• 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.
      • 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).