Can't metaethics just be objectively grounded by anthropologists (and effectively rendered obsolete) with a proper anthropological/biological definition of morality/ethics? How is a philosopher supposed to come up with an impartial definition of "morality" or "ethics" without empiricism in a way that can reach any sort of resolution without coming up with 14 different unfalsifiable "theories" so vaguely stated and riddled with metaphors and enough leeway for interpretation that no one can falsify them? Is that really philosophy or is it ideology? I'm reminded of this debate right now over the meaning of "gender". If the definition is circular like "a man is anyone who identifies as a man", then that leaves no resolution as anyone or any culture can define their own meaning. Then we might have an explosion of "metagender" debates over what "gender" even means without the objectivity of empiricism to ground it with 26 different unfalsifiable but popular "metagender theories" while people cherry-pick their favorite label to call themselves. What is the point of learning things like "moral absolutism", "relativism", "subjectivism", "objectivism", "conventionalism", "universalism", "cognitivism", "non-cognitivism", "error theory", and all this other nonsense if philosophers aren't grounding their ideas in a way that allows us to converge on what "morality/ethics" even means and find a resolution instead of just more and more ideas that can't really be verified for validity? Are they just making artistic claims like stating that metal music is right, pop music is right, rap music or right, or actual falsifiable claims about the observable world? Apologies for my rant. As a STEM type, I just find anywhere from 95% to 99.9% of all philosophy to be garbage ideology. I would be happy if someone persuaded me otherwise.
Hey Dark Engine! That would be to "beg the question" regarding the metaphysical status of "the good". Social sciences are, by their nature, descriptive while Philosophy, particularly Axiology, is normative. It's a really important difference. Let's say cultural anthropologists provide us with a description of how people act, and let's further suppose that there is some agreed generalization of what people think is "right". That consensus wouldn't give us an understanding of what 'good' or 'right' are, merely what people THINK they are. Of course, anthropologists have found just the opposite (no general consensus of what is right) so as a matter of fact, it's no help at all. This is what makes Axiology so hard. We're not just trying to describe what judgements people make, but rather what judgements they SHOULD make. And, of course, it may turn out that "the good" isn't a material property at all in which case it would not be subject to empirical analysis in any form. Keep thinking!
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Couldn't a similar critique have been made of "health" absent our modern definition of it? If we looked at all the bizarre practices throughout cultures and history and the normatives associated with pursuing health ranging from balancing four humours based on earth, wind, water, and fire, or witchcraft, prayer, animal sacrifice, bloodlettting regardless of condition, healing crystals, faith healing, exocannibalism to gain an enemy's strength, fruitarian diets, etc, we might conclude that the definition of health is relative to the preferences of an individual or culture. ... at which point "chainsmoking is unhealthy" might then be considered a normative statement rather than a descriptive hypothesis that can be subject to empirical testing and falsification according to our definition of "health". Yet we can find an overarching goal behind "health" if we're "health realists" that embodies the pattern of all such expressed desires towards health. In a similar sense, if people state that "chainsmoking is immoral", then such a sentiment, even if it's merely an intuition, must have some explanatory guiding force behind such intuitions so long as we're all members of the same biological species with characteristics shared among all members. "Morality" seems to function in a similar way as "health" at an interpersonal level: as "health" improves the survivability of an individual, "morality" seems to improve the survivability of a group of individuals. What seems "immoral" often seems to be behavior that is perceived to diminish the survival of a particular group.
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy I think many people in pursuit of a definition of "morality", even an anthropological one, often make the mistake of wanting to justify our present moral views in the process. I find many attempts at such definitions of morality defining it in idealistic notions like fairness just based on the observation that social species, including our own, can often recognize some degree of unfairness and especially towards those we consider kin. That hardly has much explanatory power over what we find throughout history. Yet if it's a very impartial and realistic definition revolving around a concept like survival or genetic fitness rather than fairness, it should have a much broader explanatory power including the explanation of many moral practices which might be horrifying to us. For example, the Arctic Inuits widely practiced infanticide, outright killing or abandoning their weakest children to freeze in the harsh conditions, but such desperately harsh conditions can only allow their strongest to survive when equipped with only primitive tools. So it makes sense that they see nothing immoral about abandoning or killing their weakest, as doing that is likely a prerequisite for the survivability and adaptability of the tribe. It is therefore moral from my view; we must resist our Westernized ideals to have a fighting chance of understanding how morality truly works. We would also be forced to do the same given their same tools and conditions if we wanted a fighting chance to survive over generations. So I'm okay with a sometimes horrifying view of morality; I think any impartial definition requires it. Yet such a definition revolving around survival would also offer us a solution beyond an expression of repugnance towards the practices described above: we could eliminate such needs for infanticide by equipping such people with better tools to survive the harshest conditions so that even the weaker among them can more easily survive and still contribute in some way towards the mutual survival of the group.
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Survival must be the root axiom behind the existence of anything that is capable of not existing; I see no possible other. As survival is the ultimate axiomatic goal of human beings, so too must it be for any organization of human beings, as they would not exist otherwise. Take a business as an example. The root goal of people running a business must be its survival, or else it would not exist. If we can merely define the axiomatic goal of a business in terms of survival, we can now begin to evaluate whether business practices are aiding or hindering that goal empirically. Can we not do the same for morality and ethics?
