So, let's all talk about meta-ethics...

strobe

...for funsies and kicks and giggles.

So I'm going to lean on wikipedia like a hooker with rickets leans on a friend zoned pimp for this OP, so bare with me.

What is meta-ethics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics
According to the wiki link above;

In philosophy, meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments. Meta-ethics is one of the three branches of ethics generally recognized by philosophers, the others being normative ethics and applied ethics. Meta-ethics has received considerable attention from academic philosophers in the last few decades.
While normative ethics addresses such questions as "What should one do?", thus endorsing some ethical evaluations and rejecting others, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations.
Some theorists argue that a metaphysical account of morality is necessary for the proper evaluation of actual moral theories and for making practical moral decisions; others reason from opposite premises and suggest that we must impart ideas of moral intuition onto proper action before we can give a proper account of morality's metaphysics.

According to some dudes there are three meta-ethical problems, three main questions that the philosophy of meta-ethics attempts to address or answer. They go thusly...;

1. What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments?
2. What is the nature of moral judgments?
3. How may moral judgments be supported or defended?

So in meta-ethics there are apparently dealies labelled in wiki as 'Semantic theories', these lads are positions taken that attempt to tackle question number 1 above. 'What do the words we use to talk about morals or the word moral it's self actually mean?' or some shit.

There's a whole mess of them apparently so I'm not gonna quote them. They are there in the link above if you want to read about them. Please do, it's mad crazy interesting.

---

Dealies that fuck with the second question are called 'Substantial Theories', again they are in the first link. 'What is the nature of moral judgements?'

---

Dealies the three are what wiki (and I presume other sources) call 'Justification Theories', they dwell mainly in the realm of the third question, 'how does/may one justify their moral position once they have satisfied themselves with answers to question one and/or two?'

---

Now near as I can figure I'm a 'moral nihilist'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
but I'm not really sure. I'm pretty sure like, but who knows... basically I reckon nothing is intrinsically wrong or right... when I say 'x is wrong' what I actually mean is 'I would prefer x not to happen' and I think whenever anyone else says 'x is wrong' that is what they are actually saying too. I think this is moral nihilism, but like I say I'm not sure, so if I'm wrong let me know.

I'm curious what other people would consider themselves to be? And why? And how? And... ehh... when? (I guess)?

========
========


This is A&A related in lots and lots of ways. If there is a deity then the nature of morality and stuff is fundamentally different than if there is not. Plus the nature of morality and stuff is up for debate whether there is a Big Boss or not, either way it's hard to pin down. That's why I'm posting it here.

Now I have to be up for work in... fuck... about 3 hours. So yeah. (I wanted to make a poll but just realised the time and I'm not entirely sure what shape the poll I want would take. So hopefully Dades or Robin will be able to retrofit it if I can work it out tomorrow?)

Night kids.

doctoremma

strobe wrote: »

Now near as I can figure I'm a 'moral nihilist'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
but I'm not really sure. I'm pretty sure like, but who knows... basically I reckon nothing is intrinsically wrong or right... when I say 'x is wrong' what I actually mean is 'I would prefer x not to happen' and I think whenever anyone else says 'x is wrong' that is what they are actually saying too. I think this is moral nihilism, but like I say I'm not sure, so if I'm wrong let me know.

I'm curious what other people would consider themselves to be? And why? And how? And... ehh... when? (I guess)?

Ramblings to follow:

Hmm, I have never been certain of a category under which I fall. I think the word "moral" has been traditionally (and maybe retrospectively) applied to any activity which promoted species survival; tending the sick, feeding the starving, and so on. I see these as biological imperatives. Humans have flourished on cooperative strategies.

However, it's fair to say that people will have different views about which activities promote species survival - capital punishment kills a person but may be justified as protecting the lives of others. In the animal kingdom, individuals who transgress social rules can be dealt with very harshly. And still in some human populations, the disabled and sick are left to die, as they are viewed as unable to contribute to the "greater good". Which is the "correct" biological imperative?

Furthermore, in the western world, we are beyond simply living to reproduce. In fact, were everyone to have the maximum number of offspring, we'd soon find ourselves in a pretty sorry state.

I definitely know I'm not troubled by the apparent lack of objective morality (even if I might try to use biology as an "objective" source).

Turtwig

I'm a pragmatist first and foremost. Questions like "Is there such a thing as Free Will", "What is Good?" Are not good questions to ask even if they can seem intuitively interesting. I couldn't really be bothered to elaborate beyond that.
Although, I would say the latter question is probably better than the former.

Spot of Borg

In my experience "moral" stuff comes from religion and is used by the religoius while "ethics" seem to be a more secular term.

Spot