Ethics

So, seeing as this is properly a philosophy and art blog, I feel compelled to bring about the most obvious question for this scene: what is the proper medium for discussing philosophy?  I can accept that there are different channels for different branches, but then the question just arises as many times as there are distinct branches of philosophy. Because, truth be told, Kant doesn’t do it for me.  Sure, his work is brilliant, and his logic is sound, but the way he discusses it and presents it lends itself to only the higher echelons of society’s understanding.  And is that really acceptable?  If the Truth can only be known by 1% of the world, how is it True? It doesn’t effect or at least directly impact the lives of the vast majority of our race, so what good does it do to know the Truth?  On a side note, how can ethics be studied objectively? If you take a class in ethics, you’re in for a droll scene; though stimulating at times, the majority of the information is an attempt to recreate (or rather, serve as a model for) the logical positivist movement.  I reference the logical positivists a lot, because they’re a really good example of the attempt of human’s tendency to prefer order oversteps its boundaries.  There are many things, even within ourselves and thinking, rational minds, that we don’t hold control over, like language.  The same goes for ethics.  How is it that we are expected to understand how other people order their values?  I mean, sure, if they claim that they belong to a Utilitarian camp, then we can see an outline of their value system; we can see what they definitely don’t think (with as much certainty as language allows us.) But it seems to me that the content on the inside of the outline is much too large to be of any real use.  And there are always, always, always, sometimes exceptions.
See also: G.E. Moore’s test for goodness.  Because I will totally jump on that bandwagon and use that as my trump card.  Ex:  Utilitarianism is the greatest benefit for the greatest number, but is the greatest benefit for the greatest number always good? And you don’t even have to analyze the possibilities of the statement.  You don’t have to come up with an example of when the greatest good for the greatest number is not good, though you can. The test is designed so that, as long as the sentence makes sense, then utilitarianism does not equal good.  Of course, it’s not just Utilitarianism; it’s any ethical system.

Enough of this.