Some more ruminations on ethics

This is another email to my ethics professor.

Ethicists seem to evaluate moral theories exclusively by comparing gut moral reactions of individuals with the logical consequences of a theory. If there is a discrepancy, it is generally considered to be the moral theory which is in error rather than the gut moral reaction of individuals. This suggests that the theorization process itself seeks to be descriptive in that it tries to make predictions that correspond to gut reactions. However, this indicts all ethical theories—or at least those with an "ought"—of equivocating between descriptive assessment and prescriptive assertion.

The logical consequence of this is a dissolution of the meaning of deontic status into the continuum of all human behavior. However, deontic status seems to be everywhere intended as a conception ultimately independent of actual human behavior. This is a contradiction.

Accordingly, the basis of ethical study of what people "should" do is self-contradictory.

Moreover, deontic status seems to be an inherently supernatural conception, as it is generally intended. To avoid being descriptive, its veracity cannot rely on how humans act; human behaviour and human desires can be used only as a means of determining which assessment of deontic status is correct. However, deontic status is only ever relevant in relation to "responsible agents," and so the only possible natural source of deontic status is those responsible agents. As humans and organizations of humans are the only responsible agents so far admitted, deontic status is from either humans or from the supernatural.

Accordingly, if deontic status is not from the supernatural, it is from humans. If it is from humans, it is either the result of deliberate conscious formulation or the result of unconscious social evolution. If it is the result of deliberate conscious formulation, then it is a human invention, which contradicts how deontic status is usually presented. It also loses a great deal of authority with this interpretation. If it is the result of unconscious social evolution, then the study of deontic status is simply the descriptive study of human behavior, and we have the same problem as before. Accordingly, our assumption that deontic status is not an inherently supernatural conception is false, and deontic status is an inherently supernatural conception.

Is this valid reasoning? If so, all naturalists, myself included, are compelled to abandon the idea of deontic status and subsequently the pursuit of ethical theory.

I've considered this contingency, and the things that drop out are not really terribly significant. The lost items are as follows:
1. means of absolute overall affirmation
2. means of absolute overall condemnation

Now, presuming that the descriptive assertions of Ethics still hold and that humans and human societies act to achieve their desires, desiring both 1 and 2 will generally hinder achievement of other goals. Absolute overall affirmation of any given course of action will make the humans pursuing that course of action less likely to notice any flaws that it has. Likewise, absolute overall condemnation of any given course of action will close of the opportunity for innovation, which history has shown to be quite effective at attaining ends. Moreover, the availability of a means of absolute overall condemnation of a person or a group of persons and also of a means of absolute overall affirmation of a person or group of persons is more likely to create inter-cultural rifts, which in turn is likely to bring about war. I think that it is a safe bet that war is a hindrance to achieving most goals.

And so there is no real compulsion to introduce an "ought." "Ought" simply operates to affirm oneself, and humans need not supernatural affirmation.

-=-raptur-=-