> This assumes that you know what "basic dignity" means.
It does indeed. And I do, indeed: basic dignity entails treating a person as an end in themselves, and never merely as a means.
> All problems in ethics are hard problems.
I don't think this is true. It's not particularly hard for me to answer that skinning cats alive for pleasure, pointlessly hurting other human beings, and irrationally loathing oneself are all obvious moral wrongs, in the sense we would not be willing to accept any moral system that permits them (much less encourages them).
As you mentioned in your parent comment, an ethics board should have a point. In order to have a point, we need to admit of at least some ethical baseline[1]. If not, we'll continue the most pointless ethical pursuit of all: re-litigating arguments that reduce to the ones we give philosophy undergraduates for practice. We have bigger fish to fry.
[1]: Even, as I have said, if that ethical baseline adheres to no particular moral system.
> basic dignity entails treating a person as an end in themselves, and never merely as a means
But this does not mean agreeing with every choice that person makes, or even agreeing that that person should be able to make all possible choices without getting disapproval from others or even without legal penalties. Even a murderer who is convicted on conclusive evidence can still be treated with basic dignity as you describe it; that doesn't mean we will give any weight to the murderer's complaints about being incarcerated.
> It's not particularly hard for me to answer that skinning cats alive for pleasure, pointlessly hurting other human beings, and irrationally loathing oneself are all obvious moral wrongs, in the sense we would not be willing to accept any moral system that permits them
Who is "we"? All of the activities you describe have been practiced by some human societies.
I think you are very overconfident in the universality of your particular ethical beliefs.
> But this does not mean agreeing with every choice that person makes, or even agreeing that that person should be able to make all possible choices without getting disapproval from others or even without legal penalties. Even a murderer who is convicted on conclusive evidence can still be treated with basic dignity as you describe it.
Absolutely. But what should I conclude about our ethics board from that? I don't think I'm undermining the anybody's dignity by claiming that the board should focus on more salient issues than how much dignity to grant various gender/sexual minorities.
> Who is "we"? All of the activities you describe have been practiced by some human societies.
I think you are very overconfident in the universality of your particular ethical beliefs.
We is you and me, on today, 2019, benefiting from the moral failures of those that precede us. Those that follow us will no doubt benefit from our moral failures.
We humans have done lots of bad things. I don't feel as if any worthy moral system (again, without committing to any system in particular) is threatened by the historicity of unjustified cruelty towards animals, other humans, and ourselves.
I also haven't presented any of my particular ethical beliefs, i.e. views that follow directly and uniquely from the particular moral system that I think is right. I've only presented ethical claims that I think all sound ethical systems uphold.
> what should I conclude about our ethics board from that?
That you should not believe you know the "right" answer to any ethical question.
> I don't think I'm undermining the anybody's dignity by claiming that the board should focus on more salient issues than how much dignity to grant various gender/sexual minorities.
Thinking that that question is not "salient" is the same mistake--you think it isn't salient because you think you already know the right answer. But what if you don't? You're not even considering that possibility, and that, I think, is a fatal mistake for an ethics board.
> We is you and me, on today, 2019, benefiting from the moral failures of those that precede us.
You're assuming you know which past beliefs were moral failures and which weren't. An ethics board shouldn't assume that.
> Those that follow us will no doubt benefit from our moral failures.
You're assuming you know that those particular things you cited aren't moral failures. An ethics board shouldn't assume that.
> I also haven't presented any of my particular ethical beliefs
Sure you have. You've made claims that you know certain things are wrong. Every such claim is an ethical belief.
> I've only presented ethical claims that I think all sound ethical systems uphold.
And your claim that "all sound ethical systems" uphold these beliefs is an ethical belief of yours.
It does indeed. And I do, indeed: basic dignity entails treating a person as an end in themselves, and never merely as a means.
> All problems in ethics are hard problems.
I don't think this is true. It's not particularly hard for me to answer that skinning cats alive for pleasure, pointlessly hurting other human beings, and irrationally loathing oneself are all obvious moral wrongs, in the sense we would not be willing to accept any moral system that permits them (much less encourages them).
As you mentioned in your parent comment, an ethics board should have a point. In order to have a point, we need to admit of at least some ethical baseline[1]. If not, we'll continue the most pointless ethical pursuit of all: re-litigating arguments that reduce to the ones we give philosophy undergraduates for practice. We have bigger fish to fry.
[1]: Even, as I have said, if that ethical baseline adheres to no particular moral system.