X, the philosophy of X and the ethics of X
An interesting question relates to the dichotomy of X versus the philosophy of X, and that is: where does ethics stand? It is indeed part of philosophy, and indeed overlaps with formal logic. But one cannot really say that for example, the philosophy of language and the ethics of language are the same thing.
Let us first of al draw of table of -ologies, whether or not of that name-form:
-ology
|
philosophy thereof
|
ethics of players
|
ethics of -ologists
|
Religion
|
philosophy of religion,
religious philosophy
(same?)
|
religious ethics
| |
Language
|
philosophy of language
|
ethics of language
|
philological ethics
|
Archaeology
|
philosophy of archaeology
|
!
|
archaeological ethics
|
Anthropology
|
philosophy of anthropology
|
social ethics
|
anthropological ethics
|
Politics
|
political philosophy
|
political ethics
| |
Economics
|
economic philosophy
|
economic ethics
| |
Sociology
|
philosophy of sociology
|
social ethics
|
sociological ethics
|
Now clearly there is difference between economic philosophy and economic ethics. According to Wikipedia on ‘Philosophy and Economics’:
Philosophy and economics (also philosophy of economics) may refer to the branch of philosophy that studies issues relating to economics or, alternatively, to the branch of economics that studies its own foundations and status as a moral science.
And in relation to non-orthodox economics at least:
.
The philosophy of economics defines itself as including the questioning of foundations or assumptions of economics. …
But in the same article, we read the following in connection with economic ethics:
The ethics of economic systems deals with the issues such as how it is right (just, fair) to keep or distribute economic goods. Economic systems as a product of collective activity allow examination of their ethical consequences for all of their participants. Ethics and economics relates[sic] ethical studies to welfare economics.
I have indeed spelt out what may well be obvious. Note that with the –ologies, the ethics relates to the investigators, but with the “icses” the ethics relates more to the players, as do language and religion. But in each case, there is also the ethics of investigators, though I haven’t listed them; and indeed the ethics of players, however named, though obviously this does not apply to archaeology – nor of course non-contemporary history.
In this article I shall argue that ethics can be built on axioms, reflecting the various aspects of society. This parallels the axioms of propositional calculus – very similar to those of algebra - where the precise form will vary:
(1) one variable: p≡p&p, (2) two variables [known as commutativity]: (p&q) ≡ (q&p),
(3) three variables [known as associativity]: ((p&q)& r) ≡ (p&(q&r)) ….
Unless a system has axioms it will be circular, just like life and love discussed in an earlier paper.
My first ordering represents the build-up of complexity: person, person-person, person-environment, person-person-environment, present person-future person-environment. That is probably the order in which a child might acquire ethics, the first representing me-me-me.
There is an important exception to this build-up – universalisation: what would happen if everyone did it? But this does not allow for variability, for example gays.
My second ordering attempts to recognise the authorities’ incorporation of ethical values: I. person-environment (e.g. religion), II. person-person (including ‘freedom from’), III. person-person-environment (for the left, socialism, for the right, the market), IV. person (‘freedom to’), V. relating to the future environment.
a ‘maroon’ socialist
| 
a cultural analysis of exploitation
|
I (person-environment):
(Semi-)taming the environment,
self-fulfilment, etc
|
I (person-environment):
Technology and skills; religion
|
II (person-person):
Co-operation, freedom-from, sharing of knowledge, etc
|
II (person-person):
Fear, ignorance
|
III (person-person-environment):
Socialism
(cf. for neo-liberals:
buyer-seller-environment?)
|
III (person-person-environment):
Abuse of superior power
(cf. for neo-liberals:
government-individual-environment?)
|
IV (person): Freedom(-to)
|
IV (person-person): Culture
|
V. (present persons-future persons-
environment)
Green
|
V. (present persons-future persons-
environment)
Technology, possibly leading to pollution?
|
So how does socialism, as a person-person-environment ethic, fit into the above? To my mind, socialism is a relationship between society (inner) and the environment (outer). There are several steps, firstly creating a semi-tamed environment, and then a ‘tamed environment’. Note that the maroon is associated with culture, and pink with skills, technology and not least scientific socialism. Here we may regard socialism as aggregating three features, person-person (culture), person-environment (tamed and semi-tamed) and skills, also person-environment. The process is effective if it achieves appropriate personal relations within the limitations of the environment.
As suggested in the table, the neo-liberal alternative to III might be buyer-seller-environment, where the limitations of the environment are governed by the sellers’ willingness to sell so much for such-and-such a price. According to Raymond Plant in the Neo-liberal State, neo-liberals are much more concerned about freedom-from than with freedom-to. Some day I might show that neo-liberalism is wrong in two senses: firstly as flawed and self-destructive, and secondly the evil resulting from the suffering on the way to destruction, apart from anything else.
So what should these axioms be? I think I am clear about socialism (III), as sharing equally the burdens imposed by the limitations of the natural environment, and freedom-to (IV) means freedom to do as one wishes provided no-one else ‘suffers’, though this needs closer examination: it certainly goes against the universalisation approach.
Item II, person-person, might spell out the requisites for a mutual relationship, i.e. information and knowledge, though ignorance or confidentiality might apply say for the prosecution-defence relationship. The Golden Rule – to do unto others as you would have them do unto you – is certainly a candidate for person-person, but it seems to work better for don’t’s rather than do’s, and that purely on a personal level. Some of us who are anti-gay might positively ‘have’ other people gay-bash them if they were gay.
And I and V might be conflated to represent a dynamic socialism or socialism across time. And because we give future generations knowledge, they will be richer than us, and we should share equally with them, hence economic growth, but not too much. And here of course we get the good, bad and ugly in the ethics of economic growth.
By Martin Prior
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open Topic' Issue 32
