No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level.

I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.)

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I think there are definitely many positions with which I disagree, but are nonetheless well-thought through and coherent.

But it seems pretty clear that the people making these decisions haven’t done the work of thinking it through, and are instead just trying to maximize money. That’s my claim, at least.

▲

LunaSea 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To me this reads the same way some religious people believe that it is not possible for atheists to have morals because morals come from the Bible.

▲

refurb 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.)

You're not suggesting that, but then put up your own requirements for someone's ethics to be "valid". So in the end you are filtering others ethical choices by your own requirements.

And your logic seems to work backwards: someone does something you disagree with based on your personal ethical view -> assume they aren't well thought out

	▲	keiferski 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My requirements for someone's ethical opinions to be "valid" are that they don't criticize the field of ethics as useless. I guess that is a "requirement" I have, but it's a pretty nitpicking, useless distinction to make. If someone criticizes the French language, but doesn't speak a word of French, sorry, but I don't have much respect for their opinion on French. And no, I don't "assume they aren't well thought out," because many of these people have explicitly said philosophy is a waste of time.
	▲	financltravsty 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		One of my best friends is a philosophy grad, and another is a very intelligent financier. What we've come to realize is that speaking and writing and making arguments is fruitless. You either have had the embodied experiences to recognize a statement is directionally correct -- to various magnitudes -- or you don't. No amount of words will change that. It is my experience -- after seeing the quality of thinking from those philosophically trained (I am not) -- that learning philosophy is learning how to think, and by extension figuring out for oneself what is capital g Good. Morals and ethics are different and you conflate them. That is the crux of your confusion. Someone can understand morality inherently without ever thinking about it; but ethics requires actual intentional thought over years and years of reflecting on lived experience. What is good for you and your small circle can be grasped intuitively, but to grasp what is good "at scale" must be reasoned about. Without having seriously grappled with this, one is liable to have simplistic views, and in many cases hold views that have already been trodden through and whose "holes" have been exposed and new routes taken in unveiling ethics. Without seriously having interfaced with it, it's like talking to someone about the exercise science when all they know is do steroids, lift weight, and eat. Sure, that works, but it lacks nuance and almost no thought has gone into it. Anyway, this is tiring. Philosophical discussions are not something to do with strangers. It requires intimacy and is a deeply personal conversation one should have with those close to them and explore together.