What is your moral philosophy?

[Pin]

I'll get back to this thread soon.

 

[Pin]

Well, presumably if you can't choose your intentions, you can't choose anything whatsoever. Every choice really becomes the illusion of a choice, against a completely deterministic background (what you call "fate"). Thus you can't be deemed responsible for your actions. Thus your actions lie outside the moral compass - in the same way that we don't speak of the moral wrongdoings of lions when they eat a man.

Of course you might say: "But these actions would still be unlawful in human society." Yes, in the sense that the State would punish them, for reasons of safety, protection of property against thievery, etc. But still they would be emptied of their moral content. There'd be unlawful actions, but not immoral ones.

Fair enough. Moral content disappears against a deterministic background but ethical content doesn't. Wrongdoers should still face consequences for their actions, in so far as, the justice that is served to them is not retributive.

 

[Ren]

Fair enough. Moral content disappears against a deterministic background but ethical content doesn't. Wrongdoers should still face consequences for their actions, in so far as, the justice that is served to them is not retributive.

Not exactly sure what you mean, but I think the term "wrongdoer" loses its meaning in a deterministic world.

 

[Ren]

Some form of virtue ethics, as the foundational claims of modernist conceptions of ethics (Deontology, Consequentialism) fall apart. Stoicism particularly interests me. Like Hellenistic Cynicism, it maintains that the good is to live in accord with our nature (as social animals capable of reason) and to be indifferent to everything outside of our control, which is to say everything other than our virtue: wisdom, justice, courage and moderation. However, it goes further than the Cynics with the Stoic notion of preferred and nonpreferred indifferents—that is, amongst those things outside of our control, some are desirable (a good reputation, food, health) and some undesirable (being tortured, living in poverty, etc.). Only virtue is an incommensurable good, so even if you do not have preferred indifferents or suffer from nonpreferred indifferents, as long as you have wisdom, justice, courage and moderation, it does not matter.

Nice! Would you say that you embrace the metaphysical determinism that usually comes with Stoicism as well?

What makes you favor Stoicism over, say, Aristotelian virtue ethics, which comes with the possible "advantage" of no determinism?

 

[Pin]

Not exactly sure what you mean, but I think the term "wrongdoer" loses its meaning in a deterministic world.

The deterministic world still has meaning and a way.

Any action that detracts from flourishing (eudaimonia) is wrong. For example, rape or murder.

 

[Rowan Tree]

Nice! Would you say that you embrace the metaphysical determinism that usually comes with Stoicism as well?

That's a good question. Stoic ethics appeals to me, but I am a metaphysical libertarian—a position I consider compatible with the moral observations of the school. I think determinism is phenomenologically unpersuasive and that attempts to reconcile it with intuition, such as Humeian compatibilism, amounts to a mere appeal to semantics.

What makes you favor Stoicism over, say, Aristotelian virtue ethics, which comes with the possible "advantage" of no determinism?

While I have a lot of respect for Aristotle, I don't accept the inherent elitism of the peripatetic worldview. That is, I don't believe in moral luck—virtue is just as possible for a slave as it is for a noble.

 

[Pin]

While I have a lot of respect for Aristotle, I don't accept the inherent elitism of the peripatetic worldview.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

 

[Rowan Tree]

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit?

 

[sprinkles]

Not exactly sure what you mean, but I think the term "wrongdoer" loses its meaning in a deterministic world.

Remember that in early days, the concept of evil had nothing to do with morality as we know it today. For example diseases or famine etc. would also be considered evil.

Basically anything "bad" whether it was your fault or not.

 

[Wyote]

For example diseases or famine etc. would also be considered evil.

Are they not now?

 

[Ren]

The deterministic world still has meaning and a way.

Any action that detracts from flourishing (eudaimonia) is wrong. For example, rape or murder.

I think I understand what you mean now. By "wrongdoers", you only meant those who perform actions that detract from the flourishing of eudaimonia. So the wrong you were referring to was not a moral wrong as such, by a wrong insofar as it disturbed the said flourishing.

A further question for you: if the world is deterministic, is it the flourishing that you see as determining it?

 

[Ren]

That's a good question. Stoic ethics appeals to me, but I am a metaphysical libertarian—a position I consider compatible with the moral observations of the school. I think determinism is phenomenologically unpersuasive and that attempts to reconcile it with intuition, such as Humeian compatibilism, amounts to a mere appeal to semantics.

I tend to agree with you that the moral observations of the Stoic school are not incompatible with metaphysical libertarianism. Perhaps the fact that many Stoics were nonlibertarian - I think the symbol of fire is quite prevalent in their metaphysics? - made it easier, from the ethical point of view, to "practice" the distinction between the virtues and the indifferents. But I don't think determinism is a requirement for that matter.

Is there a particular Stoic philosopher that you favor over the others? I have always been a big Marcus Aurelius fan. I guess his philosophy is not particularly original, but I find his worldview less "arid" and austere than that of Epictetus, whom I still admire and enjoy. I really never managed to get into Seneca. Everything of his that I've read has felt derivative to me, and I don't particularly like (what I know of) the man.

 

[Pin]

I think I understand what you mean now. By "wrongdoers", you only meant those who perform actions that detract from the flourishing of eudaimonia. So the wrong you were referring to was not a moral wrong as such, by a wrong insofar as it disturbed the said flourishing.

Yes, the sense of wrong I am invoking is more ethical than moral.

 

[Pin]

Is there a particular Stoic philosopher that you favor over the others?

Diogenes of Sinope.

 

[Pin]

Further question for you: if the world is deterministic, is it the flourishing that you see as determining it?

Excuse me?

 

[Rowan Tree]

Is there a particular Stoic philosopher that you favor over the others? I have always been a big Marcus Aurelius fan. I guess his philosophy is not particularly original, but I find his worldview less "arid" and austere than that of Epictetus, whom I still admire and enjoy. I really never managed to get into Seneca. Everything of his that I've read has felt derivative to me, and I don't particularly like (what I know of) the man.

Epictetus appeals to me most—although I get what you mean, his coldness disguises a genuine depth of compassion that motivated his pedagogical mission. He is also the closest to embodying that radical spirit of the cynics, and I gather was the most sympathetic to contemporaneous cynics. I love Antisthenes, as we encounter him in Diogenes Laërtius's work; although, he is perhaps romanticised in terms of providing the vital link back to Socrates. Seneca was flawed, but there is something poignant (however misguided) about his struggle to sway Nero. Although I agree that his writings are the least profound.

 

[sprinkles]

Are they not now?

Depends on who you ask.

Most people have the modern interpretation that evil requires intent or awareness.

 

[Pin]

A further question for you: if the world is deterministic, is it the flourishing that you see as determining it?

Seriously, I am confused.

 

[Ren]

Diogenes of Sinope.

Wow, good pick! Though technically a Cynic, I think

Seriously, I am confused.

Well, you mentioned eudaemonia during our discussion on determinism and morality. You were saying that a wrong did not have to be a moral wrong, but an ethical one only. I understand your argument. But I then asked what was the deterministic principle of the world you were contemplating. It would be possible to imagine that the cosmos itself is determined by eudaemonia, i.e. flourishing. Otherwise, why make it the basis of your judgement of amoral right and wrong?

 

[Ren]

Remember that in early days, the concept of evil had nothing to do with morality as we know it today. For example diseases or famine etc. would also be considered evil.

Basically anything "bad" whether it was your fault or not.

Are they not now?

Depends on who you ask.

Most people have the modern interpretation that evil requires intent or awareness.

To be honest, I can't wrap my head around the idea that "evil" is different from "bad" if we are in a deterministic world. Do you guys see things differently?

I think it may be possible to argue that evil can be perpetrated without awareness/intent. But in a causally determined world, I don't see how.