make the world a better place, it's not enough to be altruistic, because altruism is fragile and can be destroyed by three selfishness of others. We need to not only be altruistic, but also we need to fiercely defend altruism, because it is a thing that can be lost for most people.

I also think it's interesting that it suggests that altruists might just be people who are naturally predisposed to being more resilient in the face of behavior that makes a person question selflessness. It's interesting to think that some people might just naturally be better at letting shit roll off of them than others, and that difference might be partly biological rather than strictly a matter of mental discipline and stubbornness.

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_itc9d28 wrote on October 22, 2022 at 3:20 PM

A reasonable question.

Short answer: many people think that morals are either relativistic (different cultures, different moralities) or absolutist (everyone should have the same morals). Both positions lead people to be very confused.

The relativistic position seems to say that there is nothing that people from outside a culture can say to disagree about a cultural practice. Slavery is right if the culture thinks its right. Imperialism is right if the culture thinks its right. And so on.

On the other hand, absolutism seems to be problematic, too. Where are these moral truths written? Who has the moral truth?

This confusion bothers many. If it does not bother you, that's fine. But it has bothered me. Some are so puzzled that they conclude that morality and ethics must be groundless fictions, and so, they end up nihilistic. Nothing matters, and all that.

Kitcher tris to offer a middle ground. His position tries to make sense of ethics in a way that does not presume some realm of absolute moral truths. It is not as mysterious as absolutism. It also assumes that what a good life looks life will differ based on the cultural situation you find yourself in. But nevertheless, morals are not just fashions of the culture. They are tools. And like any tool, they can be evaluated based on how well they do their job.

Not saying that you should find this interesting. But hopefully, this can illuminate why some of us do find it so.