Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

I find it rather sad that people would want to block posts from someone trying to construct a better moral concept, especially when the person has nothing to sale and has not asked for money that I am aware of.
All of his books are free. He is only trying to share an idea with others but it does seem that ethics is the least studied branch of philosophy.

Axiology will always be a touchy subject, for many of the reasons that have already been discussed by AspVenom.
I don't think that any subject is undeserving of study however (so long as the practice of studying remains ethical).

Matt do you think that it is possible to construct an universal moral concept that would be seen as creditable around the world by the majority of people in all places?



Have you ever seen an ethicist teach a violent form of ethics?

The "touchiness" of value, is that it will almost certainly impact belief.
I do think certain moral concepts are already credible around the world by the majority. Rape is almost universally against social mores. Killing without 'provocation' is almost universally against social mores. Even theft is almost universally against social mores, though rationalizations abound ('Property' is a very tenacious concept even in communist societies).

I don't really know any ethicists personally. I suspect they are nearly as fallible as I am on a personal level. I do know of some ethicists who teach that property 'crimes' are acceptable in defending non-human animals from torture and death. If you consider burning down a factory violent, then yes I do know of ethicist who teach violence.
That is an interesting question though because if you consider destruction of property violent, then you would also have to admit that destroying animals (considered by law property) to be violent. This has been sort of a 'catch 22' in the prosecution the Animal Liberation Front. Some of the prosecutions are actually undermining the legal framework that perpetuates the view of animals as property. Kinda clever on their part.

Maybe I used the wrong word "ethicist" and should have used moral philosopher? Everyone makes mistakes and ethicist can also be activist and do things that they think are for the better good but a moral philosopher would "at least I hope would" realize that it was an immoral act if one was committed.

I may be wrong but I think that morality remains the same no matter the circumstance.

I tend to in some sense agree with you.
I think that on a fundamental level moral relativism is an incoherent concept.
I think that JoefromChicago placed a link much earlier in this thread elucidating that incoherence. I'll see if I can find it..
......
here is his link: http://able2know.org/topic/24585-1#post-689490

Evidently cicerone is an imposter, and thus has "broken the ethics law" already.

If he knew the slightest thing about Ethics, he would know that statute law is only Systemic value at best, and that Moral Law, the principles of Ethics, cannot be broken - only demonstrated. They are to be Intrinsically valued. This entails involvement of the valuer with what s/he is valuing.

The talk about "tyrants enforcing it" is pure nonsense.

Ethics is a perspective, a way of looking at individuals, not a set of laws. The ethical orientation does arrive at principles, which follow logically and rationally from the earlier definitions and theorems. Like the body of thought which is Euclidian Geometry, it does not have to be used by anyone, and is a tool-chest that may be adopted when it is relevant. [There are times when Reimannian geometry is more relevant.]

Maybe someone has a better ethical theory to offer us. I would immediately move to adopt that one. Show it to me.

The way this one is put into practice - and it is intensely practical - is by the student of it coming to understand that merely thinking about the theory will not get results; rather making a commitment to be a good person; and then devoting oneself to the project will indeed get you where you want to go. Just as it is not enough to think about brushing your teeth if you want healthy teeth and gums; you need to actually DO it.

...And form a habit of doing it.

It's the same with being moral.

Thanks.
I think many Buddhist philosophies already do a good job of viewing morality as a habit, and not just some nebulous pie in the sky "thing" called morality.

Yes, I'm an imposter. However, you did miss my post,

Also, I guess you never heard of the Ten Commandments, god's laws.

He's an imposter too!

You wrote,

Where is that "where you want to go?" Is that anything like being a matyr and going to heaven where you'll be rewarded with 71 virgins?

Do you think that the problem may be that some people do not have the adequate tools able to construct correct moral consistencies?

If we were to construct a concept about colors should we consider what the colorblind have to say about it? if we were to talk about sound should we read what the deaf have to write about tones and pitches?
If we were to talk about mathematics should we consider what those who have not studied or understand the concept have to say about it?

There has been a trend in most Orthodox interpretations of Christianity away from a legalistic understanding of 'scripture'.
This is how for instance the dietary laws of the Old Testament are reconciled with modern understanding/practice.

To be quite honest I don't think that most people are moral relativists.
Moral relativism is a politically correct "everybody is just as right as everybody else" extension of the cultural relativism fad in modern intellectual circles.

The majority of people actually think that there are "right" and "wrong" actions.
The exceptions are sociopaths, nihilists, and some intellectuals.

Not to sound harsh or anything.....

Yes I seem to understand what you are meaning and as Dr Katz has pointed out we will have some of them here for many reasons I guess but I see it similar to a slave master who does not want to end slavery and teaches that slaver is moral. He has a lot to lose in his mind and I think that many people who are more witted than others do not want to lose their position of wealth in our society only to be considered truly equal to others who may be either intellectually or environmentally challenged.

Not touching that analogy with a ten foot pole.
I have personally been taken to task too many times regarding a similar analogy with factory farming of animals.

It's a tough world out there planting the seeds of change, some people have found that planting tress work pretty good.

I took you up on your recommendation. It is interesting to say the least. I won't bore you with an entire analysis of the film, but I will cherry pick something that seems pertinent to this thread.
I noticed a development of Spielrein's conception of sexuality throughout the film. Initially "excitement" was the idea most closely linked to her understanding of sex. Sex then became a heirarchical relationship in keeping with the Freudean object relationships progressing through stages but always connected to object interactions. Sex was a relationship between the consumer and the consumed, between the dominater and the dominated, always an asymmetric relationship. Near the end of the film however she was quite astute in seeing a problem with the understanding. How could it reconcile a desirable action for the Id to partake in a "little death". How is this not against the hierarchy. She began to think that sex must have some aspect of union, and at the heart of this union creativity.
Freud of course dismisses this out of hand. She, as all others, is beneath him in his political and intellectual hierarchy.
Another poignant moment I think is when she suggests to Jung that there must be something male and something female in all of us.
I won't elucidate any connection to empathy, but I think there are obvious connections.
Thanks for the suggestion. I enjoyed it. I've always been sympathetic to Jung in the Jung v. Freud issues.

Thank you for sharing I was unaware of this myself. It does make sense though as ethics is not about forcing an idea on to others but rather sharing the best working model of morality that we know with others and being humble enough to accept a better working model if someone shares one, This is how I see it but I could be wrong.

RL you don't have to add this to things that you say.
The assumption is always and should always be that what someone says could be wrong.
You don't need to add it, it just makes things look "wishy washy".

It's nice to see you are getting to know the real me.

Self-effacement is unbecoming of a lady or gent.