To: Jerry LR Chandler (by way of PedroMarijuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Identity of Ethics
Dear Jerry and all,
Morality is a (human) fact, not different from, say, the existence of chemical reactions that follow special 'rules'. We say in German that "Chemistry works" ("die Chemie stimmt") when we spontaneously make friends/make love (See also Goethe's "Wahlverwandschaften").
Of course, I am not saying that the specifity of moral imperatives can be deduced from natural phenomena whatsoever. I am just 'justifying' the existence of a specific form of human reflection called ethics that has to do explicitly with the moral phenomenon, i.e. with norms and values that rule human action in a specific community.
These norms and values can be descriptive analyzed (no different in principle as when you analyze a chemical substance and its reactions with other ones), what we call "descriptive ethics."
We distinguish it from a "normative ethics" in which we tentatively analize the form and content of such systems of morals in order to justify/change them (or not) and so in order to give ourselves reasons for our actions. That we are able to give ourselves reasons for our actions, i.e. that we do not just act according to "unchangable" laws of nature but that we are open to possibilities of action makes the specificity of human action and its "moral" character.
In case these possibilities take place within the context of modern digital communication (Internet and the like) we speak of "information ethics" (similarly to "medical ethics" in the case of situations in which the physician/patient/society are involved regarding health). In other words, we ask for an ethical foundation of our decisions within a digital communication environment. But in a broader sense, we can say that 'information ethics' deals with norms and values of (human) communication in different media. In this sense we speak for instance of library ethics, (mass) media ethics etc. Of course, the ethics of scientific communication belong to information ethics to, concerning not only, for instance, plagiarism, but the very idea of sharing our (scientific) ideas with others (which include some kind of "communism of ideas" that interferes sometimes with the (moral/legal) rules of, say, copyright regime(s).
The question you state about the genesis of moral (not ethical!) behavior is a key issue in ethical thinking for centuries (I say: moral behaviour, because this is the phenomenon we want to study, "ethical behavior" being the reflection upon it: the question about the genesis of "ethical behavior" is not (basically) different from the question of any other kind of "scientific behavior": why do we do science? for pragmatical (survival) purposes? for the seek of truth? ... in the case of ethics as reflection of morality, we start with this kind of reflection whe we have problems with moral rules. Ethics is a symptom. But this is a broad field of study that I cannot deal with now).
So, what is the genesis of moral behavior? why do we "feel" obliged to do the good? Is this the right question to start with? (as you see I am asking now two different kinds a questions, an ethical and a "metaethical" (linguistic) one). We can start with the "fact" of human will (this is what Kant and Schopenhauer...) do, by saying that reflection (ethics) is not a (enough) motivation for moral action (as intellectualists believe). Kant believed that human reason (seeking vor universal laws) is not only of theoretical but also of practical kind. Given the fact (!) that we are capable of doing science (i.e. of looking for the universal) means, when we reflect it upon our actions, that we are "compelled" to act also "universallistically" which is what Kant calls, as you know, the categorical imperative. How does this idea of universality (or of the formality of the categorical imperative) fits with the "locality" of moral systems/norms and their evolution? and how do we "apply" the Kantian rule to specific situations?
Today we are maybe less Kantians as we think because our belief in human reason and its universality is not so strong as two centuries ago. We have some good reasons (theoretial and historical ones) for being sceptical about it.
But not only this, we have in the field of ethics other traditions than Western one which makes us more "humble" with regards to our foundational ambitions. In a way, this is less a negative aspect as a positive one because it shows is the openness of human cultural evolution and the kind of ethical "indeterminacy" of human reason. But why should our action and its foundation be less complex than, say, the life of a molecule?
Another (older) (Western) tradition of ethics states that the task of ethics is not primarily the fundation of morals but the "design" of good life (ars vitae). What we try to reflect in the information field is the idea (the ideas) of what this means in the beginning century. This kind of ethical thinking is less "normative" and more "optional".
cheers
Rafael
Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM) University of Applied Sciences, Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182
Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: www.capurro.de
Homepage ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de
Homepage IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
