Dear Pedro,
dear all,
when it comes to "ethics as science" we should be distinguish between
the scientific research on morality (or the "good") and the attempt to
use the scientific nature of ethics to establish a certain form of
morality or a set of rules called "ethics" within a society.
Scientist working in the field of ethics may be considered experts in
moral questions, but they should not be considered as a form of preacher
who tells people exactly what to do. (You may not even become more
ethical by doing research on ethics.)
From my own understanding, I consider ethics as a way to describe and
reflect on morality. The results of this may even be used by some people
to reflect on their own morality, but I do not believe (or hope) that
Plato's idea that a philosopher should become king is still alive. What
ethics may be good for is to work as a tool to remind us of alternatives
in what we are doing.
So, as good as it seems to consider "ethics as an Art of problem
solving" this is a little bit unsatisfying, because if we really believe
that "morality" can not become the object of scientific research, we
should at least be able to make clear, why we think so. For example we
should explain what makes the difference between moral and non-moral
facts - and, voil�, we are doing ethics again! And I think we should at
least try to clear this kinds of question in a scientific manner, which
should help us to make the discussion rational in the sense, that we can
communicate and justify our views on morality.
I do not mind considering ethics as a form of art, by the way, just like
I would consider medicine as an art. But - like in the example of
medicine - there is plenty of space left for scientific reasoning within
the field of an art. Thus, I would not make a strong distinction between
art and science, in the sense that something that is considered "art"
can not include elements of scientific reasoning.
With best regards,
Michael Nagenborg
Pedro Marijuan schrieb:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> If ethics relates mostly to the quest for the "good" or for the
"good
> reasons" of our social behavior, apparently it can be treated as
> another discipline --really? An initial complication is about the
> subject --good... "to whom"? It maybe one's personal interests,
or
> his/her family, business, profession, country, species, Gaia... but
> those goodnesses are usually in conflict, even in dramatic
> contraposition. It is a frequent motif of dramas, movies, poetry, etc.
> (aren't we reminded "arts as technologies of ethics"?).
>
> And then the complications about the circumstances, say the
"boundary
> conditions". Any simple economic story or commercial transaction
> (e.g., remember that ugly provincial story about "the nail found in
> Zaragoza") may involve quite a number of situational changes and
> ethical variants ---if we put scale into a whole social dimension of
> multivariated networkings... it is just mind boggling. So I really
> would not put much weigh on those hierarchical categorizations that
> only take a minimalist snapshot upon a minimalist, almost nihilist
> scenario. However, some points by Loet months ago on how complexity
> may hide-in & show up along privileged axis might deserve discussion
> at this context.
>
> Could we accept ethics just as an Art of moral problem solving? Quite
> many conceptual tools would enter therein, but the
"scientificity" of
> the whole would not be needed. Even more, such scientificty would look
> suspicious to me. A few decades ago, a "scientific" guiding of
the
> whole social evolution was taking place in a number of countries...
> apparently paving the way to a new, conflict less Era!
>
> best regards
>
> Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed May 10 10:46:54 2006
