Right and Wrong Ethics

Deontological ethics is the (Kantian) position from which one knows right and wrong as absolute. Once one is able to reach a fundamental level which means to focus on a universal, rationality can reveal right and wrong and it is not dependent on utility or nature. It is absolute. A universal position: all men must be treated as an end in themselves. This means they have autonomy or inherent value as a person. It is then wrong to kill them or take away their life which is fundamentally their own. This black and white system would deny an argument from utility. To kill one man to save 1000 men would still be wrong. Deontological ethics once uncovered through reason on a universal level is absolute.

The problem with black and white ethics, even if it maintains some merit, is the question of who decides? This is why utilitarianism was popular as an alternative, it offered what seemed to be a more moderate and perhaps more modern approach. How do we know as a society that a universal has been reached for deontology or that a reasoned approach was used over, say, one from manipulation or greed? Rand, neither a deontologist nor a utilitarian claimed that the absolute answer comes from nature and the concept of "life." This is a type of virtue ethics and, interestingly enough, shares some of the same absolutism as Kant.

Questions:

Does this really matter to people outside of school? Yes, just like math, you use it everyday without really thinking about it. Also, though it seems specific, it contains general qualities, which means it effects other things that you don't initially consider.

Why should I learn this nonsense? For one, intellectual curiosity can only grow from realism and the conversations had about seemingly unanswerable questions. The conversation done correctly touches on the various experiences that change people from "rote" morons to thinkers: clarity, esteem, resonance and wisdom.

Can I make people look stupid by learning this stuff? Absolutely. One of the greatest joys of learning critical thought is how embarrassing non-critical people are in reality when they blubber and trip over their fallacies.

Is there a connection between this crap and my real life? The answer can be found in the crises of modernity. If you think the world is fine, a metaethics discussion might seem silly. But if you think the world is falling apart, the case can be made that this is the starting point for fixing it.

What is metaethics? The start point of ethical theories. For example, you have to decide if objectivity (exists in itself, not as opinion) is possible if you are going to go on and make objective claims at all. On day one of an ethics class I pose the question: is ethics possible? If real ethics means true (true for all people, etc.) is it possible to discuss ethics as above opinion and preference? The way I approach it is in reverse, however. Is it possible that even the most basic fundamental ethical claims can be argue to be subjective (Hume suggests this).