1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 10, 2025
I do assert that a love of wisdom must mean the deepest of concerns, first and foremost, for the ethical.
Which is entirely fair. But... I subscribe to a different normative system than you do, one that doesn't privilege ethics in that way. I suspect that you and I could go around and around on this for some time, but to what end?
Comment by checkdateusercreated at 14/02/2025 at 03:26 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I suspect that one of us is mistaken. Since I'm me, I assume that you're mistaken. But that's not necessarily true, and I prefer to not maintain beliefs that are subpar or incoherent, so I believe I have something to gain from the interaction if you're willing and able to participate.
I do think that a primitive morality starts from the intrinsic human experience of pain and pleasure, which makes ethics primary. Because we are human beings with senses *long* before we intentionally think about truth and reality, *good* and *bad* happen to us and shape our thinking and behavior. My understanding is, therefore, that ethics cannot possibly be usurped by any contender: it is mathematically impossible.
There is no *but how do you know if something is good or real without epistemology and ontology?*, because the primitive experience of ethics is incarnate in the sensory experience; you might not really *think* about ethics at all, just the same as the other two in this example, but you will *act* according to the ethical structures that are created through your experiences. People act on beliefs that are neither true nor concern real (natural) things *all the time,* but those false beliefs concerning imaginary things can still define good and bad, right and wrong. Ethics is the first philosophy and the only subdomain that always obtains in human behavior.