Ack! Sorry it’s been a few years since ethics was my primary academic focus. It’s mostly been software engineering of late so I’ll take the L on misspelling Immanuel. However, I am not trying to claim an ethics rooted in naturalism in the first place. It’s more consequentialist/deongological in nature in the first place (which by its very nature puts me at odds with the origin of this meme as I do not believe moral development maps out in praxis). However the root between Kant, Gilligan, and even Mills still remains that the better the world you exist in and work towards, the better off you will be. In fact you’ll find that many of the different ways of phrasing the golden rules are ultimately driving at that.
Either way though it’s clear we fundamentally disagree on the root level of what it means to determine what ought and oughtn’t be done. I believe we must make a world that works for everyone (and I do very much like Kant’s universal law phrasing of the golden rule), and I’m actually not all that clear on what your fundamental root is, just that you consider me to be a “do your own research type” which… Y’know kinda bums me out as someone who dedicated himself to getting educated in doing the right thing and spent a lot of hours reading scholarly journals on ethics and writing papers about what right and wrong is.
I’d actually really like to know what philosophers you like and what your ethical grounding is because it’s clear you think I don’t get it at all, and that means there’s probably an avenue for growth for me. For reference, when I submitted my ethical framework for peer review, the thinkers I cited the most were Gilligan, Nussbaum, Marx, and Daniel Clement’s (sorry about the misspelling, I can’t do accents on this keyboard) collection of essays on Algonquin societal structures (Native American philosophy is organized much differently from how European philosophy is and that’s still something I’m working to better understand my shortcomings in)
Removed by mod
Ack! Sorry it’s been a few years since ethics was my primary academic focus. It’s mostly been software engineering of late so I’ll take the L on misspelling Immanuel. However, I am not trying to claim an ethics rooted in naturalism in the first place. It’s more consequentialist/deongological in nature in the first place (which by its very nature puts me at odds with the origin of this meme as I do not believe moral development maps out in praxis). However the root between Kant, Gilligan, and even Mills still remains that the better the world you exist in and work towards, the better off you will be. In fact you’ll find that many of the different ways of phrasing the golden rules are ultimately driving at that.
Either way though it’s clear we fundamentally disagree on the root level of what it means to determine what ought and oughtn’t be done. I believe we must make a world that works for everyone (and I do very much like Kant’s universal law phrasing of the golden rule), and I’m actually not all that clear on what your fundamental root is, just that you consider me to be a “do your own research type” which… Y’know kinda bums me out as someone who dedicated himself to getting educated in doing the right thing and spent a lot of hours reading scholarly journals on ethics and writing papers about what right and wrong is.
I’d actually really like to know what philosophers you like and what your ethical grounding is because it’s clear you think I don’t get it at all, and that means there’s probably an avenue for growth for me. For reference, when I submitted my ethical framework for peer review, the thinkers I cited the most were Gilligan, Nussbaum, Marx, and Daniel Clement’s (sorry about the misspelling, I can’t do accents on this keyboard) collection of essays on Algonquin societal structures (Native American philosophy is organized much differently from how European philosophy is and that’s still something I’m working to better understand my shortcomings in)