Chris,
I’ve been wondering about the definition of ethics given here, as constraints on self-interest, when the philosophy of personal identity seems to have a hard time defining a personal identity that could function as an extension for the ‘self’ (whose interest is at odds with that of the public)*.
Now, I’ve been corrected by my biggers and betters for suggesting there might not be a workable distinction between ethics and prudence. Indeed, it was not until I got to SMU that I was even aware of such a distinction. It seemed pretty reasonable to me that, given the tendency to use “morals” and “ethics’ interchangeably, and to label certain behaviours only affecting the self as “immoral” or “unethical”, one could have competing self-interests as well as conflicts between groups and there members.
It seems to me that it would be useful to take your working definition of ethics and to contrast it with definitions operating with different auxiliary theories, of personal identity and other disputable notions. I agree that it’s useful to have a common definition to use as a starting point for a constructive discussion, but my experience is that such attempts at common ground often become an orthodoxy, and get used to quash dissent or to dismiss objections as merely skeptical.
*At least according to a gentleman who presented at a colloquium about the state of philosophy of personal identity at Dal while I was at SMU, I forget his name but it’s easily looked up.
Thanks. This needs to be said, and emphasized. I often present Carroll’s famous CSR pyramid (which has ethics as a part of CSR) as a transition to a different model which has ethics as a foundation for legal, social and economic “responsibilities”, claiming to my students that ethics is what grounds these other components of CSR. I take it that this is consistent with your suggestion. Citizenship is another matter, but there, too, it seems like a comparable move is possible, grounding notions of citizen rights and responsibilities in terms of some prior ethical commitments.
Beverly:
Fair question.
For casual purposes, we can indeed use those words interchangeably. So we can either say “You have an ethical obligation to do x” or “You have a moral obligation to do x” and mean the same thing.
But there is a difference between a norm being prevalent in a community and a norm being well-justified, and so sometimes we want to use different words to point out that distinction. We don’t always need the technical distinction, but it can be handy.
It’s also interesting to note that you very often hear it said that such-and-such is “morally and ethically wrong”, and in most cases the speaker has absolutely no idea what they mean by that.
I’ve been wondering about the definition of ethics given here, as constraints on self-interest, when the philosophy of personal identity seems to have a hard time defining a personal identity that could function as an extension for the ‘self’ (whose interest is at odds with that of the public)*.
Now, I’ve been corrected by my biggers and betters for suggesting there might not be a workable distinction between ethics and prudence. Indeed, it was not until I got to SMU that I was even aware of such a distinction. It seemed pretty reasonable to me that, given the tendency to use “morals” and “ethics’ interchangeably, and to label certain behaviours only affecting the self as “immoral” or “unethical”, one could have competing self-interests as well as conflicts between groups and there members.
It seems to me that it would be useful to take your working definition of ethics and to contrast it with definitions operating with different auxiliary theories, of personal identity and other disputable notions. I agree that it’s useful to have a common definition to use as a starting point for a constructive discussion, but my experience is that such attempts at common ground often become an orthodoxy, and get used to quash dissent or to dismiss objections as merely skeptical.
*At least according to a gentleman who presented at a colloquium about the state of philosophy of personal identity at Dal while I was at SMU, I forget his name but it’s easily looked up.
Thanks. This needs to be said, and emphasized. I often present Carroll’s famous CSR pyramid (which has ethics as a part of CSR) as a transition to a different model which has ethics as a foundation for legal, social and economic “responsibilities”, claiming to my students that ethics is what grounds these other components of CSR. I take it that this is consistent with your suggestion. Citizenship is another matter, but there, too, it seems like a comparable move is possible, grounding notions of citizen rights and responsibilities in terms of some prior ethical commitments.
Beverly:
Fair question.
For casual purposes, we can indeed use those words interchangeably. So we can either say “You have an ethical obligation to do x” or “You have a moral obligation to do x” and mean the same thing.
But there is a difference between a norm being prevalent in a community and a norm being well-justified, and so sometimes we want to use different words to point out that distinction. We don’t always need the technical distinction, but it can be handy.
It’s also interesting to note that you very often hear it said that such-and-such is “morally and ethically wrong”, and in most cases the speaker has absolutely no idea what they mean by that.
No comments:
Post a Comment