Some notes as I read through an ethics textbook.

Descriptive vs Normative

There is a distinction between describing the state of affairs (descriptive) ethics and saying what is right and wrong (normative). For example, descriptive egoism is the observation that it seems like most people act in selfish ways while normative egoism says that people ought to act in self-interested ways as a philosophy.

Also important to note that you shouldn’t fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is the way things are right now doesn’t make it the way things should be. When talking about ethics then, it’s important to note whether you’re describing what the world is like or how the world should be.

Another similar example is in relativism. It’s descriptive to note that cultures around the world have different moral codes, but it’s normative to say that morals being relative to the society in which they’re interpreted is how we should live.

Relativism expanded

Interesting thing I’ve learned is that relativism isn’t as idealistic as one would hope. By definition, it’s this notion that what makes something right or wrong is fully dependent on the cultural context surrounding the action. You can’t really say that one culture is better than another then which while appealing to the liberal views I hold, is also problematic for obvious reasons (genocidal regimes). It also doesn’t include tolerance. While it might seem like relativists would be tolerant of other cultures, they also would have to tolerate cultures which don’t tolerate others. In such a way, being a relativist doesn’t rule out thinking that you should rule out other moral codes.

Oh man… utilitarianism (or how many shrimp is my life worth?)

TODO!