In Derek Parfit's original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is characterized as follows: “For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living”. The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as “Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy creatures?” and “Is there a moral obligation to have children?” The main problem has been to find an adequate theory about the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives, and their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of population ethics is of general import for moral theory. As the name indicates, Parfit finds the Repugnant Conclusion unacceptable and many philosophers agree. However, it has been surprisingly difficult to find a theory that avoids the Repugnant Conclusion without implying other equally counterintuitive conclusions. Thus, the question as to how the Repugnant Conclusion should be dealt with and, more generally, what it shows about the nature of ethics has turned the conclusion into one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics.
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximise well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as "Do unto others as you would be done by" and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent. We might also reflect that public scrutiny can provide something of an alternative through regulation. Many of the problems implicit in Orn's opener seem to me to be to do with this - giving people the opportunity to lie and cheat under only their own scrutiny - as with bwankers taking us to the cleaners, politicians taking us to war and so on. A range of public choice theories are available here. Not much of this stuff is about defining the words ethics and morality in any simple sense. On 30 Jan, 01:23, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a difference between ethics and morality - perhaps more > correctly many differences. Lawyers can behave ethically whilst being > immoral. Like Francis though, I tend to use the words > interchangeably. Chris has given the three-tier definition I'm > familiar with from basic class. Everyone on this thread so far has > done something I regard as profoundly ethical and moral - admitted > being wrong. Craig might regret asking people to take on the burden > of defining - some just love that and I doubt any of us want to sit > through anyone holding forth on modern deontic ethics - but I'm in a > mean mood so everyone - ears back, eyes open, brains looking out of > the window! > > On 29 Jan, 23:10, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I guess it doesn't really matter what words we use, as long as we all > > agree that that is what meant when speak to one another. If we choose > > to use the word in a different way, then the burden is the one > > deviating from the normal use of the word to explain what he means > > thereby. So, for the time being, since Chris was the first define the > > word in such specificity, I say we adopt Chris' for now. If someone > > disagrees with Chris' definition, then they have the burden of > > defining the word themselves. Otherwise, we will assume they mean > > what Chris means. > > > On Jan 29, 3:17 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I was taught that dialectically, there are three levels of authority: > > > Legal, by which the governing body of a nation establishes a canon of law > > > Ethical, which represents an established system, either internal or > > > external, of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviours within specific > > > paradigms > > > Moral, by which the general concepts of good or bad are established, > > > primarily from an emotional perspective. > > > > This seems to differ greatly from your pespective. What are your thoughts > > > on > > > this viewpoint? > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM, frantheman > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I don't think so, Chris. Personally, I tend to use both terms > > > > synonymously. Ethics may, perhaps, have a slightly more philosophical > > > > flavour. > > > > > Francis > > > > > On 29 Jan., 21:19, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Aren't we conflating two separate issues when we use the words ethics > > > > > and > > > > > morals interchangeably? > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > In a different thread, fran suggested an exploration of morality in > > > > > > the context of economics and society. Rather than rephrase him, here > > > > > > are his words: > > > > > > > "…Most importantly, for me at least, many contributions (including > > > > > > your > > > > > > own appeal to charity) seem to point to some kind of primacy of the > > > > > > "ethical" in the organisation of human societies, be it within a > > > > > > "capitalist" or a "socialist" framework. This point came home to me > > > > > > after reading the thought-provoking article by Howard A. Doughty > > > > > > (and > > > > > > doesn't he live up to his name! :-)) in the link provided by Don. Of > > > > > > course, this insight raises many more questions: how do we achieve > > > > > > more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in > > > > > > society/markets/ > > > > > > public life, how do we educate for real morality in society, and, > > > > > > most > > > > > > fundamtentally, what do we really mean by morality and what systems > > > > > > of > > > > > > morality can we propose for our complex, splintered, internetworked, > > > > > > interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? > > > > > > What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle and all the > > > > > > others ... ;-)" – fran > > > > > > > I agreed and wish to explore the area…what we mean by morality, how > > > > > > to > > > > > > educate for it etc. My responding post: > > > > > > > "Fran, I find that you have pointed to the heart of the matter… > > > > > > ethics. > > > > > > As far as I see it, if different people have different ethics, it is > > > > > > probable they will espouse differing economic and/or social systems > > > > > > based upon their personal point of view. This seems so obvious. > > > > > > Many here have studied the subject, formally and informally. And, of > > > > > > course, each person has an opinion. For me, some sort of > > > > > > empathetical > > > > > > or at least sympathetic analysis of how differing ethoses function > > > > > > would be appreciated. And, yes, even in this simple request, my > > > > > > personal ethos/morality shines through. > > > > > > I have a few ideas on how to progress, however I'll wait and see if > > > > > > those better versed in the topic can guide us towards a more > > > > > > fruitful > > > > > > discussion. " – orn > > > > > > > So, since the other topic continues to appear to include > > > > > > contradictions to this notion, I'm starting a new one to address it > > > > > > for those who wish to explore rather than reject. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
