I Don't Understand the Basis of Ethics

• I’m very curious about the discussion of universal ethics, such as Normative Ethics, and where they are based on (blu3mo)(blu3mo).

  • Specifically, I wonder what arguments like “Deontology is good,” “No, it’s Utilitarianism,” or “Preference Utilitarianism is even better” are based on/seeking.

• Thoughts I had:

  • I believe that emotions cannot be the basis of ethics.
    • It’s just a feeling like “I want freedom.”
    • Since it’s not universal, I don’t think it can be the basis for considering universal ethics.
      • If someone is brainwashed for ten years to believe that “authoritarian society is the best,” they will come to feel that it is good.
  • Is the argument that society will function well if we make this the norm?
  • Or rather, is it based on human emotions?
    • Instead of basing it on emotions at a certain point in time, it is based on the change in emotions from a detached perspective.
      • This seems like Hedonism (blu3mo).
    • Does this have universality?
    • The following sections from 7.2 onwards seem to be quite similar to this (from Wikipedia):

      • 7 Arguments about morality

      • 7.1 Ethical philosophy

      • 7.2 Moral psychology

      • 7.3 Sociobiology and primatology

      • 7.4 Neuroscience

      • 7.5 Cognitive science of morality

      • 7.5.1 Moral dilemmas

  • Maybe assuming the existence of universal ethics in the first place is wrong.

• In essence, is this a meta discussion about what evaluation criteria are “good”?

  • Is this what Metaethics is about?
    • No, it seems a bit different.

• I also want to delve into this in my Baji Seminar Essay 1S Semester.

  • Based on the underlying “goodness,” I want to consider what constitutes a “good” society.

• I want you to think about it, but personally, I don’t feel like delving too deeply into it because I think it will eventually lead to Infinite Regress (Lewis Carroll’s Paradox) (takker).

  • But it seems good to seek reasons until just before that. You might find some underlying concepts.

• Conversation with a senior:

  • Well, in the end, since there is no universal ethics, isn’t the goal of ethics to organize conflicts and relationships between various evaluation criteria?
  • However, falling into relativism is also not right?

From Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:

• 6.42 “Therefore, ethical propositions cannot exist. Propositions cannot express anything higher.”

  • I feel that way too (blu3mo)(blu3mo).

• 6.423 The will as the bearer of the ethical cannot be spoken of.

• And the will as a phenomenon is of interest only to psychology.

I’m watching while thinking that things end up like this when taken to a higher level (rickshinmi).