Does moral wisdom seem to be little connected to ethical theory as playing tennis is to knowledge of physics?

Question

My epistemology said something today in class that was similar to this: “Moral wisdom seems to be as little connected to knowledge of ethical theory as playing good tennis is to knowledge of physics”

and it had me thinking (but then again...what philosophy classes don't). is she saying that our actions shouldnt be guided by our theores in ethics and elsewhere...or what?

are there differences between what we call "morals" and "ethics"?

Answer 1

just google "uniformatics"

You will learn a lot more in this regard

Answer 2

It's only personal opinion and discussion thereof.

morals are the emotions and experiences by which a person lives their life. You could argue it's Micro.

ethics is how they go about incorporating those morals into life as a whole. You could argue it's Macro.

Answer 3

i believe that if you want to become someone or something at tennis physics is something very important, where you hit the ball equals an angle and so on...

Answer 4

I think if you were to model a physical process mathematically it could become quite complex, especially when your goal is to enjoy a good game of tennis.

As for moral wisdom, it may be something that you posess as a being with experience and knowledge of ethics. Sure, you may describe your experience in those theoretical terms, but you could find it difficult to become totally conscious of that theory and it only remains as an underlying support for you to refine your practise.

Just an idea, good luck with it all.

Answer 5

kinda.  I believe that there are some universal truths.  Killing and stealing are things that we tend to know are, for most parts, bad.  I've watched a one year baby take a cookie and put it behind her back in attempts to hide the fact that she wasn't supposed to have it.  She had no class or extensive training at that point in here life to inform her of what she had done.  It must have been inherently know on some level.  If you watch animals in the wild.  They don't kill one another just for the sake of killing.  There tends to be a significant reason for that type of action.  Even most mating and territorial disputes tend to end without immediate death.  I believe those type of inherent instincts are in all of us.  But somewhere in our evolution we adapted a way to suppress those actions.  It's hard to determine whether that was for the good or bad.

Answer 6

Perhaps what was meant is that one need not know ethics theory to be a moral being or, to play tennis by the official rules, without the benefit of the formal eduction in the physics involved.

This is a poor analogy though because the laws of physics are empirical.

In fact I would call it a fallacy if the point was not made clear by further dialog.