Ethics

Ethics: What should we do? What is good? What is normative?

Meta-ethics: What is goodness? What does it mean to be good? What does it mean to be normative?

Aesthetics: What is beautiful?

What may a man do and not be ashamed of it? He may not do nothing surely, for straightaway he is dubbed Dolittle—aye! christens himself first—and reasonably, for he was first to duck. But let him do something, is he the less a Dolittle? Is it actually something done, or not rather something undone?1

Contents

  1. Virtue ethics
    1. Introduction
    2. Discussion
    3. Criticism
  2. Deontological ethics
    1. Introduction
    2. Discussion
    3. Criticism
  3. Consequentialism
    1. Introduction
    2. Hedonism
    3. Effective altruism
    4. Criticism
  4. Moral antirealism
    1. Introduction
    2. Is-ought divide
    3. Noncognitivism
    4. Error Theory
    5. Non-objectivism
  5. Moral realism
    1. Introduction
    2. Discussion
  6. Moral naturalism
    1. Introduction
    2. Game theory
    3. Evolution of morals
    4. Science of morality
    5. Nonreductive moral naturalism
  7. Moral non-naturalism
    1. Introduction
    2. Naturalistic fallacy
    3. Moral pluralism
  8. Political philosophy
    1. Capitalism
    2. Marxism
    3. Socialism
  9. Philosophy of law
  10. Economics
    1. Classical economics
    2. Neoclassical economics
    3. Austrian school of economics
    4. Macroeconomics
    5. Microeconomics
    6. Behavioral economics
    7. Portfolio theory
    8. Misc
  11. Free speech
    1. Introduction
    2. Hate speech
    3. Cancel culture
    4. Copyright
  12. Protests and (non-)violence
  13. Feminism
    1. Women’s suffrage movements (19th and early 20th centuries)
    2. Women’s liberation movement (1960s-1980s)
    3. Third wave (1990s-2012)
    4. Fourth wave (2012-present)
  14. Regret
  15. Compassion
  16. Ecology
  17. Aesthetics
    1. Music theory
    2. Art
    3. Taste
  18. My thoughts
  19. Annotated bibliography
    1. Putnam, H. (2004). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays.
    2. Portmore, D. (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism.
    3. More articles to do
  20. Links and encyclopedia articles
    1. SEP
    2. IEP
    3. Wikipedia
    4. Others
    5. Videos
  21. References

Virtue ethics

Introduction

Discussion

Criticism

Deontological ethics

Introduction

Kant:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.3

Discussion

See also:

Criticism

Consequentialism

Introduction

See also:

Hedonism

Effective altruism

Criticism

Moral antirealism

Introduction

Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic:

Listen then, I say justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.12

Hume:

Morals and criticism are not so properly objects of the understanding as of taste and sentiment. Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived. Or if we reason concerning it, and endeavour to fix its standard, we regard a new fact, to wit, the general taste of mankind, or some such fact, which may be the object of reasoning and enquiry.13

See also:

Is-ought divide

The end of section 3.1.1 from Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature, “Moral distinctions not derived from reason”:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprized to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.21

See also:

Noncognitivism

Error Theory

Non-objectivism

Figure 1: Main divisions in meta-ethics by Joseph Schmid.

Moral realism

Introduction

Plato:

What about someone who believes in beautiful things, but doesn’t believe in the beautiful itself and isn’t able to follow anyone who could lead him to the knowledge of it? Don’t you think he is living in a dream rather than a wakened state? Isn’t this dreaming: whether asleep or awake, to think that a likeness is not a likeness but rather the thing itself that it is like?

I certainly think that someone who does that is dreaming.

But someone who, to take the opposite case, believes in the beautiful itself, can see both it and the things that participate in it and doesn’t believe that the participants are it or that it itself is the participants—he is living in a dream or is he awake?

He’s very much awake.23

Discussion

Moral naturalism

Introduction

Stephen R. Brown:

Ethical naturalism: Cognitivist ethical theories in which important ethical norms and evaluations are grounded in natural facts.28

Moral naturalists:

Game theory

Resnik:

The best thing to do is to avoid games like the clash of wills and the prisoner’s dilemma in the first place. People who are confronted with such situations quickly learn to take steps to avoid them. We have already mentioned the criminals’ code of silence in connection with the prisoner’s dilemma. Families often adopt rules for taking turns at tasks (dish washing) or pleasures (using the family car) to avoid repeated plays of the clash of wills. Since such rules represent a limited form of morality, we can see the breakdowns in game theory as paving the way for an argument that it is rational to be moral.32

More:

See also:

Evolution of morals

Churchland:

Our moral behavior, while more complex than the social behavior of other animals, is similar in that it represents our attempt to manage well in the existing social ecology. … from the perspective of neuroscience and brain evolution, the routine rejection of scientific approaches to moral behavior based on Hume’s warning against deriving ought from is seems unfortunate, especially as the warning is limited to deductive inferences. … The truth seems to be that values rooted in the circuitry for caring—for well-being of self, offspring, mates, kin, and others—shape social reasoning about many issues: conflict resolutions, keeping the peace, defense, trade, resource distribution, and many other aspects of social life in all its vast richness.36

Science of morality

See also:

Nonreductive moral naturalism

Moral non-naturalism

Introduction

Naturalistic fallacy

Bunge:

Still, a gap can be either ditch or abyss. And ditches are not chasms: we may be able to jump over the former though not over the latter. As a matter of fact, we bridge the fact-value gap every time we take action to attain a desirable goal. In other words, action-particularly if well planned-may lead from what is the case to what ought to be the case. In short, action can bridge the logical gap between is and ought, in particular between the real and the rational. This platitude has eluded most if not all value theorists, moral philosophers, and even action theorists—which is witness to their indifference to the real world of action.45

See also:

Moral pluralism

Political philosophy

Capitalism

Marxism

Criticism

Solzhenitsyn:

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?49

Russell in a letter to Wolfgang Paalen (1942):

I think the metaphysics of both Hegel and Marx plain nonsense—Marx’s claim to be ‘science’ is no more justified than Mary Baker Eddy’s. This does not mean that I am opposed to socialism.50

Socialism

Mark Shields:

Every one of us has been warmed by fires we did not build. Every one of us has drank from wells we did not dig.52

Philosophy of law

Economics

Classical economics

Neoclassical economics

Austrian school of economics

Macroeconomics

Microeconomics

Behavioral economics

Portfolio theory

See my Finance Notes.

Misc

Free speech

Introduction

Hate speech

Cancel culture

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty:

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

Protests and (non-)violence

Feminism

Women’s suffrage movements (19th and early 20th centuries)

Women’s liberation movement (1960s-1980s)

Third wave (1990s-2012)

Fourth wave (2012-present)

See also:

Regret

Thoreau:

Make the most of your regrets; never smother your sorrow, but tend and cherish it till it comes to have a separate and integral interest. To regret deeply is to live afresh.66

See also:

Compassion

More:

See also:

Ecology

See also:

Aesthetics

Music theory

Art

Taste

My thoughts

Debating moral realism with Sean Carroll.

AMA question about naturalism and moral realism.

As a fellow physicist (experimenter with ATLAS) also with an interest in philosophy, I’m really impressed by your efforts to push naturalism and engage philosophers. I fully agree with your materialist and reductionist arguments, supporting that we do understand physics within the everyday regime, and this should inform our metaphysics, philosophy of mind, criticism of pseudoscience, etc. I also like that you emphasize emergence as being an important concept in explaining the nested emergent ontologies in chemistry, biology, economics, etc. My question is why you seem to draw a hard line that ethics and morality cannot be analyzed in the same way. You seem to entertain the criticisms that some people say of “scientism,” that there are some things (like ethics) to which the reductive program of science will not be able to explain. This strikes me as totally inconsistent with the thrust of reductionism and naturalism. I think there are reasonable explanations for why ethics emerge as a set of regularities and good strategies anytime you have groups of people. The constraints on ethics seem to be completely determined by the natural world, including the limits of resources, the needs of our physiology, the laws of probability and game theory, etc. There is no fundamental is/ought divide. “Ought” is a higher descriptive term we give to actions that bring out good situations, for which there are objective metrics, such as health and satisfaction. In this regard, I’m sympathetic with some utilitarians and what Sam Harris seems to be describing in the Moral Landscape. Why do you think emergence from natural laws can introduce new concepts like temperature, phase transitions, supply and demand, but not ethics?

Sean’s reply:

Ryan — Essentially, science is about describing the world, not passing judgment on it. Temperature, phase transitions, and supply and demand are all concepts that helps us understand what happens in the world. Morality is just a completely different endeavor. (Of course you can scientifically study how human beings actually behave — including what they judge to be “moral” — but that’s different than studying how they should behave.) Scientific claims can be judged by experiments, moral claims cannot.

See also:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/05/03/you-cant-derive-ought-from-is/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/03/16/moral-realism/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/03/07/science-morality-possible-worlds-scientism-and-ways-of-knowing/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/01/31/morality-health-and-science/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HCUAR1vH_M

TODO: Drafting a reply.

I know I’m a consequentialist and a moral realist, but those are broad categories.

There’s no unified or received view of the fact/value, descriptive/normative divide since Hume. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t naturalistic philosophers that deny the dichotomy, i.e., would support the idea roughly that there is a scientific way of discussing and determining what is better. Health and nutrition seem like obvious plausible examples, really any reasoned strategy is normative: it tells one what one should do given what is known. In this sense many naturalists are aligned with game theoretic reasoning about what we should do.

Thought experiment on moral naturalism:

Annotated bibliography

Click to show annotated bibliography

Putnam, H. (2004). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays.

  • Putnam (2004)

My thoughts

  • TODO

Portmore, D. (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism.

  • Portmore (2011)

My thoughts

  • TODO
  • TODO
Click to show links

SEP

IEP

Wikipedia

Others

Videos

References

Axelrod, R. (1980a). Effective choice in the prisoner’s dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 3–25.
———. (1980b). More effective choice in the prisoner’s dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 379–403.
Ayars, A. (2016). Can model-free reinforcement learning explain deontological moral judgments? Cognition, 150, 232–242.
Berlin, I. (1994). A message to the twenty-first century. (Lecture after he received the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws at the University of Toronto). http://www.sjpcommunications.org/images/uploads/documents/Isaiah_Berlin.pdf
Bikchandani, S., Riley, J. G., & Hirshleifer, J. (2013). The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information. Cambridge University Press.
Binmore, K. (2011). Natural Justice. Oxford University Press.
Bjornsson, G. & Finlay, S. (2010). Metaethical contextualism defended. Ethics, 121, 7–36.
Black, M. (1964). The gap between "is" and "should". Philosophical Review, 73, 165–181.
Bowling, M., Burch, N., Johanson, M., & Tammelin, O. (2015). Heads-up limit hold’em poker is solved. Science, 347, 145–149. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6218/145
Brown, S. R. (2008). Moral Virtue and Nature: A defense of ethical naturalism. Continuum.
Bunge, M. (2001). Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction. Prometheus Books.
Churchland, P. S. (2011). What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality. Princeton University Press.
Clifford, W. K. (1877). The ethics of belief. Contemporary Review, 29, 289. https://web.archive.org/web/20190427051422/https://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Clifford.pdf
Convivialist International. (2020). The second convivialist manifesto: Towards a post-neoliberal world. Civic Sociology, 1, 12721. https://online.ucpress.edu/cs/article/1/1/12721/112920/THE-SECOND-CONVIVIALIST-MANIFESTO-Towards-a-Post
Cooper, J. M. & Hutchinson, D. S. (1997). Plato: Complete works. Hackett Publishing.
Cowen, T. (2006). The epistemic problem does not refute consequentialism. Utilitas, 18, 383–399. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=38f49ce2a860ac03be8bded707760bbb1c9f0f6b
Cowen, T. & Tabarrok, A. (2013a). Modern Priniciples: Macroeconomics (2nd ed.). Worth Publishers.
———. (2013b). Modern Priniciples: Microeconomics (2nd ed.). Worth Publishers.
Cushman, F. (2013). Action, outcome, and value. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 273–292.
de Waal, F. (1982). Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Goldman, A. H. (1993). Realism about aesthetic properties. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51, 31–37.
Harris, S. (2010). The Moral Landscape: How science can determine human values. Free Press.
Haslanger, S. (2000). Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them To Be? Nous, 34, 31–55. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0029-4624.00201
Hayek, F. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35, 519–530.
Hume, D. (2007). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (P. Millican, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1748).
———. (2009). A Treatise of Human Nature. Floating Press. (Originally published in 1740).
Joyce, R. (2016). Evolution and moral naturalism. In The Blackwell Companion to Naturalism (pp. 369–385). John Wiley & Sons. http://personal.victoria.ac.nz/richard_joyce/acrobat/joyce_2016_evolution.and.moral.naturalism.pdf
Klocksiem, J. (2019). Against reductive ethical naturalism. Philosophical Studies, 176, 1991–2010.
Loeb, D. (2003). Gastronomic realism: A cautionary tale. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 23, 30–49. https://philpapers.org/rec/DONGR
Mackie, J. L. (2007). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin. (First edition published in 1977).
Mikkola, M. (2009). Gender concepts and intuitions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39, 559–583. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27822065
Moore, G. E. (1988). Principia Ethica. Prometheus Books. (First published in 1903).
Nozick, R. (2013). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books. (First edition published in 1974).
Parekh, B. (2006). Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (2nd ed.). Palgrave MacMillan.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Pearsons. Clarendon Press.
Pettit, P. (1983). The possibility of aesthetic realism. In E. Schaper (Ed.), Pleasure, Preference and Value: Studies in philosophical aesthetics. Cambridge University Press.
Portmore, D. (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Prinz, J. (2011). Against empathy. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49, 214–233.
Putnam, H. (2004). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Harvard University Press.
Railton, P. (1986). Moral realism. Philosophical Review, 95, 163–207.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press. (First edition published in 1971).
Rea, M. C. (2006). Naturalism and moral realism. In Knowledge and Reality (pp. 215–241). Dordrecht: Springer. https://philarchive.org/archive/REANAM-4
Resnik, M. D. (1987). Choices: An Introduction to Decision Theory. University of Minnesota Press.
Richards, J. R. (1980). The Sceptical Feminist: A Philosophical Enquiry. Routledge.
———. (1995). Why feminist epistemology isn’t (and the implications for feminist jurisprudence). Legal Theory, 1, 365–400.
Ross, D. (2005). Economic Theory and Cognitive Science: Microexplanation. Bradford.
Russell, B. (1943). The future of pacifism. The American Scholar, 13, 7–13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41204635
Russell, G. (2020). Logic isn’t normative. Inquiry, 63, 371–388.
———. (2021). How to prove Hume’s law. Journal of Philosophical Logic. (forthcoming).
———. (2023). Barriers to Entailment: Hume’s law & other limits on logical consequence. Oxford University Press.
Scanlon, T. M. (2000). What We Owe to Each Other. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Schurz, G. (1997). The Is/Ought Problem: An Investigation in Philosophical Logic. Dortrecht: Kluwer.
———. (2010a). Comments on Restall, Russell, and Vranas. In C. Pigden (Ed.), Hume, Is and Ought: New Essays (pp. 268–271). Palgrave MacMillan.
———. (2010b). Non-trivial versions of Hume’s is-ought thesis. In C. Pigden (Ed.), Hume, Is and Ought: New Essays (pp. 198–216). Palgrave MacMillan.
Scruton, R. (2018). Why beauty matters. The Monist, 101, 9–16.
Sen, A. (1970). The impossibility of a Paretian Liberal. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 152–157. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3612779/Sen_ImpossibilityParetian.pdf
———. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Skarsaune, K. O. (2009). Darwin and moral realism: Survival of the iffiest. Philosophical Studies, 152, 229–243.
Smart, J. J. C. & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge University Press. https://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism-for-and-against.pdf
Snyder-Hall, R. C. (2010). Third-wave feminism and the defense of "choice". Perspectives on Politics, 8, 255–261. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25698533
Solzhenitsyn, A. (1974). The Gulag Archipelago. (T. P. Whitney, Trans.). Harper & Row.
Thomson, J. J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1, 47–66.
Wedgwood, R. (2007). The Nature of Normativity. Oxford University Press.

  1. The Journal of Henry David Thoreau, March 5, 1838.↩︎

  2. Rawls (1999).↩︎

  3. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, §1.↩︎

  4. Cushman (2013).↩︎

  5. Ayars (2016).↩︎

  6. Portmore (2011).↩︎

  7. Cowen (2006).↩︎

  8. Smart & Williams (1973).↩︎

  9. Nozick (2013), p. TODO.↩︎

  10. Parfit (1984).↩︎

  11. Joyce, R. (2021). Moral anti-realism, SEP.↩︎

  12. Plato, Republic I 338c, Cooper & Hutchinson (1997), p. 983.↩︎

  13. Hume (2007), Section XII, p. 120.↩︎

  14. Black (1964).↩︎

  15. Schurz (1997).↩︎

  16. Schurz (2010a).↩︎

  17. Schurz (2010b).↩︎

  18. G. Russell (2020).↩︎

  19. G. Russell (2021).↩︎

  20. G. Russell (2023).↩︎

  21. Hume (2009), p. 715-6.↩︎

  22. Mackie (2007).↩︎

  23. Plato, Republic V 476c, Cooper & Hutchinson (1997), p. 1103.↩︎

  24. Clifford (1877).↩︎

  25. Railton (1986).↩︎

  26. Bjornsson & Finlay (2010).↩︎

  27. Scanlon (2000).↩︎

  28. Brown (2008).↩︎

  29. Resnik (1987).↩︎

  30. Binmore (2011).↩︎

  31. Bowling, Burch, Johanson, & Tammelin (2015).↩︎

  32. Resnik (1987).↩︎

  33. Axelrod (1980a).↩︎

  34. Axelrod (1980b).↩︎

  35. de Waal (1982).↩︎

  36. Churchland (2011).↩︎

  37. Skarsaune (2009).↩︎

  38. Joyce (2016).↩︎

  39. Harris (2010).↩︎

  40. Putnam (2004).↩︎

  41. Rea (2006).↩︎

  42. Wedgwood (2007), ch. 9.↩︎

  43. Klocksiem (2019).↩︎

  44. Moore (1988).↩︎

  45. Bunge (2001), p. 193.↩︎

  46. Parekh (2006).↩︎

  47. Hayek (1945).↩︎

  48. Nozick (2013).↩︎

  49. Solzhenitsyn (1974), Part 1, Ch. 4.↩︎

  50. Letter from Russell to Wolfgang Paalen, 23 March 1942.↩︎

  51. Berlin (1994).↩︎

  52. Shields, M. (2020). The last night of Mark Shields on the PBS News Hour.↩︎

  53. Cowen & Tabarrok (2013a).↩︎

  54. Cowen & Tabarrok (2013b).↩︎

  55. Ross (2005).↩︎

  56. Sen (1970).↩︎

  57. Sen (2009).↩︎

  58. Bikchandani, Riley, & Hirshleifer (2013).↩︎

  59. B. Russell (1943).↩︎

  60. Thomson (1971).↩︎

  61. Snyder-Hall (2010).↩︎

  62. Richards (1980).↩︎

  63. Richards (1995).↩︎

  64. Haslanger (2000).↩︎

  65. Mikkola (2009).↩︎

  66. The Journal of Henry David Thoreau, November 13, 1839. (What the hell did Thoreau know about regret at age 22?)↩︎

  67. Prinz (2011).↩︎

  68. Convivialist International (2020).↩︎

  69. Pettit (1983).↩︎

  70. Scruton (2018).↩︎

  71. Goldman (1993).↩︎

  72. Loeb (2003).↩︎