Hey people, this is the topic of Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica at 2pm (on 8-12-07; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email vote this week:
WHAT DUTIES DO WE HAVE TO OURSELVES AND TO OTHERS? Whether you think that ethical action reduces to just one duty (e.g., "each action should bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number") or an entire list of duties, come tell us what you deem your obligations in life to be. Even if you don't usually think in terms of living your life by duties, are your actions nevertheless in accord with particular ethical rules or duties? If you are skeptical of the very idea that we have any duties or obligations at all, ask yourself, "What do I feel guilty about doing or not doing? What in life is worth doing? What is the point of doing anything at all?" Your best answer to that can count as your provisional list of duties worthy of living by.
----------------
It's very helpful (though not required) if, before the meeting, you write a list of the duties you deem yourself to have. Try to state your duties in as wide and general form as possible. For example, instead of saying that you have a duty to protect your immediate family, you might say that your duty is to protect all those people you love, or all those who depend on you for their well-being (for example). In addition to listing or telling us your duties, give us reasons why you choose each of your duties.
Here's a concept that may be useful to your thinking on the issue and to drawing up a list of your own duties. Some philosophers claim that our ethical obligations are best understood as consisting of one or more "prima facie" duties, that is, duties we have "on the face of it," duties that we have in general, as a rule, but not necessarily in all situations. These are not absolute rules or duties.
For example, we might have a general, prima facie duty to not harm others, though exceptions to this rule probably exist, e.g., when it conflicts with another duty that takes precedence in that situation, such as the duty to defend yourself or another innocent person against a violent attack. The idea is that, just because a duty isn't followed in every possible situation does not mean that it's not a real, legitimate duty. It's a rule that's highly valued and that we must attempt to follow as much as possible. We must have a good, justifiable reason to make any exceptions to adhering to the duty.
----------------
I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.
WHAT DUTIES DO WE HAVE TO OURSELVES AND TO OTHERS? Whether you think that ethical action reduces to just one duty (e.g., "each action should bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number") or an entire list of duties, come tell us what you deem your obligations in life to be. Even if you don't usually think in terms of living your life by duties, are your actions nevertheless in accord with particular ethical rules or duties? If you are skeptical of the very idea that we have any duties or obligations at all, ask yourself, "What do I feel guilty about doing or not doing? What in life is worth doing? What is the point of doing anything at all?" Your best answer to that can count as your provisional list of duties worthy of living by.
----------------
It's very helpful (though not required) if, before the meeting, you write a list of the duties you deem yourself to have. Try to state your duties in as wide and general form as possible. For example, instead of saying that you have a duty to protect your immediate family, you might say that your duty is to protect all those people you love, or all those who depend on you for their well-being (for example). In addition to listing or telling us your duties, give us reasons why you choose each of your duties.
Here's a concept that may be useful to your thinking on the issue and to drawing up a list of your own duties. Some philosophers claim that our ethical obligations are best understood as consisting of one or more "prima facie" duties, that is, duties we have "on the face of it," duties that we have in general, as a rule, but not necessarily in all situations. These are not absolute rules or duties.
For example, we might have a general, prima facie duty to not harm others, though exceptions to this rule probably exist, e.g., when it conflicts with another duty that takes precedence in that situation, such as the duty to defend yourself or another innocent person against a violent attack. The idea is that, just because a duty isn't followed in every possible situation does not mean that it's not a real, legitimate duty. It's a rule that's highly valued and that we must attempt to follow as much as possible. We must have a good, justifiable reason to make any exceptions to adhering to the duty.
----------------
I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
-
Re: What Duties Do We Have To Ourselves & Others?
Fri, August 10, 2007 - 3:14 AMOPTIONAL READING: If you're interested, here's an OPTIONAL READING I found for this Sunday's dicussion. Note that our discussion is topic-based, rather than focusing on the readings. However, if you'd like to read something to inspire and stimulate your interest or thinking on the matter, or clarify the ideas involved, I have an article for you. As mentioned in the above posting, a useful and simple way to think about Ethical or Moral duties is in terms of the ideas put for by W.D. Ross, a philosopher who conceived of ethics in terms of "prima facie" duties. For your reading pleasure, the following web page explains what this is all about:
www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett.../rossethc.htm
(3271 words, about 6.5 pages)
As always, feel free to read or skim this article, or not, or anything else on the issue you find. Most importantly, come to our discussion with your own ideas, musings, questions, and paper on which to jot down your thoughts! Whether or not you come to the face-to-face discussion, jot your ideas here! -
-
Re: What Duties Do We Have To Ourselves & Others?
Fri, August 10, 2007 - 3:19 AMFor your edification, here are the opening paragraphs of the above reading:
A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W. D. Ross
By Dr. Jan Garrett Last Revision: August 10, 2004.
The purpose of this essay is to introduce a simple ethical theory and to give credit to the thinker who is the source of most of the ideas in it. This essay does not pretend to fully set forth W. D. Ross’s "moral intuitionist" theory, which is considerably more sophisticated than a brief discussion can show. Direct references below to Ross's words refer to The Right and the Good (2002). For more on Ross, see the items by Ross, Regan, and Stout in the Bibliography.
Contents
The Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines
Applying the Prima Facie Duties
When the Guidelines Conflict
Priority Rules
Importance of Avoiding Misuse
Moral Intuitionism
The Source of Moral Intuitions
The Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines
According to W. D. Ross (1877-1971), there are several prima facie duties that we can use to determine what, concretely, we ought to do. A prima facie duty is a duty that is binding (obligatory) other things equal, that is, unless it is overridden or trumped by another duty or duties. Another way of putting it is that where there is a prima facie duty to do something, there is at least a fairly strong presumption in favor of doing it. An example of a prima facie duty is the duty to keep promises. "Unless stronger moral considerations override, one ought to keep a promise made."
By contrast with prima facie duties, our actual or concrete duty is the duty we should perform in the particular situation of choice. Whatever one's actual duty is, one is morally bound to perform it. Prima facie duties relate to actual duties as reasons do to conclusions of reasoning.
Note: The term "duty" in "prima facie duty" is slightly misleading. The prima facie duties are understood as guidelines, not rules without exception. If an action does not correspond to a specific guideline, one is not necessarily violating a rule that one ought to follow. However, not following the rule one ought to follow in a particular case is failing to do one's (actual) duty. In such cases it makes sense to talk about violating a rule. The rule might be the same in words as a prima facie duty (minus the phrase "unless other moral considerations override"), but it would no longer be merely a guideline because it describes what one concretely should do.
-
