On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> Kant thought that ordinary peasants knew all the ethics that were knowable.
> Asa matter of fact, in terms of normative ethics, and for practical
> purposes, we all know what is the right thing to do. We just don't do as
> much as we should. However, stating what is the right thing to do, and
> explaining why it is the right thing, is not something that can be done in
> cliches. For example, thw quick and effective refutation to the Golden Rule
> as set out above is: suppose you are a masochist and what you want done unto
> you is to have horrible pain inflicted upon you? Suppose you are a scoundrel
> who gives no quarter and expects none? Refining maxims of action and moral
> principles to avoid these sorts of examples taxes the resources of the likes
> of Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. The results may be opaque, but they are not
> cliched. I don't say ethical reasoning is for everyone, and as I've often
> said here, philosophy is strictly optional. Lots of smart people don't see
> the point of it. So, if you are one of them, don't do it. It's a free
> country, more or less. jks
I have to say it's far more interesting to me to study how people use ethical principles in everyday life to justify past behavior. In fact, if you want to understand why people do horrible things to each other, I think this is more important to analyze than the ethical puzzles you outline above. But I'm obviously no moral philosopher!
Miles