2 deleted 9 characters in body
source | link

Your proposal comprises at least the following steps:

  1. Select a set of actions considered relevant under an ethical aspect, e.g., killing.

  2. Determine how the person, who is affected, experiences these actions, e.g. as pain or pleasure.

  3. Determine the neuronal correlate of these emotions.

  4. Evaluate the neuronal correlate as positive or negative.

You can skip point 3 and the detour via neuroscience. A utilitarian ethics does not work better with the evaluation according to point 3 than by a direct evaluation according to point 2. Hence I do not see any benefit from bringing neuroscience into discussion.

The philosophical problem remains how to derive prescriptions, i.e. normative statements, from descriptive statements without bringing in at least one normative axiom. Therefore I do not see how your proposal contributes to link empiricism and ethics remains.

As far as I know your propoasalproposal has not been advanced in the literature.

Your proposal comprises at least the following steps:

  1. Select a set of actions considered relevant under an ethical aspect, e.g., killing.

  2. Determine how the person, who is affected, experiences these actions, e.g. as pain or pleasure.

  3. Determine the neuronal correlate of these emotions.

  4. Evaluate the neuronal correlate as positive or negative.

You can skip point 3 and the detour via neuroscience. A utilitarian ethics does not work better with the evaluation according to point 3 than by a direct evaluation according to point 2. Hence I do not see any benefit from bringing neuroscience into discussion.

The philosophical problem remains how to derive prescriptions, i.e. normative statements, from descriptive statements without bringing in at least one normative axiom. Therefore I do not see how your proposal contributes to link empiricism and ethics remains.

As far as I know your propoasal has not been advanced in the literature.

Your proposal comprises at least the following steps:

  1. Select a set of actions considered relevant under an ethical aspect, e.g., killing.

  2. Determine how the person, who is affected, experiences these actions, e.g. as pain or pleasure.

  3. Determine the neuronal correlate of these emotions.

  4. Evaluate the neuronal correlate as positive or negative.

You can skip point 3 and the detour via neuroscience. A utilitarian ethics does not work better with the evaluation according to point 3 than by a direct evaluation according to point 2. Hence I do not see any benefit from bringing neuroscience into discussion.

The philosophical problem remains how to derive prescriptions, i.e. normative statements, from descriptive statements without bringing in at least one normative axiom. Therefore I do not see how your proposal contributes to link empiricism and ethics.

As far as I know your proposal has not been advanced in the literature.

1
source | link

Your proposal comprises at least the following steps:

  1. Select a set of actions considered relevant under an ethical aspect, e.g., killing.

  2. Determine how the person, who is affected, experiences these actions, e.g. as pain or pleasure.

  3. Determine the neuronal correlate of these emotions.

  4. Evaluate the neuronal correlate as positive or negative.

You can skip point 3 and the detour via neuroscience. A utilitarian ethics does not work better with the evaluation according to point 3 than by a direct evaluation according to point 2. Hence I do not see any benefit from bringing neuroscience into discussion.

The philosophical problem remains how to derive prescriptions, i.e. normative statements, from descriptive statements without bringing in at least one normative axiom. Therefore I do not see how your proposal contributes to link empiricism and ethics remains.

As far as I know your propoasal has not been advanced in the literature.