Vladimir_M comments on Virtue Ethics for Consequentialists - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Will_Newsome 04 June 2010 04:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (178)

Comments (178)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PeterS 04 June 2010 08:08:16PM 1 point [-]

ethics is about "what I should do".

It's interesting to distinguish between ethics and morality in this manner, as in ethics is for the individual's benefit as opposed to morality which is for the benefit of the group as a whole. Which is why people speak of "medical ethics" or "journalistic ethics", as opposed to "medical morality" and "journalistic morality". Morality is considered as some kind of constant normative prescription, whereas ethics is sensitive to subjective dispositions and thus can vary between professions, individuals, etc.

Comment author: timtyler comment score below threshold [+] (11 children)

Comment author: PeterS 04 June 2010 10:19:24PM * 3 points [-]

I haven't grossly stretched or distorted the everyday usage of these words, so I'm not sure why I deserve to have their dictionary definitions shoved at me (especially since ethics #2 agrees with my usage). In fact I provided examples wherein the use of these words actually differs in common speech. I've tried to convey why I think this subtle difference is interesting. I wouldn't say that I was arguing with the dictionary (although there is a time to do so).

Comment author: Jack 06 June 2010 02:57:19PM 1 point [-]

As one might expect this issue of the distinction between ethics and morality routinely comes up in undergraduate philosophy courses. I have yet to hear a professor of philosophy endorse any distinction between morality and ethics and they often are perplexed that the general public seems to think there is one. Professional usage, not common usage, is what matters when we're thinking about issues in an academic field.

Comment author: PeterS 06 June 2010 07:09:56PM * 1 point [-]

Regardless of the terms' usages in academia, there is often a distinction in common speech. I disagree that this distinction is irrelevant. Also, having gotten to know several professional philosophers before leaving the field for mathematics, I know that they are not as confused by this distinction (or the public's employment of it) as you suggest, even if they choose not to draw it themselves.

But it's all moot, as

Professional usage, not common usage, is what matters when we're thinking about issues in an academic field.

implies that any usage of ethics in opposition to the study of Aristotle's eudaimonia was at one time as irrelevant/improper as the common usage is now. I think, while that statement might be correct for a technical field's vocabulary, it is not alright to restrict a layman's usage of certain philosophical terms, like ethics, in the same manner.

Comment author: Jack comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: PeterS 06 June 2010 11:52:50PM * 1 point [-]

I'm reminded of why I left the discipline - it's a historico-linguistic claptrap.

All I advocated for was the term's speciation - which, I'll add again, is already present in the dictionary as well as in common usage. I reject the notion that, in order to suggest this, I first need to be a philosopher by trade.

Comment author: Alicorn 06 June 2010 10:21:04PM 0 points [-]

ethics is the study of the good.

Axiology is the study of the good. It's just confusing to name it "ethics" when there's a perfectly good, more specific word to apply. I may write an entire post on this and similar vocabulary failures soon.

Comment author: Jack 06 June 2010 10:25:52PM 2 points [-]

Ethics is a subfield of axiology, the study of the good life instead of the good state or something else.

Comment author: Alicorn 06 June 2010 10:29:12PM 0 points [-]

That's how Aristotle approached it; not all ethicists do.

Comment author: Jack 06 June 2010 10:36:17PM 2 points [-]

That's the standard conceptual hierarchy. In any case, I was talking about Aristotle. If your point is "you should have been more clear", fair enough. Otherwise I don't really know what we're talking about or why I'm getting voted down.

Comment author: tut 06 June 2010 04:05:54PM 0 points [-]

I thought that the standard answer was "one is latin and the other is greek".

Comment author: timtyler 05 June 2010 07:47:08AM * -1 points [-]

The dictionary simply doesn't distinguish between these terms on the basis of who they benefit. In fact it defines ethics in terms of morality in most cases.

Vladimir_M comments on Virtue Ethics for Consequentialists - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (178)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (178)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login