Hi.

I am a philosopher. I probably count as a professional philosopher these days, although I am not entirely sure how it happened. A caveat: Do not assume the positions I hold are the positions I hold, I may have motivations that are not immediately visible. Now, without further ado...

I stopped searching for answers in ethics a while back, and began searching for solutions instead. Turns out, the vast majority of the time, things are a lot easier this way. I guess you could say I am a utilitarian, at least in the sense that I am willing to accept that the application of some* principle of utility often results in acceptable outcomes. Of course, the same can be said for variations on deontology and virtue ethics, and indeed, on variations of 'doing what I tell you to do.' I reject the necessity of choice between competing ethical positions in the majority of circumstances. This may be because the dictates of theory insufficiently prescribe action, or because uncontrollable variables, imperfect information, or fallible intention serve to thwart honestly undertaken attempts to perform the correct act in given circumstances. Alternatively, choice will be unnecessary in many circumstances as the dictates of all the competing positions point to the same answer. This is the situation that leads to inane thought experiments designed to prove the superiority of Ethical System X over Ethical System Y... until you create a crazy counterfactual, the choice, X or Y, is unimportant.

From this basis, the question is, rather than which of these competing systems is right, which is most useful given the array of circumstances presented to us in particular situations. Some cultures, at some times, lean utilitarian, other lean deontological. For any of an array of reasons, these allegiances may change, swiftly, slowly. Within cultures, between cultures, different tendencies develop. Of course, culture is but one of a myriad of factors guiding the popular ethical narrative. Group memberships of all types have similar results. In some few circumstances, societies or groups will become enmeshed in situations where, for a period of time, there is actually a relevant difference between the competing ethical theories. How well the society/group does is guided in large part by whether it has, or can be persuaded towards, the appropriate ethical response to the particular circumstances it faces. As philosophers, we guide.

*'some' principle, as there are many conflicting variations. Ask whatevernamehegoesbyhereatthemoment to explain them for you. For my purposes, these variations are largely irrelevant. Most of the currently popular ones work well enough often enough to be useful.

Hi Nick, warmest welcome to Felicifia.org.
I quite agree with the spirit of not forcing ourselves to choose between one foundational ethical position or another. It is possible, even likely, for people who call themselves deontologists or virtue ethicists to have a positive effect on the world. Likewise egoists, intuitionists, nihilists and the religious can be good people. It does, however, remind me of a quote by John Stuart Mill:
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
I think deontology, nihilism and faith-based ethics are more conducive to bad behaviour than utilitarianism. When you choose a foundational ethical system other than utilitarianism, it becomes possible to create silly arbitrary rules about race and homosexuality. To me, that's the big problem.

What areas of philosophy do you work in Nick?

Nick said: Some cultures, at some times, lean utilitarian, other lean deontological. For any of an array of reasons, these allegiances may change, swiftly, slowly. Within cultures, between cultures, different tendencies develop. Of course, culture is but one of a myriad of factors guiding the popular ethical narrative. Group memberships of all types have similar results. In some few circumstances, societies or groups will become enmeshed in situations where, for a period of time, there is actually a relevant difference between the competing ethical theories. How well the society/group does is guided in large part by whether it has, or can be persuaded towards, the appropriate ethical response to the particular circumstances it faces.

This concept really interests me. It seems you're alluding to evolution of morals here. Is this evolution of morals something you think about? Are you familiar with evolutionary psychology?

I work in applied ethics. Democratic theory, punishment, globalisation. (just to keep things brief)

I would suggest that it is similarly possible to create arbitrary rules using a utilitarian framework, all it requires is some tweaking of the value of 'good' for certain individuals, say. The point is though, that the possibility of these rules being implemented in these systems is not an argument agains tthe systems, but an argument against implementing silly rules. If you can come up with a rule that is not obviously silly, it gets much more entertaining, but...

This concept really interests me. It seems you're alluding to evolution of morals here. Is this evolution of morals something you think about? Are you familiar with evolutionary psychology?

I am familiar with evolutionary psychology. It doesn't prove what the crazy half (ie, the ones who refer to it as Evolutionary Psychology) want it to prove. For the more limited domain, it provides some interesting ideas. The passage you quoted isn't really referring to the evolution of morals, rather to a fluctuation between various pre-existing possible moral states. I explicitly avoided suggesting a progression in moral value, wherein there is some high point to aim at. The concepts of progression/regression are too often innacurately applied to morality.

Having said that, there could be evolution of the type you allude to at the meta level here. While groups lean util, or lean deon, the content of util/deon may be evolving at least semi-independantly. This doesn't need to have an impact on the tendency for lean (sorry about the shorthand here, but i'm using a terrible keyboard), and so will not be evolution at the group level, but at the conceptual level.

I envy that you get to work in those areas Nick!

On the topic of arbitrary rules, I think I can answer your question by saying that I see utilitarianism as rational deontology. If I tried to become a deontologist, I would look for evidence for each rule and I would have to reject each deontological rule one after another. I think that I would have to replace these rules based on what I can observe more directly than anything else, feelings. Certain things feel good, other things do not. On the assumption that others can feel, I would decide to do what creates positive feelings, placing me as a classical utilitarian once again. So I think if you tweak the value of good, you're misreading the evidence.

On evolutionary psychology, I agree that it produces interesting ideas. I'd go further, though, and say that evolutionary psychology has produced numerous coherent theories. It is very intelligent and thought-provoking stuff. I suppose some of it is supported by evidence. For example, the brain is clearly no clean slate.

With morals, I don't think there's any doubt that they change over time. I guess the question is whether there are trends to see. And even if you dare to use the word 'progress', there's no reason to accept that 'progress' is good or bad. Evolution at the conceptual level? Do you believe in memetics?

Hi Nick, great to see you here Dunno if you noticed that you share a location with Ryan (there's a lot of Melbourners and ex-Melbourners on this forum). This is what I'm currently calling myself on here... I'm far from being the resident expert, though. Most of the current members can talk at least as much util history as me, and a couple (Toby Ord - who you might conceivably have met - and Benthamite neither of who've posted yet but will hopefully do so intermittently) are professional utilitarian ethicists.

I haven't left myself enough time to respond to much of what you've said here (and maybe it's better discussed in the util forum anyway), but just quickly I'll say that it's problematic IMO to talk of 'useful' or 'acceptable' outcomes/processes without having some sort of process/outcome evaluating criterion (ie. an ethical system).

I'm curious what you mean about evopsyche - it's an idea I've only recently paid any attention to, and have no strong opinions on. Who're the 'sane half' you're alluding to?