Posted on January 25, 2022

"four ways to look at the issue, or what philosophers refer to as ‘meta-ethical’ positions: one can be a skeptic, a rationalist, an empiricist, or an intuitionist."

—Massimo Pigliucci, How to Be a Stoic

As I understand, “meta-ethical” positions relate to how we can arrive at ethical conclusions, or if we even can. On the one side we have the skeptics that argue that it’s not possible. For them, it doesn’t make much sense to compare two things that are in different categories: facts and judgment. On the other hand, we have the rest that do think it’s possible, in different ways. For rationalists, it is possible to arrive at ethical conclusions if we think enough about the matter. On the contrary, empiricists argue that not much thinking is necessary; instead, they rely on observations and experiments to arrive at conclusions. Lastly, intuitionists plead that ethical knowledge can be found merely in the form of strong intuitions, without needing to think nor observe much about it.

It’s easy to see how Stoicism is a mix between intuitionism, empiricism, and rationalism. Its three disciplines, desire (physics), action (ethics), and assent (logic) are highly correlated to such positions. However, I feel that in reality, sometimes it’s easier to be skeptical out of comfort if nothing else. Everyday we observe many injustices, or things that are plainly wrong. Then, even though subconsciously we know it’s not right, we go about our life as if those things didn’t matter, as if drawing ethical conclusions is not worth our time. This is a behavior that I’ll be on the watch for, and hopefully avoid, because I want to, and because I can.