@simplic10 It's already split that way, yes? Virtue, deontology, consequentialism. So yr point is all are needed and none can be reduced
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Something like that. I think maybe they are *about* different things and "ethics" is an unacceptably broad term.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10 I agree with that. So the next step, for me, is to look at the detailed texture of what people actually do with “ethics” and how.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I want to add that although I've come to respect folk ethics quite a bit, I still think there's huge scope for revisionism.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10 Yes, I agree. Relatedly, when you look at the details of folk ethics, you find errors not considered by philosophers.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10 The biggest ethical question for many people is “how ethical should I be?”. Can’t even formulate that in foundational systems.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I did hear one attempt. The idea was that "should" is an all-things-considered word and that what is moral...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@Meaningness ...is not automatically what you should do. Also have to consider prudential shoulds, other normative factors.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@Meaningness So on this view it would make sense to say "that's the most moral thing to do, but you shouldn't do it."1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@simplic10 Yes, something like that, but as stated it still sounds too tidy :-)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.