[CoastalCoder]

I'm hoping someone who's actually studied philosophy can weigh in on this:

I notice that almost all debates on these topics skip over the question of what moral framework will underpin the discussion.

It seems to me that a lot rides on that, for several reasons:

- There's a real chance that the participants don't actually agree on the unstated framework, and

- It makes it hard to actually argue from shared premises to a compelling conclusion.

So my impression is that most of these discussions end up with people arguing past each other, with little to show for it.

Am I missing something? I can't believe this is purely a modern phenomenon.

[krageon]

> Am I missing something?

No. A lot of people that write about these subjects assume that everyone that reads what they say has the same moral framework as them. It is implicit, as you say. Not defining that framework explicitly means you won't get anywhere with a discussion, which is ironic because if you try to do so in a discussion folks will tell you that won't get you anywhere :)

[davidklemke]

I had the same reservations about this as well and ended up stumbling on this article which helped clarify my thoughts on it a bit: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Whilst not really settling the debate about which moral framework is used it does give a good lens by which to judge it, from the article:

There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

1.descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or 2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

[mihaic]

These contradictory discussions have always been out in the open, as otherwise the course of action for society would be clear and just need execution.

With people speaking past one another, I don't think it's been as dysfunctional as it is right now. It obviously correlates with widespread internet access, but the addresable cause is probably more complex. One thing that happened before though was that future generations that hadn't yet picked a side could be swayed.

Mostly I think people underestimate how good at "bullshiting" we've become on average compared to previous generations (since that's how you win an internet argument) and how that need to be called out harshly -- we can't build anything on bullshiting. We're also not indoctrinating our young to have a deeper sense of responsability for others and society in general, and while that's optimal for the individual, collectively we all lose.

[lleb97a]

> ...we can't build anything on bullshiting.

I completely agree. However, I feel many of the problems we face as a society is because far too much has already been built on it. It was once strategically placed where necessary to maintain operations. Now it's just an industry all to itself.

[Nasrudith]

You cannot teach children via hypocrisy. At best you teach them "it is only okay when adults do it". Their job is to observe and they will detect such insincerity.

Really indoctrination is the wrong way to think about it period. Children are not to be your puppets but your successors who will always diverge from you.

I am also of the opinion that 99% of the time "the collective" is used merely an excuse to manufacture consent by claiming to speak for all or represent their interests. Communists are especially infamous for this "listen to the working class but only if they agree with me" sleight of hand! I find doing away with the "collective" bullcrap and think in terms of individuals and "mirrored standards and impacts". You don't want "bad people" detained indefinitely without a trial because then there is nothing stopping it from applying to you. It is damn simple but people tend to fail that mirror test all the time.

[mihaic]

Like the original comment, I feel like we're talking past one another. Of course I think we should strive to be what we teach our children.

Maybe you didn't like my use of "indoctrination", as you see it having a negative connotation. I meant to say that some thing need to be taught by repeated explanation and not by example alone -- mostly higher order concepts.

[bckr]

I agree, and I particularly wish that people would use "ethics" instead of "morals" more frequently.

My understanding is that ethics are how we treat other beings, and morals are rules we follow (think "moralizing").

I'm much more interested in the former.

[yboris]

If I'm not mistaken (based on a bunch of philosophy courses I took at Rutgers University a bit over a decade ago), philosophers use "morality" and "ethics" interchangeably - and both terms are, roughly speaking, systems that say what individuals ought to do in situations and in general (and these could be rule based, aka "deontology", or act based aka "act utilitarianism", or virtue based "virtue ethics", etc).

I'm unsure how regular people use "ethics" and "morals", so in any conversation I tend to clarify what I mean by the terms so as to avoid confusion.

My recommendation: utilitarianism is the best ethical framework for life - in every regard. It has a proven track record (advocating for abolition of slavery, women's rights, gay right, animal rights, etc -- all decades or even centuries before these became mainstream).

[Agamus]

I studied some philosophy as an undergraduate. My understanding is this:

Ethical theory tries to answer the question, 'what should we do?' (e.g. death penalty or not?)

Moral theory tries to answer the question, 'why should we do that' (e.g. 'because god says so')

Metaethical theory tries to answer the question, 'what is the 'theory of knowledge' behind that moral theory?' (e.g. 'are there moral facts at all?')