It is clearly far too early in the morning as far as my brain is concerned but I ought to at least try to respond to some of this. I apologise if the main impression I give is of being half asleep.
[feminist ethics are] going to be operating on certain meta-ethical assumptions which are not empirical But if they aren't empirical what are they? That is the thing I am having real trouble grasping. You have listed some critiques of positivism (and sorry, but it really is too early for me to respond to those, I might try coming back when I am less brain dead) but that only helps me understand why you don't comprehend the world in the way that I do, I'm no closer to understanding what the way that you comprehend the world yourself actually is.
It may be that I am not capable of understanding this - just as a colour blind person can't understand 'red' as opposed to 'green', or it may just be that nobody has ever explained it clearly enough. Ever since I was a kid I have tended to get cross at about this point in philosophy discussions, so there is actually a lot of resistance there. (I will never forget my philosophy teacher's look of outrage when I suggested that maybe the reason nobody had found any universal ethical beliefs was because there weren't any. I suspect I have treasured that response ever since and have been biasing my own thinking accordingly.) The point being of course that my own way of looking at the world works very well for me, so I don't feel any need to try to find an alternative, and hence it is simplest to just dismiss the question.
why do you follow whatever principles you do? If it's to fit in within the dominant norms of your time and country, why do you find this valuable? If it's just because that's what you feel like doing at the moment, why do you think that's okay? Do you just perform random actions because your brain chemistry tells you to? I see ethics as being about trying to make as many people as possible as happy as possible because ultimately that will make my own life as pleasant as possible. 'Pleasant' could probably be best described as enjoyable, long lasting and with the best chance of my genes surviving. I work on the basis of the selfish gene - so I put things in the order of myself, then my close relatives, then my friends and the immediate society I live in, then the wider society I live in, and so on working outwards. I work on the assumption that everyone else will be doing approximately the same so it all evens out. Some ethical problems I have worked out for myself, some I take from the society around me because I have never got round to thinking about them in detail. I think it is important to fit in with the norms of society because life is pleasanter if one does, sometimes though life is pleasanter if one tries to change the norms of society - I just make it up as I go along on a case by case basis. Since I assume everyone else does the same I assume that overall society will reach a balance that works best for the society as a whole. And yes, sometimes I perform random acts because my brain chemistry tells me to - for example when I lose my temper. I have no idea if this differs from what everyone else does, and if so how it differs, I have always assumed it is pretty much the same, but that is just an assumption. I do know that (in my terms) plenty of people give names like 'God' and 'conscience' to things that I call 'internalised social norms' and 'instinctive imperatives', but those are just differences of names as far as I'm concerned.
no subject
But if they aren't empirical what are they? That is the thing I am having real trouble grasping. You have listed some critiques of positivism (and sorry, but it really is too early for me to respond to those, I might try coming back when I am less brain dead) but that only helps me understand why you don't comprehend the world in the way that I do, I'm no closer to understanding what the way that you comprehend the world yourself actually is.
It may be that I am not capable of understanding this - just as a colour blind person can't understand 'red' as opposed to 'green', or it may just be that nobody has ever explained it clearly enough. Ever since I was a kid I have tended to get cross at about this point in philosophy discussions, so there is actually a lot of resistance there. (I will never forget my philosophy teacher's look of outrage when I suggested that maybe the reason nobody had found any universal ethical beliefs was because there weren't any. I suspect I have treasured that response ever since and have been biasing my own thinking accordingly.) The point being of course that my own way of looking at the world works very well for me, so I don't feel any need to try to find an alternative, and hence it is simplest to just dismiss the question.
I see ethics as being about trying to make as many people as possible as happy as possible because ultimately that will make my own life as pleasant as possible. 'Pleasant' could probably be best described as enjoyable, long lasting and with the best chance of my genes surviving. I work on the basis of the selfish gene - so I put things in the order of myself, then my close relatives, then my friends and the immediate society I live in, then the wider society I live in, and so on working outwards. I work on the assumption that everyone else will be doing approximately the same so it all evens out. Some ethical problems I have worked out for myself, some I take from the society around me because I have never got round to thinking about them in detail. I think it is important to fit in with the norms of society because life is pleasanter if one does, sometimes though life is pleasanter if one tries to change the norms of society - I just make it up as I go along on a case by case basis. Since I assume everyone else does the same I assume that overall society will reach a balance that works best for the society as a whole. And yes, sometimes I perform random acts because my brain chemistry tells me to - for example when I lose my temper. I have no idea if this differs from what everyone else does, and if so how it differs, I have always assumed it is pretty much the same, but that is just an assumption. I do know that (in my terms) plenty of people give names like 'God' and 'conscience' to things that I call 'internalised social norms' and 'instinctive imperatives', but those are just differences of names as far as I'm concerned.