Talk:Pragmatic ethics

"Free markets" for persuasive technology?
Seems like a misuse of the phrase free markets. I know people want to "see markets everywhere" but I really think this is going too far - is there any buying and selling going on here? It's like the "marketplace of ideas" - based on superficial characteristics (zomg choice!!!11) that don't really tap into the larger issus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.145.201 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

An example might be that government regulation of social networking sites (a persuasive technology) could interfere with the ability of moral leaders to effect social reform. Langchri (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed unsourced stuff that seems to have come from a high-school student. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The original article has morphed into an article about what pragmatists have said about ethics, rather than an article about a normative theory (the merits of which are independent of its authors). Anyone who wants to create an article about what pragmatists have said about ethics is free to create a separate article, so I am restoring the original topic: 1. I am again explaining the practice of pragmatic ethics (no article about a normative theory could be complete without such an explanation), 2. I am creating a "Relationship to Pragmatism" section where it would be appropriate to link information about what pragmatists have said about ethics or attempt to establish that either this theory or pragmatism entails the other, and 3. I am adding the synonym "gadfly ethics" as a name for this normative theory to avoid implying that being a "pragmatist" is either necessary or sufficient to be an "ethical pragmatist". Langchri (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Measuring progress
How do pragmatists decide whether a change is progressive or regressive? Against what do they judge such? FurryAminal (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article does say that society (not the lone individual) is the moral agent (i.e. the pragmatist launches the "experiment in living", yet lets society decide what is progressive), but apparently that was not clear. Can someone clarify the article? Perhaps an analogy to evolutionary algorithms in which each individual mutator is committed to mutation, but relies on something larger than itself to judge the success of its mutations (could cite Santos-Lang, Christopher. "Moral Ecology Approaches". In van Rysewyk, Simon; Pontier, Matthijs. Machine Medical Ethics.)? Or perhaps an analogy to a court in which individual lawyers are committed to arguing against each other, but allow a larger entity to arbitrate (the ultimate goal is truth, but the responsibility of each individual lawyer to argue for their case, not to decide which argument points towards truth)? Or maybe Socrates' analogy of a gadfly doing good by stinging repeatedly, no matter which direction the "noble steed" happens to decide to go? 165.189.37.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)