Competing Ethical Considerations

“On the face of it, it appears that no major school of moral thought has a rigorous, systematic ‘hermeneutics’ in place to consistently prioritize and weight the considerations above.”
“The assertion that no major school of moral thought has a rigorous, systematic ‘hermeneutics’ for consistently prioritizing and weighing the vast array of considerations…touches on a complex issue in ethical theory.”
If these systems cannot provide determinate, consistent resolutions based on their principles, and instead require heavy reliance on changeable intuitions, conventional judgments, or emotional moral senses, then this lends some credence to the critique that they are more so rationalizing facades designed to imbue culturally-inculcated emotions and gut instincts with undue moral force and authority.”
“The sheer heterogeneity of considerations that moral thinkers admittedly need to flexibly appeal to in resolving dilemmas could be seen as suggesting an ad hoc, reverse-engineered approach of gerrymandering principles to uphold pre-existing moral impulses, rather than an impartial derivation from objective foundations.”

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

Introduce key ethical considerations commonly used when making ethical judgments.

Consequentialist Considerations:

Maximizing well-being/happiness/preference satisfaction: This approach emphasizes the importance of actions that increase the overall well-being or happiness of individuals or societies. It suggests that moral decisions should aim to maximize pleasure or preference satisfaction, considering the impact of actions on all affected parties.
Minimizing suffering/pain/misery: This principle focuses on reducing the amount of suffering or discomfort experienced by individuals. Moral judgments, from this perspective, should prioritize actions that decrease pain or misery, aiming for the least harm possible.
Promoting peace/social stability: This consideration values actions that contribute to peace and social harmony. It suggests that moral decisions should support the maintenance of order and stability in society, reducing conflicts and fostering a peaceful coexistence.
Maximizing autonomy/freedom: Emphasizing the importance of individual autonomy and freedom, this approach argues that moral actions should allow people to make their own choices and control their own lives, as long as these do not harm others.
Fairness in distribution of goods/resources: This principle is concerned with the equitable distribution of goods and resources among individuals. It holds that moral decisions should aim for fairness, ensuring that everyone has access to what they need for a decent life.
Aggregate welfare/utility maximization: This concept focuses on maximizing the overall welfare or utility of a society. It suggests that the best moral actions are those that result in the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.
Equality of welfare levels: This consideration argues for actions that promote an equal level of welfare among individuals. It challenges disparities in well-being, aiming for a more balanced distribution of happiness and resources.
Favoring greater numbers impacted: This approach prioritizes actions that benefit the largest number of people. It suggests that when making moral judgments, the impact on the majority should be a significant factor.
Long-term future consequences: This principle emphasizes the importance of considering the long-term outcomes of actions. It suggests that moral decisions should account for their enduring effects on future generations and the sustainability of the planet.
Social utility functions: This consideration involves evaluating actions based on their contribution to the overall utility or well-being of society. It involves complex assessments of the benefits and harms of actions on a communal level.
Satisfying informed preferences: This approach focuses on fulfilling the preferences of individuals, assuming these preferences are well-informed and rational. It suggests that moral actions should aim to meet the genuine desires and needs of people.
Positive and negative responsibility: This concept distinguishes between the responsibility to prevent harm (negative responsibility) and the responsibility to promote good (positive responsibility). It argues for a balanced approach to moral obligations.

Deontological Considerations:

Respect for autonomy/human dignity: Deontological ethics emphasizes the inherent worth of every individual, advocating for actions that respect people’s autonomy and dignity. Moral decisions should never violate these fundamental values.
Duty of beneficence/non-maleficence: This principle underscores the moral obligation to do good and avoid causing harm. It demands that individuals act in ways that promote the well-being of others, while refraining from actions that could cause injury or injustice.
Promise keeping/honesty: Deontology holds that honesty and the fulfillment of promises are crucial ethical duties. Moral actions should be guided by truthfulness and the commitment to uphold one’s word.
Prohibitions on lying/deception: This consideration strictly forbids dishonesty or deception, asserting that moral integrity requires transparency and sincerity in all interactions.
Rights (life, liberty, property, etc.): Deontological ethics defends the fundamental rights of individuals, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. Moral judgments should protect these rights against infringement.
Just distribution/compensation rules: This principle advocates for justice in the distribution of resources and compensation for wrongs. It demands fair treatment and rectification in cases of injustice.
Not using people merely as means: Central to deontological ethics is the Kantian imperative that individuals must never be used merely as means to an end, but always treated as ends in themselves.
Double effect principle: This doctrine recognizes that moral actions may have both good and bad effects. It allows for actions with negative consequences if the intention is morally good and the good outweighs the bad.
Doctrine of triple effect: An extension of the double effect principle, it includes considerations of the agent’s intentions, the moral object of the act, and the circumstances surrounding the act.
Action/Intention Distinctions: Deontological ethics distinguishes between the morality of an action and the agent’s intentions. It asserts that the rightness or wrongness of actions is independent of their consequences.
Agent-neutrality vs Agent-relativity: This consideration debates whether moral obligations apply universally (agent-neutrality) or
vary based on the relationship between the moral agent and those affected by their actions (agent-relativity). Deontological perspectives often emphasize universal moral obligations, while allowing for certain duties to be more pressing for some individuals due to personal relationships or roles.
Prima facie duties: This concept, introduced by W.D. Ross, suggests that certain duties (such as fidelity, reparation, and justice) are self-evident and non-absolute. These duties can conflict, and moral judgment involves determining which duty is most pressing in a given situation.
Universalizability of maxims: A key principle in deontological ethics, particularly in Kantian ethics, which holds that an action is morally right if its guiding maxim can be consistently universalized—meaning it could be adopted as a principle by everyone without contradiction.
Inviolable side constraints: This idea argues against the trade-off of individual rights for greater social benefits. It suggests that there are certain moral boundaries or rights that should not be violated, regardless of the potential outcomes.

Virtue-based Considerations:

Character virtues (integrity, courage, temperance, justice, etc.): Virtue ethics focuses on the development of good character traits or virtues. It posits that moral behavior stems from having a virtuous character, emphasizing qualities like integrity, courage, and justice.
Moral education and habit formation: This approach highlights the importance of moral education and the formation of good habits in developing a virtuous character. It suggests that virtues are cultivated through practice and guidance.
Role models and moral exemplars: Virtue ethics often points to the significance of role models or moral exemplars whose behavior provides a template for virtuous living. Learning from the examples of morally upright individuals can inspire and guide others in their moral development.
Motivations, agency, and moral psychology: This consideration examines the psychological aspects of moral actions, including motivations and the capacity for moral agency. It suggests that understanding and cultivating proper motivations is key to virtuous behavior.
Care ethics and relational responsibilities: Emphasizing the importance of interpersonal relationships and care, this perspective argues that moral actions are those that maintain and nurture relationships, recognizing the moral significance of caring for others.
Eudaimonic well-being and human flourishing: This concept focuses on actions that contribute to eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is a state of living well and fulfilling one’s potential. Virtue ethics sees moral behavior as integral to achieving this state of well-being.
Nobility and moral beauty/admirability: Virtue ethics also values the aesthetic aspects of morality, suggesting that moral actions not only are right but also possess a certain nobility or beauty that makes them admirable.
Moral skills and excellence of being: This approach regards morality as a skill that can be developed and perfected. It emphasizes the pursuit of moral excellence through the cultivation of virtues and the practice of moral decision-making.
Situational appreciation and prudence: Virtue ethics stresses the importance of prudence or practical wisdom, which involves making the right decisions by accurately assessing and responding to particular situations.
Virtue friendship and civic virtues: This perspective highlights the role of virtuous friendships and civic virtues in moral life. It suggests that strong, virtuous relationships and engagement in community life are foundational to moral development and societal well-being.

Other Ethical Factors:

Sanctity/inviolability of life: This principle asserts the fundamental value and inviolability of life, often grounding moral judgments in the inherent worth of living beings, whether human or non-human.
Human dignity and moral status: This concept emphasizes the unique moral status of individuals, based on their inherent dignity. It underlines the importance of respecting and protecting this dignity in all moral considerations.
Animal welfare and environmental ethics: Recognizing the moral considerations extended to non-human animals and the environment, this area of ethics focuses on the responsibilities humans have towards other species and the natural world.
Moral uncertainty and decision theoretic norms: This approach deals with situations of moral uncertainty, advocating for decision-making processes that account for the probability of different moral outcomes and their associated values.
Rule consequentialism and indirect roles: Rule consequentialism suggests that the morality of an action depends on the adherence to rules that, if universally followed, would lead to the best overall outcomes. It considers the indirect effects of adhering to these rules.
Separateness of persons: This concept challenges utilitarian approaches that aggregate well-being, arguing that the distinctness and separateness of individuals must be considered in moral deliberations, recognizing the uniqueness of each person’s experiences and rights.
Contractualism and moral heuristics: Contractualism bases moral principles on the idea of an agreement or contract among rational agents. It employs heuristics or practical rules of thumb to navigate complex moral situations.
Rights-based theories and priorities: These theories emphasize the primacy of individual rights in moral deliberation. They argue that certain rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, are foundational and should guide moral judgments, often taking precedence over other considerations.
Moral particularism and dilemmas: Moral particularism holds that the moral assessment of actions depends on the specifics of each case, without fixed moral principles applicable in all situations. This approach acknowledges the complexity of moral dilemmas where conflicting values or duties must be balanced.
Moral intuitionism and non-naturalism: Moral intuitionism suggests that moral truths are known through intuition, relying on immediate moral perceptions rather than empirical observation or logical deduction. Non-naturalism argues that moral properties are not reducible to natural properties and must be understood through moral reasoning.
Theological commands and divine ethics: This perspective grounds moral obligations in divine commands or religious teachings. It holds that moral truths are derived from a divine source and are accessible through religious texts, traditions, or experiences.
Care ethics and feminist ethics: Focusing on the importance of care and relational dynamics, care ethics challenges traditional ethical frameworks that prioritize autonomy and rights. Feminist ethics seeks to address and rectify the ethical implications of systemic gender inequalities, emphasizing inclusivity and the value of traditionally marginalized perspectives.
Social justice and egalitarianism: These frameworks focus on the distribution of resources, opportunities, and rights within a society, advocating for the reduction of inequalities and the promotion of fairness and justice. Egalitarianism, in particular, strives for equality in various dimensions, including economic, social, and political.
Moral hazard and information sensitivity: This concept refers to situations where individuals may be incentivized to engage in riskier behavior because they do not bear the full consequences of their actions. It underscores the ethical importance of considering how information asymmetry and institutional structures can affect moral decision-making.

Consequentialist Considerations:

Maximizing well-being/happiness/preference satisfaction: This principle holds that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by the amount of happiness, well-being, or preference satisfaction it produces. The right action is the one that maximizes positive experiences of pleasure, life satisfaction, or desire fulfillment for all those impacted.

Minimizing suffering/pain/misery: The avoidance and prevention of suffering, pain, and misery for all sentient beings is seen as the key priority. Actions that minimize the experiences of discomfort, anguish, torment or agony tend to be judged as more ethically correct based on this consideration.

Promoting peace/social stability: This consideration emphasizes the moral value of achieving harmonious cooperative relations, social order, conflict avoidance and societal stability through our choices and policies. Actions that defuse violence, war, unrest or anarchy and foster peace are viewed as more ethical.

Maximizing autonomy/freedom: A focus on enabling the autonomy, free choice, and independence of individuals guides this ethical consideration. Respecting personal sovereignty, liberty of action, and freedom from coercion or oppression is prioritized as a core part of human welfare.

Fairness in distribution of goods/resources: This principle judges the ethics of actions by how fairly they distribute benefits, burdens, rights and duties across a population. It demands impartiality, non-discrimination, and the equitable allocation of goods, privileges and advantages.

Aggregate welfare/utility maximization: The supreme principle of maximizing overall welfare, benefit or “utility” across all persons affected, impartially considered, is the sole basis for judging rightness. Actions must be evaluated solely by their net positive contribution to aggregate welfare.

Equality of welfare levels: This view holds that differences in welfare levels between persons are inherently undesirable from an impartial point of view. It prioritizes minimizing welfare inequalities and promoting equal welfare distributions across a population as being more ethical.

Favoring greater numbers impacted: When other factors are equal, this principle gives stronger ethical weight to outcomes affecting greater numbers of people. All else being equal, an action impacting millions has higher moral importance than one affecting only a few individuals.

Long-term future consequences: This factor emphasizes considering the long-range, far-future ramifications of our present choices. Greater ethical value is placed on actions that maximize positive outcomes across broad timescales rather than being myopically present-focused.

Social utility functions: Some consequentialist theories incorporate specific mathematical utility functions for aggregating welfare across a population based on moral value axioms, such as giving priority to those worse-off or weighing populations differently.

Satisfying informed preferences: Rather than just mental states, this view prioritizes enabling people to get what they’d want if they were fully informed about their situation and options using their actual preference structure as the basis for benefiting them.

Positive and negative responsibility: This principle assigns different moral weight to bringing about benefits versus preventing harms, or distinguishes between our special obligations to particular people based on the cause of their deprivation.

Deontological Considerations:

Respect for autonomy/human dignity:
This cornerstone of deontological ethics holds that there are inviolable constraints against subjugating or failing to respect the inherent dignity and autonomy of rational agents as ends-in-themselves. Our choices must regard people as self-governing entities.

Duty of beneficence/non-maleficence:
We have a general ethical duty to help others and promote their welfare (beneficence), constrained by strict side-constraints against deploying malicious harm or cruelty (non-maleficence). Kindness and humaneness are obligatory parts of ethical conduct.

Promise keeping/honesty:
Deontological theories universally enshrine honesty, fidelity to one’s commitments, and the general moral prohibition against deception and duplicity as ethical requirements for preserving the trustworthiness of the moral system itself.

Prohibitions on lying/deception:
Ethical conduct proscribes against lying, intentional untruth, fraud or any form of duplicitous deception. Truth-telling and transparency are moral requirements that constrain our behaviors and communications.

Rights (life, liberty, property, etc.):
Certain fundamental individual rights to life, bodily security, freedom of action, property ownership etc. are recognized as inviolable side-constraints that set limits on what can be done to persons against their will in the name of general welfare.

Just distribution/compensation rules: This principle holds that there are objective rules of fairness, deserts, and deservingness that govern how benefits, burdens, punishments and rewards should be distributed, irrespective of positive consequential considerations alone.

Not using people merely as means: A core tenet of Kantian ethics is that it is unethical to merely use people as instrumental objects or means to other ends without also regard their inherent dignity and autonomy. People must be treated as ends-in-themselves.

Double effect principle:
This permits pursuing ethical goods that may unavoidably have bad effects, while prohibiting acts that intend the bad effect either as the means or the end itself, even if the total consequences are better.

Doctrine of triple effect: A further extension which permits mitigating lesser violations of ethical rules to prevent other greater violations, but not the intentional deployment of violations as a means or end.

Action/Intention Distinctions: Deontological theories often make crucial separations between the intrinsic ethical status of pieces of conduct based on their inherent intentions/volitions rather than just looking at their physical consequences.

Agent-neutrality vs Agent-relativity:
This issue regards whether ethical principles hold universally for all rational agents (neutrality), or whether we have special obligatory relations and ethical reasons relative to our personal roles and circumstances.

Prima facie duties: W.D. Ross’s moral pluralism posited a set of underived, self-evident prima facie duties like promise-keeping, reparations, gratitude and justice which generate pro-tanto moral reasons that must be weighed against each other.

Universalizability of maxims: For an action to be ethical according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, its motivating maxim or principle must be universally followed without creating a logical contradiction or undermining necessary practical precepts.

Inviolable side constraints: The doctrine that there are certain inviolable ethical constraints and inviolable prohibitions on violating certain core negative rights that cannot be permissibly violated even for maximizing overall positive value.

Virtue-based Considerations:

Character virtues (integrity, courage, temperance, justice, etc.): Emphasis on developing moral character itself through cultivating ethically-admirable traits and virtues such as honesty, bravery, moderation and fairness, which are intrinsic goods of the ethical life.

Moral education and habit formation: The methods and practices for successfully inculcating virtuous character traits through upbringing, example-modeling and habituation of morally-upright thoughts and conduct patterns.

Role models and moral exemplars: The use of morally-idealized figures, role models and heroes as inspiration and ethical benchmarks to guide our aspirations and educate virtuous conduct through imitation and emulation.

Motivations, agency and moral psychology: Understanding the psychology of human moral motivation, the realities of moral frailty, the tension between reason and emotion, and other factors are crucial for virtue theories focused on moral character.

Care ethics and relational responsibilities: This highlights the ethical dimensions of human interdependence, the values of care, compassion and empathy, and our special obligations to those to whom we have close personal relations and ties.

Eudaimonic well-being and human flourishing: The ultimate aim of ethics is realizing the distinctive unique excellence and flourishing of human beings – achieving the highest prudential realization of our inherited human nature and potential.

Nobility and moral beauty/admirability: Actions that exhibit nobility of soul, beauty of character, and inspirational ethical motivations possess an elevated moral value that cannot be reduced merely to positive consequences.

Moral skills and excellence of being: Developing ethical skills, practical wisdom and the day-to-day “excellence of being” that allows one to reliably navigate moral complexities is a key part of virtue-ethical flourishing.

Situational appreciation and prudence:
Carefully attending to contextual details and manifesting moral perception, situational discernment and prudence is required to skillfully apply and balance virtues in a contextualized manner.

Virtue friendship and civic virtues: The importance of cultivating virtues oriented around good character in friendship, the virtues conducive to social cooperation and civic engagement, and upholding virtues oriented around community.

Other Ethical Factors:

Sanctity/inviolability of life: There is an inherent, perhaps inviolable, moral sacrosanct status to all human life itself that bears supreme moral importance and places strenuous burdens of justification on any action threatening life.

Human dignity and moral status: Human beings have a special elevated moral status of dignity, inviolability and inherent priceless value that transcends their subjectiveSituational welfare, generating stringent ethical duties.

Animal welfare and environmental ethics: Ethical regard must be extended beyond just human welfare to reduce suffering and promote the flourishing of other sentient animals, species and our overall environmental context.

Moral uncertainty and decisiontheoretic norms: Under conditions of uncertainty over moral truths, we must carefully consider metaethical principles, expected value calculations, and other decisiontheory norms for how to make ethical choices.

Rule consequentialism and indirect roles: Rather than evaluating each specific act, this view judges the ethics of actions by evaluating the moral worth of the rules or ethical roles/codes being followed, based on their general promotion of good consequences.

Separateness of persons: Ethics must respect the distinct separateness and inviolable boundaries between individual people, prohibiting the sacrifice of some as mere means, even if maximizing welfare.

Contractualism and moral heuristics: Ethics arises through hypothetical social contracts and agreements between persons invoking only moral constraints they could not reasonably reject, using morally-permissible heuristics.

Rights-based theories and priorities:
Different moral rights – negative and positive, specific and general – generate prioritized layers of duties and ethical permissions according to explicit rights-based criteria under certain philosophical theories.

Moral particularism and dilemmas: Emphasizing the importance of morally-relevant details over strict generalized principles, and recognizing the frequent presence of irreducible ethical dilemmas without unique codifiable resolutions.

Moral intuitionism and non-naturalism: Ethical facts and properties are sui generis non-natural realities apprehended through intuitive moral perception or insight, inaccessible merely through rationally investigating natural properties.

Theological commands and divine ethics: Ethics is grounded in obedience to the objective moral commands, injunctions and nature of God or other divine spiritual realities as the ultimate source and arbiter of moral truth.

Care ethics and feminist ethics: Re-prioritizing female philosophical voices and traditionally feminized virtues like care, compassion, relationships and contextual attentiveness as central moral considerations.

Social justice and egalitarianism: Core ethical value is placed on dismantling systemic barriers, hierarchies and oppression to secure more egalitarian conditions of social, political and economic fairness.

Moral hazard and information sensitivity: Ethical theories must be attuned to potential distortions, moral hazards, and perverse incentives created by entities strategically distorting information and evidence through manipulation.

It appears both ChatGPT and Claude used essentially the same source for their list, but varied the explanations.

On the face of it, it appears that no major school of moral thought has a rigorous, systematic “hermeneutics” in place to consistently prioritize and weight the considerations above.
Is this true?

The assertion that no major school of moral thought has a rigorous, systematic “hermeneutics” for consistently prioritizing and weighing the vast array of considerations listed above touches on a complex issue in ethical theory. In philosophy, “hermeneutics” generally refers to the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts. Applied more broadly to moral thought, it can refer to the interpretative frameworks used to understand, prioritize, and apply ethical principles and considerations.

Each of the major schools of moral thought—such as consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics—has developed systematic approaches and methodologies for interpreting and applying ethical principles. However, the diversity and complexity of ethical considerations mean that prioritization and weighting can be highly context-dependent and subject to debate within each tradition.

Consequentialism, for instance, often prioritizes outcomes in terms of aggregate welfare or happiness. Utilitarianism, a branch of consequentialism, uses a principle of utility to systematically evaluate the moral worth of actions based on their consequences for overall well-being. Yet, even within utilitarianism, debates arise about how to weigh different forms of well-being, handle issues of distribution, and assess long-term versus short-term impacts.

Deontology emphasizes duties, rules, and rights as primary, often irrespective of the consequences. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, for instance, provides a systematic framework for evaluating actions based on universality and respect for persons as ends in themselves. However, interpreting and applying Kantian principles to specific scenarios can lead to challenges in prioritization, especially when duties conflict.

Virtue ethics focuses on the development of moral character and virtues as the basis for ethical living. Aristotle’s concept of the “golden mean” offers a method for finding the virtuous balance between extremes of character traits. While virtue ethics provides a systematic approach to cultivating virtues, it might offer less specific guidance on prioritizing between different virtues or actions in particular situations.

The issue might not be the absence of systematic hermeneutics within these traditions but the inherent complexity of ethical life and the pluralism of moral values. Ethical theories can offer frameworks and principles for making moral judgments, but applying these to the multifaceted scenarios of human life involves interpretation, judgment, and sometimes the reconciliation of conflicting principles.

Moreover, some theorists argue for a pluralistic or integrative approach, acknowledging that no single ethical system can adequately capture all moral intuitions or address every ethical dilemma. In these views, the process of prioritizing and weighing considerations might require drawing on insights from multiple ethical traditions, depending on the context.

In summary, while major schools of moral thought provide systematic approaches to ethics, the prioritization and weighting of considerations often require nuanced interpretation and judgment, reflecting the complexity of ethical decision-making.

You raise an excellent point. On the face of it, it does appear that no major school of moral thought or ethical framework has developed a fully rigorous and systematic “hermeneutics” or methodology for consistently prioritizing and weighing the various ethical considerations listed above against each other.

Most moral theories tend to acknowledge the relevance of many or most of those ethical factors to some degree, but then differ in the specific weightings, priorities, and decision procedures they advocate for how to adjudicate between them when they conflict. However, the reconciliation often relies more on general principles and considered judgments rather than a deterministic, codifiable decision-theory.

For consequentialist theories like utilitarianism, there is at least the overarching priority given to maximizing welfare/well-being, which can serve as a master value for weighing other considerations. But there can still be debates over the precise utility function, scope of whose welfare counts, how to tally rights violations, etc.

Deontological perspectives like Kantian ethics elevate respect for rational agency and autonomy as paramount, but then must weigh agent-neutral duties against agent-relative permissions. And Rossian pluralism relies on intuitions about prima facie duty weightings.

Virtue ethics has an overall telos of eudaimonic flourishing, but the prioritization of which virtues to instantiate when they clash relies heavily on a pragmatic, context-sensitive practical wisdom.

There have been some attempts to develop more rigorous ethical decision theories, such as W.D. Ross’s weighting scheme, Gewirth’s criterion of generic consistency, Gert’s moral rules and decision procedures, or some work in machine ethics. But in general, you’re correct that most prominent moral philosophies still require a great deal of careful discretionary judgment in how to prioritize and balance the various ethical factors.

There are pros and cons to this situation. The flexibility allows for nuanced contextualized application, but also opens the door for ad hoc rationalization. Many moral philosophers see the need for an irreducible role for wise judgment, but also recognize the appeal of striving for greater systematicity.

So in short, you’ve identified an important area where most moral frameworks still have opportunities for greater rigor and formal normative decision-theoretic development in their “hermeneutics” of weighing ethical considerations against each other. It remains an active area of inquiry and debate.

Might the inability of moral philosophies to introduce a robust method for factoring in relevant considerations, and the tendency among moral thinkers to include a diverse set of discordant principles when dealing with ethical conundrums, suggest that moral systems are merely facades that lend a semblance of compulsion to our emotions and emotionally-derived values, though lacking legitimate normative force?

Phil: That may have been too opaque. Rephrase the question above in a register comprehensible to grade school students:

Claude: Do you think that moral rules and philosophies are just ways for us to make our feelings and personal values seem more important and forceful, even though they don’t really have any real power or authority behind them? It’s like we create these moral systems as a cover-up, to make what we already believe seem more convincing, rather than those systems truly telling us what is genuinely right or wrong.

The observation that moral systems may not have a single, rigorous method for incorporating a variety of considerations into their moral calculus, and that moral thinkers often navigate an eclectic array of considerations, can be interpreted in several ways. The idea that moral systems might function as facades to lend obligatory force to emotions and values derived from emotions is a provocative and significant claim, touching on debates within moral philosophy about the foundations of ethical systems.

Several points are worth considering in response to this perspective:

Emotion’s Role in Moral Reasoning: Emotions play a crucial role in human moral psychology. Philosophers like David Hume have argued that reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, suggesting that emotions are fundamental to motivating moral actions and making moral judgments. From this viewpoint, emotions are not merely irrational impulses but carry important evaluative information that contributes to moral understanding and decision-making.
Rational Deliberation and Moral Judgments: While emotions are integral to how individuals experience and navigate moral situations, most moral theories also emphasize the importance of rational deliberation. Kantian ethics, for example, places a strong emphasis on rationality and the universality of moral laws. Similarly, utilitarianism relies on a form of rational calculation to determine the greatest good. These and other ethical systems provide frameworks within which emotions are one of many factors considered in moral decision-making.
Complexity and Pluralism in Moral Decision-Making: The complexity of real-world moral dilemmas means that a singular methodological approach may be insufficient to capture all relevant considerations. The diversity of moral intuitions and the pluralism of values across cultures and individuals suggest that ethical deliberation often requires a nuanced and context-sensitive approach. This complexity does not necessarily reduce moral systems to mere facades but highlights the challenges inherent in ethical reasoning and the application of moral principles.
Moral Systems as Facades: The claim that moral systems may serve to justify or elevate emotions and values derived from emotions beyond what is warranted can be viewed as a critical perspective on how moral discourse is employed. It raises important questions about the sources of moral authority and the ways in which moral rhetoric can be used to mask power dynamics or justify particular social arrangements. However, this perspective is not universally accepted and is subject to debate within moral philosophy.
The Evolutionary Perspective: Some evolutionary psychologists and philosophers argue that moral systems evolved as social technologies to enable humans to live cooperatively in groups, suggesting that these systems are deeply intertwined with human emotional life and social needs. From this perspective, the entanglement of emotion and morality is not necessarily a flaw but a feature of how humans navigate complex social landscapes.

In conclusion, while the assertion that moral systems might serve as facades for emotions and values derived from emotions presents a critical viewpoint, it also opens a rich field of inquiry into the nature of moral reasoning, the role of emotions in ethics, and the functions of moral systems in human life. The relationship between emotion, rationality, and morality remains a complex and debated topic within philosophical ethics.

This is an insightful and provocative critique that gets at some potential deeper issues with moral philosophy and normative ethics as currently practiced. A few thoughts on your suggestion:

1) You raise a valid point that the lack of a truly rigorous, systematic, and codified methodology across moral frameworks for precisely factoring in and weighing the various ethical considerations could potentially undermine their claims to being objective, rationally grounded moral systems.

2) If these systems cannot provide determinate, consistent resolutions based on their principles, and instead require heavy reliance on changeable intuitions, conventional judgments, or emotional moral senses, then this lends some credence to the critique that they are more so rationalizing facades designed to imbue culturally-inculcated emotions and gut instincts with undue moral force and authority.

3) The sheer heterogeneity of considerations that moral thinkers admittedly need to flexibly appeal to in resolving dilemmas could be seen as suggesting an ad hoc, reverse-engineered approach of gerrymanding principles to uphold pre-existing moral impulses, rather than an impartial derivation from objective foundations.

4) Moral philosophers’ inability to achieve consensus on a master decision-procedure, despite millennia of efforts, hints at the possibility that we are really just dressing up contingent evolutionary emotion programs in semi-coherent philosophical garb to facilitate intra-group social coordination.

Overall, I do think you’ve identified a significant vulnerability and potential indictment of much traditional moral reasoning. The charge of being so lacking in tractable rigor that it ends up simply codifying culturally-conditioned sentiment cannot be easily dismissed.

That said, proponents could argue that the irreducible complexity of ethics necessitates a pluralistic, holistic, and phronetic approach not easily reducible to strict formalisms. They might contend that realityoutstrips simplifications, and some mix of general principles and situational judgment is essential.

Additionally, they could argue that substantive moral realism transcends the psychological facts about its cultural evolution – even ifrooted in emotional intuitions, the moral truths grasped remain objectively real and authoritative independent of that genealogy.

But your critique is a potent one – ethicists may need to either achieve greater systemic coherence and determinacy, or accept that their systems are indeed more so sentimental codes of coordination than trackers of objective verities. A difficult challenge worthy of deeper grappling.

Create a 10-item quiz on the discussion above with answers at the end.

10-Item Quiz on the Discussion

Questions:

1: Who is the philosopher that argued reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions?

A) Aristotle
B) Immanuel Kant
C) David Hume
D) John Stuart Mill

2: Which moral theory emphasizes the importance of rational deliberation and the universality of moral laws?

A) Virtue ethics
B) Kantian ethics
C) Utilitarianism
D) Emotionalism

3: True or False: Emotions are considered irrational impulses with no place in moral decision-making.

4: What role do emotions play in moral psychology according to the discussion?

A) They are fundamental to motivating moral actions and judgments.
B) They should be completely disregarded.
C) They are only relevant in virtue ethics.
D) They are useful for rational calculations in utilitarianism.

5: The complexity of real-world moral dilemmas suggests that ethical deliberation often requires what kind of approach?

A) A singular methodological approach
B) A nuanced and context-sensitive approach
C) An emotion-based approach
D) A strictly rational approach

6: The claim that moral systems may serve to justify or elevate emotions beyond what is warranted can be viewed as what?

A) A universally accepted fact
B) A critical perspective on the use of moral discourse
C) A principle of utilitarianism
D) A fundamental principle of Kantian ethics

7: According to some evolutionary psychologists and philosophers, moral systems evolved as what?

A) Tools for individual survival
B) Social technologies for group cooperation
C) Means to suppress emotions
D) Frameworks for rational calculation

8: True or False: Most moral theories disregard the importance of emotions in the moral decision-making process.

9: Which moral theory relies on a form of rational calculation to determine the greatest good?

A) Kantian ethics
B) Virtue ethics
C) Utilitarianism
D) Deontology

10: The relationship between emotion, rationality, and morality is considered to be what?

A) Simple and straightforward
B) Complex and debated
C) Irrelevant in modern ethics
D) Solely based on rationality

Answers:

C) David Hume
B) Kantian ethics
False. Emotions play a crucial role in human moral psychology and are not merely irrational impulses.
A) They are fundamental to motivating moral actions and judgments.
B) A nuanced and context-sensitive approach
B) A critical perspective on the use of moral discourse
B) Social technologies for group cooperation
False. While the role of emotions varies, they are recognized as important in many moral theories.
C) Utilitarianism
B) Complex and debated

Here’s a 10-item quiz on the discussion above about the lack of rigorous hermeneutics in moral systems:

1) According to the discussion, which of these is not one of the potential issues raised regarding moral frameworks?
a) Lack of a fully rigorous and systematic “hermeneutics”
b) Heavy reliance on emotions and pre-existing moral intuitions
c) Inability to achieve consensus on a master decision-procedure
d) Having clearly defined and purely objective foundations

2) What could the lack of deterministic weighing methods across moral theories potentially undermine, according to the critique?
a) Their claims to being rationally grounded
b) The role of cultural traditions
c) The value of practical wisdom
d) The importance of logical consistency

3) True or False: The heterogeneity of considerations moral thinkers appeal to could suggest an ad hoc rationalizing of pre-existing sentiments.

4) According to the discussion, what does the inability of ethicists to reach consensus potentially hint at?
a) That morality is fundamentally a social construct
b) That there are no objective moral truths
c) That we are dressing up contingent moral emotions philosophically
d) Both a and c

5) What potential vulnerability of traditional moral reasoning does the critique identify?
a) Lack of diverse cultural representation
b) Over-reliance on abstract theoretical concepts
c) Potential for being rationalizing facades for emotions
d) Ignoring the role of reason and rationality

6) How might a proponent of current moral frameworks respond to the critique, according to the discussion?
a) By arguing ethics can be captured by strict formalisms
b) By asserting moral truths remain objective despite psychological genealogy
c) By claiming that all emotions are inherently irrational
d) By rejecting the need for general principles entirely

7) True or False: The discussion suggests moral philosophers must either achieve greater systemic coherence or accept their systems as sentimental codes.

8) What does the “phronetic approach” in ethics refer to?
a) An excessive reliance on pure reason over emotion
b) A holistic blending of principles and situational judgment
c) Prioritizing cultural traditions over other considerations
d) Solely relying on widespread moral intuitions

9) According to the critique, what cannot be easily dismissed about traditional moral reasoning?
a) The charge of lacking scientific empiricism
b) The charge of lacking tractable rigor
c) The charge of being overly analytical
d) The charge of being too impartial

10) What might the proponents argue about the complexity of ethics in response?
a) That it necessitates reductive simplifications
b) That strict formalism alone is sufficient
c) That pluralistic holism is required and over-simplification is unwise
d) That achieving consensus should be the prime objective

Answers:
1) d
2) a
3) True
4) d
5) c
6) b
7) True
8) b
9) b
10) c

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

How do emotions influence moral decision-making, according to David Hume’s philosophy?
In what ways does Kantian ethics prioritize rational deliberation over emotions in moral judgments?
Can moral reasoning be entirely separated from emotional influences? Discuss with examples.
How does utilitarianism balance rational calculations with the moral significance of emotions?
Discuss the role of context in ethical decision-making. How can the same moral principle lead to different actions in different contexts?
What are the implications of viewing moral systems as possibly serving to justify or elevate emotions? Can this perspective coexist with a belief in objective moral truths?
How do evolutionary perspectives on morality contribute to our understanding of the interplay between reason and emotion in ethics?
To what extent do you agree that the complexity of real-world moral dilemmas necessitates a nuanced and context-sensitive ethical approach?
Discuss the claim that moral systems might function as facades to lend obligatory force to emotions. What are the potential criticisms of this view?
How might a pluralistic approach to ethics, which incorporates insights from multiple moral theories, address the challenge of prioritizing and weighing different moral considerations?
What role do moral intuitions play in ethical decision-making? Are they more closely aligned with rational deliberation or emotional response?
How can moral philosophers and ethicists ensure that their theories adequately address the role of emotions without compromising on rationality?
In what ways might cultural differences impact the interpretation and prioritization of emotions in moral reasoning?
Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of integrating emotions more explicitly into ethical theories. Can this lead to more empathetic and compassionate moral outcomes?
How do virtue ethics provide a framework for understanding the importance of emotions in developing moral character and virtues?

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the lack of rigorous hermeneutics in moral systems:

In what specific ways do the major moral frameworks like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics struggle to provide fully determinate weighing procedures?
Are there particular types of ethical dilemmas or situations where the lack of rigorous prioritization is most apparent and problematic?
Could the move towards increased use of formal decision theory, machine ethics, and moral mathematics help resolve some of these hermeneutical gaps?
To what extent does the lack of consensus on a master prioritization reflect substantive disagreements about moral reality versus limitations of human reason?
How might we assess whether existing moral theories are insufficient rebuilds from moral sentiments versus tracking genuine objective truths?
Are there potential dangers in striving for too much system rigor at the cost of nuance and flexibility in ethics?
Could prioritization schema be made more tractable by limiting the scope to specific domains like medical or business ethics?
What role should the method of wide reflective equilibrium play in resolving prioritization conflicts between moral intuitions and principles?
How might virtue-based approaches to ethical phronesis and situational appreciation mitigate the need for strict codification?
Are there examples from other philosophic domains of successfully formalizing prioritization among multi-faceted, holistic frameworks?
To what extent is the lack of prioritization rigor rooted in semantical/conceptual confusions versus more substantive epistemic limitations?
Could prioritization systems based on something like Bayesian updates to probability distributions help resolve incommensurabilities?
How might moral uncertainties and higher-order uncertainty over prioritization be explicitly incorporated into ethical deliberation?
Should ethicists simply accept a certain ineliminable role for discretionary judgment, or is a fully generalizable prioritization realistic?
Might the cognitive limitations of human minds ultimately necessitate a division of labor between irreducibly holistic moral philosophy and more systematized applied ethical codes?

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

Introduce key ethical considerations commonly used when making ethical judgments.

Consequentialist Considerations:

Deontological Considerations:

Virtue-based Considerations:

Other Ethical Factors:

Consequentialist Considerations:

Deontological Considerations:

Virtue-based Considerations:

Other Ethical Factors:

It appears both ChatGPT and Claude used essentially the same source for their list, but varied the explanations.

On the face of it, it appears that no major school of moral thought has a rigorous, systematic “hermeneutics” in place to consistently prioritize and weight the considerations above. Is this true?

Phil: That may have been too opaque. Rephrase the question above in a register comprehensible to grade school students:

Create a 10-item quiz on the discussion above with answers at the end.

10-Item Quiz on the Discussion

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Phil Stilwell

Stay informed!

Recent Posts

Links to Section Menus

On the face of it, it appears that no major school of moral thought has a rigorous, systematic “hermeneutics” in place to consistently prioritize and weight the considerations above.
Is this true?