This thread was created to compatibly resonate with those who feel as I do that Ethics has the potential to be treated scientifically, and who appreciate having some reliable guides to making an Ethical decision.
I am not here to dissuade the moral nihilists from their ideology, nor to convert the heathen, nor anything along that line.
Since Moral Psychology is currently the experimental branch of ethics, and the new paradigm for Ethics can serve as the theoretical branch; in that sense Ethics already is a science. [Of course there will always be room for a philosophy of ethical science.]
The proposed new paradigm - “A Unified Theory of Ethics” - is highly-tentative, is in flux, is in the process of being created and continuously upgraded. It is a cooperative project motivated and researched by those who would like to see ethics become even-more scientific.
I read your thread, iambiguous, on "“Moral Philosophy in the Lives…,” and wonder if what you said to Ecmandu might properly be applied to yourself. Recall you words:
I wouldn’t say that (even though to someone of my age you are just a kid) since I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by giving them a parental command {what Dr. Eric Berne would call “a crossed transaction.”}
In other words, the suggestion is: If you are not aware (that a logical theory may serve as a frame-of-reference which when applied to data helps to organize and explain that data; and that this is the way science works) and thus do not see how the new paradigm explains and clarifies life as lived in the moral realm, then please do write some more of YOUR OWN threads, and avoid hijacking this one. Okay?
You said more than once that your interests lie somewhere else than in learning how a model can be applied to offering some useful guides to making ethical decisions. So please go back to seeing John and Mary’s both sides - and by inference all sides of every question - and leave us to do our own thing.