Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral systems

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:56:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am not a philosophy major but discussions on moral systems seem to very popular at DDO. Can anyone explain what are the different moral system you use while debating, which are more advantageous than others, and what Deontological, Utilitarian, Consequentialist (and any others that I forgot) mean?
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:00:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Utilitarianism say the correct actions is the one which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Sometimes shortened as "net benefits". It would support killing 1 to save 5.

Deontology says that we cannot use anyone as a means to an end, and chiefly that the ends don't justify the means. It would not support killing 1 to save 5. Deo says we have to treat every human as intrinsically valuable and never undermine it under any circumstances.

It also concerns itself with the intent of an action. If I'm trying to kill the president but somehow end up saving his life, deontology would say I was still in the wrong even though the end result was good. Conversely, if I kill someone by complete accident, deo would say I shouldn't be punished because I wasn't intending harm.

Consequentialism says the correct action is the one which produces the best consequences. What the best consequence actually is is up for debate.

The Social Contract says that by existing in a society, we agree to the rules it has set. If we break said rules, we lose the rights the society gives us. For example, by living in the U.S., I am tacitly conceding that I should pay my taxes. If I choose not to pay my taxes, then I forfeit my right to freedom and will be thrown in jail.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:00:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
(Copy/pasted from the previous thread)

Deontology: The idea that everyone has a moral duty or ruleset to follow.

Utilitarianism: You should do whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people (related to consequentialism).

Consequentialism: The morality of an action can only be determined by the consequence of it.

Social Contact Theory: Whatever follows the social contract of a society is moral.

Sociobiological Theory: Whatever fits into societal norms/benefits humans' survival is moral.

Virtue Theory: Humans have a natural sense of virtue (relating to human flourishing and a sense of belonging). Thus, anything that follows this virtue is moral.

Moral nihiism: No objective moral truths exist.

Moral subjectivism: The moral value of something depends entirely on the observer.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 6:13:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.

Though it seems to be a grey area whether it's a political philosophy or an ethical system. For instance, many libertarians such as Ron Paul subscribe to rights based ethics yet morally abhor certain behaviors that would be allowed in such a society i.e. drug use.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 6:25:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 6:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.

Though it seems to be a grey area whether it's a political philosophy or an ethical system. For instance, many libertarians such as Ron Paul subscribe to rights based ethics yet morally abhor certain behaviors that would be allowed in such a society i.e. drug use.

It can be both - my philosophy thesis was on a hybrid system of rights-based utilitarianism.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 7:24:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would point to the objective perfect moral agent system.
No one seems to reference it above.

This is a system by which most religions capitalize upon when discussing the source for defining their ethical approach.

Athiest Shelly Kagan agrees and even asserts this at great length and points to an objective conceivable perfect moral agent to justify the transcendence of morality and virtue.

I believe that perfect moral agent to be God and allow Him to translate what is appropriate.

To use the most common example would be Nazi Naturalism.
All forms of morality listed above and the perfect moral agent agree that murder is wrong. Nazi's agree that murder is wrong.

However, Nazi's do not believe that cooking Jew children in ovens is murder. I look to my source of definition of what murder is by looking to find the perfect moral agent.

The other systems would all make subjective insights like "what would the outcome of such action net any person/society etc.."
Of course Nazism felt the greatest good would come from the actions.

None of the above systems would claim that anything is TRULY wrong in cooking Jew children in ovens, only that doing so is either not expedient, not the greatest benefit etc...

I firmly know in the core of my being that cooking Jew Children in ovens is TRULY wrong. I simply cannot fathom a person who would deny the transcendent quality of right and wrong.

I can only look to my past denial of the transendent quality because I wanted to do what I knew deep inside was wrong.

I am of course summarizing but hopefully that will inspire a bit more search into a Perfect Moral Agent source of transcendent definitions of right and wrong.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 7:32:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 7:24:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
None of the above systems would claim that anything is TRULY wrong in cooking Jew children in ovens, only that doing so is either not expedient, not the greatest benefit etc...

I firmly know in the core of my being that cooking Jew Children in ovens is TRULY wrong. I simply cannot fathom a person who would deny the transcendent quality of right and wrong.

Except of course for rights based ethics or deonotological ethics right?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:30:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 7:24:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I would point to the objective perfect moral agent system.
No one seems to reference it above.

This is essentially Firth's Ideal Observer system.

None of the above systems would claim that anything is TRULY wrong in cooking Jew children in ovens, only that doing so is either not expedient, not the greatest benefit etc...

Rights-based utilitarianism would as a substantive claim.

I firmly know in the core of my being that cooking Jew Children in ovens is TRULY wrong. I simply cannot fathom a person who would deny the transcendent quality of right and wrong.

No.... you truly know in the core of your being that you have arrived at what you believe to the proper conclusion about the moral import of cooking Jew babies given your moral system.

I can only look to my past denial of the transendent quality because I wanted to do what I knew deep inside was wrong.

I can only assume this is because you've been infected with the religious propaganda that all non-objective moral systems are just the actor's preference so that they can do something they know to be wrong.

If morality is truly transcendent, would it exist in the absence of moral actors, God, and other entities of moral import?

I am of course summarizing but hopefully that will inspire a bit more search into a Perfect Moral Agent source of transcendent definitions of right and wrong.

I suggest you read Firth's article on the matter. The Ideal Observer is not a very compelling position.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:52:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 6:25:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.

Though it seems to be a grey area whether it's a political philosophy or an ethical system. For instance, many libertarians such as Ron Paul subscribe to rights based ethics yet morally abhor certain behaviors that would be allowed in such a society i.e. drug use.

It can be both - my philosophy thesis was on a hybrid system of rights-based utilitarianism.

What differentiates your "right-based utilitarianism" from rule utilitarianism?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:52:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 6:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.

Though it seems to be a grey area whether it's a political philosophy or an ethical system. For instance, many libertarians such as Ron Paul subscribe to rights based ethics yet morally abhor certain behaviors that would be allowed in such a society i.e. drug use.

I would have to hear the normative justifications for this theory, but what differentiates it from deontology?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 9:39:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:52:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:25:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.

Though it seems to be a grey area whether it's a political philosophy or an ethical system. For instance, many libertarians such as Ron Paul subscribe to rights based ethics yet morally abhor certain behaviors that would be allowed in such a society i.e. drug use.

It can be both - my philosophy thesis was on a hybrid system of rights-based utilitarianism.

What differentiates your "right-based utilitarianism" from rule utilitarianism?

Rule-based utilitarianism states that the proper action comports with one of a set of rules that determine the best benefit. Contrast with act-based utilitarianism that basically cuts out the rules. I'm oversimplifying a little bit here, but for all intents and purposes, RBU collapses into ABU because otherwise you would need an infinitely complex set of rules to describe different situations... while direct consideration of the act itself will suffice.

That said, rights-based utilitarianism begins with the proviso that one should act for the greatest net benefit insofar as much as one does not violates the rights of others. So there is no set of rules that produce "the good" in rights-based utilitarianism - the action is judged on its consequences, albeit with the prior assumption that some consequences (i.e. violation of certain rights) established a de facto wrongness.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 4:11:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:52:48 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.

Though it seems to be a grey area whether it's a political philosophy or an ethical system. For instance, many libertarians such as Ron Paul subscribe to rights based ethics yet morally abhor certain behaviors that would be allowed in such a society i.e. drug use.

I would have to hear the normative justifications for this theory, but what differentiates it from deontology?

Deontology is a general type of ethical system, right based ethics are a specific type of deontological ethics.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 1:14:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 9:39:15 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
So there is no set of rules that produce "the good" in rights-based utilitarianism - the action is judged on its consequences, albeit with the prior assumption that some consequences (i.e. violation of certain rights) established a de facto wrongness.

those two parts of "goodness" makes the notion seem muddled and without coherence..

why are the things "of importance/good" ?
saying utility is good b/c it fulfills what you would have.. that it's useful.. is fairly straightforward.. and makes solid and coherent sense of "good"

saying actions that are useful that don't violate the rights of others are what is Good is muddled and needs further explanation.

Again.. Saying something is Useful is saying it's Good in some manner.. it accomplishes what you want.. Fulfills your cares.. makes you happy.

But how is it that the goodness of utility can be limited by "rights" what are Rights? how are they existent? and in what non-utilitarian way are they important?

what is the importance of "rights" if not that they make things how you would have them?
What is "Importance" if it's Not rooted in what you care about/ how you'd care for things to be?

the word "Utility" suggests that it carries such Valuations within itself.. Something can only be "useful" if someone cares to have it done..
Calling something Useful is saying accomplishes something 'good'/what someone cares about in some manner.. Saying it's Important to someone.

How is it that "Rights" are important? by what standard if not Utility... How do notions of "rights" necessitate Universal/objective concurrence as to those Suggested Things importance?

Similarly... Universal-type, normal, 'utilitiarianism' suffers a similar problem in that Who's it useful/important to?? and how's can such a thing be claimed to be universally/Always important?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 1:24:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 1:14:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/10/2011 9:39:15 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
So there is no set of rules that produce "the good" in rights-based utilitarianism - the action is judged on its consequences, albeit with the prior assumption that some consequences (i.e. violation of certain rights) established a de facto wrongness.

those two parts of "goodness" makes the notion seem muddled and without coherence..

it's like saying an All-perfect being must be All powerful and All benevolent..

well.. what do you mean by perfect that it necessitates having the characteristics of Powerful and Benevolent?

You can just SAY "perfect" means Powerful, benevolent, Conscious.. etc.. but just Listing things and asserting them as "perfect" doesn't show those things to be related in some manner that it would be defensible to group them Together under the same heading..

why are Benevolence and consciousness aspects of Perfection?.. what does Perfection MEAN that those various, unrelated things fall under it.. Just ASSERTING that they do without showing how they relate to each other in a coherent way that you can see them as falling under whatever is meant by "Perfection" is not very interesting... and Listing various unrelated aspects and just Asserting that they're all similar in sufficient degree to be called under One heading is Not interesting... and Indefensible.

what does Goodness mean that both Utility and Rights fall under it?
Just Saying the two are so related doesn't explain how they are...

A second baseman's glove, pitcher's glove, and catcher's mit are all baseball gloves.. b/c they're all gloves used in baseball despite having particular differences.

knives, forks, spoons are all silverware b/c they're all eating utensils.

What does "good" mean that both Utility and "rights" fall under it? needs explanation.. not Listing.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 1:27:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

That's Deontology. "rights" are the rule set to be followed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 1:30:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 4:11:34 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:52:48 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.

Though it seems to be a grey area whether it's a political philosophy or an ethical system. For instance, many libertarians such as Ron Paul subscribe to rights based ethics yet morally abhor certain behaviors that would be allowed in such a society i.e. drug use.

I would have to hear the normative justifications for this theory, but what differentiates it from deontology?

Deontology is a general type of ethical system, right based ethics are a specific type of deontological ethics.

Just saw this, ignore my other post.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 1:38:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 9:39:15 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:52:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:25:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:31:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
^^You're missing rights based ethics i.e. it is immoral to violate one's natural and inalienable rights.

Ironic that I missed the ethical system I subscribe to.

Though it seems to be a grey area whether it's a political philosophy or an ethical system. For instance, many libertarians such as Ron Paul subscribe to rights based ethics yet morally abhor certain behaviors that would be allowed in such a society i.e. drug use.

It can be both - my philosophy thesis was on a hybrid system of rights-based utilitarianism.

What differentiates your "right-based utilitarianism" from rule utilitarianism?

Rule-based utilitarianism states that the proper action comports with one of a set of rules that determine the best benefit. Contrast with act-based utilitarianism that basically cuts out the rules. I'm oversimplifying a little bit here, but for all intents and purposes, RBU collapses into ABU because otherwise you would need an infinitely complex set of rules to describe different situations... while direct consideration of the act itself will suffice.

That said, rights-based utilitarianism begins with the proviso that one should act for the greatest net benefit insofar as much as one does not violates the rights of others. So there is no set of rules that produce "the good" in rights-based utilitarianism - the action is judged on its consequences, albeit with the prior assumption that some consequences (i.e. violation of certain rights) established a de facto wrongness.

I view rights-based utilitarianism as a two layered ethics system. First being Deontological, second being Utilitarianism.

Basically, before you decide to do something, you stop and consider (though in reality, this should all happen subconciously and instantaniously).

1) What options will violate people's rights (deontological)? Cross those of the list of options and continue to step two.

2) Of the remaining options, apply standard utilitarian ethics (do what makes the most good for the most people).

This ethics system is fairly common with libertarians and Ancaps, since it works perfectly to shed the image that they are selfish and only thinking of themselves (that many people like to try to throw on them).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 2:52:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Consequentialism is ultimately rooted in getting at what people care about.. Getting "Utility"... utility being something which is useful.. which Brings good.. Brings what you care about.

The only defensible "good" of consequentialism is what you care about... Things which have "utility" bring that good.

How "rights" interact with that good of what you care about needs explaining.

I can see how Respecting/Enforcing certain conceptual 'rights' could be of Utility/ BRING good... given certain cares...

however I cannot see how it Relates to this Good of what you care about But through such consequentialist reasoning.

Is the "Good" of your system JCMT one thing which Both Rights and "utility" relate to? what is that Good? is it based in Your cares?

Saying it's got something to do with Utility would make it seem as though it's to do with Cares... Being that something can't have "Utility" without your caring to have things go certain ways...
Then you say this Good also has to do with Rights..

Is this Good based in what you care for?.. how you would have things? like what would make you most satisfied?

If it is.. how are "rights" connected to what you care about?
If it's not.. what is it based in.. and what's "utility" if not getting at what you care for?? and why's it important?

Do you find that you simply are emotionally involved in the case of an obvious child rapist and murderer such that you would wish to see him treated equally before the law??

Or would you see him treated equally because there are Other things you care about (not His treatment in particular) which are supported by Regular equal treatment of people.. and you worry that if it's not Widespread it can be non-existent in cases where you'd see it exist.

Or would you see him treated equally just b/c of "rights" with no further exlanation as to how they're important. (a silly answer)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 11:51:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:56:32 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I am not a philosophy major but discussions on moral systems seem to very popular at DDO. Can anyone explain what are the different moral system you use while debating, which are more advantageous than others, and what Deontological, Utilitarian, Consequentialist (and any others that I forgot) mean?

Has anyone ever come up with a quiz or survey to helps someone determine what their (generally speaking) Moral basis is?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 9:48:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 11:51:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Has anyone ever come up with a quiz or survey to helps someone determine what their (generally speaking) Moral basis is?

Sure. Do you favor a system that is consistent, simple, and solves any example presented to it with ease? Then you are a rule-deontologist.

Do you instead favor a system that is complex and contradictory, requiring layer upon layer of technical explanation to describe in order to keep your high-brow philosophy cohorts guessing? Do you not mind if your system is inept in guiding moral action in every-day circumstances? Then become a utilitarian or virtue ethicist, or some other combination of the other ethical systems out there. Just as economists make scientific endeavors a function of money (and screwing up the economy in the process), philosophers make morality a function of intelligence. Basing morality on technical skill means that only intellectual elites can figure out how to act morally. This assumption is dangerous as well as ignorant.
Rob
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 12:00:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 9:48:21 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/11/2011 11:51:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Has anyone ever come up with a quiz or survey to helps someone determine what their (generally speaking) Moral basis is?

Sure. Do you favor a system that is consistent, simple, and solves any example presented to it with ease? Then you are a rule-deontologist.

Do you instead favor a system that is complex and contradictory, requiring layer upon layer of technical explanation to describe in order to keep your high-brow philosophy cohorts guessing? Do you not mind if your system is inept in guiding moral action in every-day circumstances? Then become a utilitarian or virtue ethicist, or some other combination of the other ethical systems out there. Just as economists make scientific endeavors a function of money (and screwing up the economy in the process), philosophers make morality a function of intelligence. Basing morality on technical skill means that only intellectual elites can figure out how to act morally. This assumption is dangerous as well as ignorant.

I'm not sure why my last reply didn't post. :(

Here's the short version.

"I would like a system that can be presented, argued, defended and established with as close to complete objectivity as can be humanly achieved."
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 12:44:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For rights based eithics (i.e., socialpinko), how does one determine basic rights?
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 12:48:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 12:00:59 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/12/2011 9:48:21 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/11/2011 11:51:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Has anyone ever come up with a quiz or survey to helps someone determine what their (generally speaking) Moral basis is?

Sure. Do you favor a system that is consistent, simple, and solves any example presented to it with ease? Then you are a rule-deontologist.

Do you instead favor a system that is complex and contradictory, requiring layer upon layer of technical explanation to describe in order to keep your high-brow philosophy cohorts guessing? Do you not mind if your system is inept in guiding moral action in every-day circumstances? Then become a utilitarian or virtue ethicist, or some other combination of the other ethical systems out there. Just as economists make scientific endeavors a function of money (and screwing up the economy in the process), philosophers make morality a function of intelligence. Basing morality on technical skill means that only intellectual elites can figure out how to act morally. This assumption is dangerous as well as ignorant.

I'm not sure why my last reply didn't post. :(

Here's the short version.

"I would like a system that can be presented, argued, defended and established with as close to complete objectivity as can be humanly achieved."

Why not also demand simplicity? Consistency? Not just internal consistency, but consistency with other disciplines as well.
Rob
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 2:07:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 12:44:36 PM, kohai wrote:
For rights based eithics (i.e., socialpinko), how does one determine basic rights?

There are several ways people have tried to in the past. Some believed God gave them to us while others believed they came from our nature as human beings. I myself follow Hoppe's method of discourse ethics to determine normative ethics. Hoppe basically analyzes the things and actions that must be present for one to engage in true discourse(and basically justify anything) and from there one can determine a normative ethical theory. If something is necessary to even engage in the process necessary for justification than whatever that is must be justified in itself.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 2:48:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 11:51:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:56:32 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I am not a philosophy major but discussions on moral systems seem to very popular at DDO. Can anyone explain what are the different moral system you use while debating, which are more advantageous than others, and what Deontological, Utilitarian, Consequentialist (and any others that I forgot) mean?

Has anyone ever come up with a quiz or survey to helps someone determine what their (generally speaking) Moral basis is?

Start how every ethics 101 class starts:

A trolley (i.e. in British English a tram) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 4:13:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 11:51:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:56:32 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I am not a philosophy major but discussions on moral systems seem to very popular at DDO. Can anyone explain what are the different moral system you use while debating, which are more advantageous than others, and what Deontological, Utilitarian, Consequentialist (and any others that I forgot) mean?

Has anyone ever come up with a quiz or survey to helps someone determine what their (generally speaking) Moral basis is?

http://www.philosophersnet.com...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 4:30:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 4:13:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/11/2011 11:51:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:56:32 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I am not a philosophy major but discussions on moral systems seem to very popular at DDO. Can anyone explain what are the different moral system you use while debating, which are more advantageous than others, and what Deontological, Utilitarian, Consequentialist (and any others that I forgot) mean?

Has anyone ever come up with a quiz or survey to helps someone determine what their (generally speaking) Moral basis is?

http://www.philosophersnet.com...

Neat test. :)

I scored 76%
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 4:31:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 2:07:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/12/2011 12:44:36 PM, kohai wrote:
For rights based eithics (i.e., socialpinko), how does one determine basic rights?

There are several ways people have tried to in the past. Some believed God gave them to us while others believed they came from our nature as human beings. I myself follow Hoppe's method of discourse ethics to determine normative ethics. Hoppe basically analyzes the things and actions that must be present for one to engage in true discourse(and basically justify anything) and from there one can determine a normative ethical theory. If something is necessary to even engage in the process necessary for justification than whatever that is must be justified in itself.

Ah. I am battling between utilitarianism and nihilism.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist