Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pick A Moral Theory

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:20:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:16:12 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
If you had to choose one comprehensive moral theory to adhere to, which would you pick and why?

I've pondered this question fairly frequently. I don't have a definitive answer, by any means, but I'd tend to lean towards a deontological ethical theory that, perhaps, allows for the consideration of consequences of the actions.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:39:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:16:12 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
If you had to choose one comprehensive moral theory to adhere to, which would you pick and why?

I wouldn't.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:40:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:20:23 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:16:12 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
If you had to choose one comprehensive moral theory to adhere to, which would you pick and why?

I've pondered this question fairly frequently. I don't have a definitive answer, by any means, but I'd tend to lean towards a deontological ethical theory that, perhaps, allows for the consideration of consequences of the actions.

Would this consider consequences of actions based on the greatest amount of good or personal good or would it be purely situational?
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:42:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm more of a utilitarian.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:44:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:42:45 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I'm more of a utilitarian.

Mob rule? That's what utilitarianism is. When the individual can be sacrificed for the "greatest amount of good" then you live in a mob ruled society.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:53:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:44:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:42:45 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I'm more of a utilitarian.

Mob rule? That's what utilitarianism is. When the individual can be sacrificed for the "greatest amount of good" then you live in a mob ruled society.

I really think mob rule is the wrong word. It's not sacrificing someone if it's for the greater good. Just, when in moral situations do the most good for the most amount of people. You're making it sound like an anarchist democratic system of ethics. It can struggle with some moral dilemmas but same with every other.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:55:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:53:35 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:44:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:42:45 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I'm more of a utilitarian.

Mob rule? That's what utilitarianism is. When the individual can be sacrificed for the "greatest amount of good" then you live in a mob ruled society.

I really think mob rule is the wrong word. It's not sacrificing someone if it's for the greater good. Just, when in moral situations do the most good for the most amount of people. You're making it sound like an anarchist democratic system of ethics. It can struggle with some moral dilemmas but same with every other.

I've just never liked the theory because it completely sh!ts on individuals.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:58:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:55:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:53:35 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:44:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:42:45 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I'm more of a utilitarian.

Mob rule? That's what utilitarianism is. When the individual can be sacrificed for the "greatest amount of good" then you live in a mob ruled society.

I really think mob rule is the wrong word. It's not sacrificing someone if it's for the greater good. Just, when in moral situations do the most good for the most amount of people. You're making it sound like an anarchist democratic system of ethics. It can struggle with some moral dilemmas but same with every other.

I've just never liked the theory because it completely sh!ts on individuals.

Does it? Consider the other extreme, in which, insofar as one person is either of substantial consequence or capable of deriving more utility from sacrifice than is lost by those sacrificed, indefinitely many may be given up to serve that individual's utility. This is precisely why people in the military are often willing to give their lives to protect politicians or other so-called "high-value" individuals.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 12:25:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think morality is derived from nature. It's embedded in the human genetic code to both preserve self and family and to support the tribe. Moral conflicts arise from conflicts between the two instincts, and the conflict may not be resolvable in some cases. that makes morality absolute and ambiguous. The Kantian ethical principle to "act as if your rule of action were universal" is my preferred ethical principle.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:33:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:55:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:53:35 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:44:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:42:45 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I'm more of a utilitarian.

Mob rule? That's what utilitarianism is. When the individual can be sacrificed for the "greatest amount of good" then you live in a mob ruled society.

I really think mob rule is the wrong word. It's not sacrificing someone if it's for the greater good. Just, when in moral situations do the most good for the most amount of people. You're making it sound like an anarchist democratic system of ethics. It can struggle with some moral dilemmas but same with every other.

I've just never liked the theory because it completely sh!ts on individuals.

I don't feel that way at all. Every moral system will sh1t on someone. This is saying, if there's going to be sh1t, we need less sh1t on less people. Favoring one individual would be sh1tting on more individuals in some cases. The way you're making it sound is like the system goes out of its way to sh1t. When it doesn't.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:57:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Generally speaking I would usually just go with discourse ethics (of course it's status as a "moral" theory can be disputed) predicated on some form of egalitarian consideration (though not in the same way Habermas does). I think I posted about it before but can't remember where/when.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:59:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 12:25:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think morality is derived from nature. It's embedded in the human genetic code to both preserve self and family and to support the tribe. Moral conflicts arise from conflicts between the two instincts, and the conflict may not be resolvable in some cases. that makes morality absolute and ambiguous. The Kantian ethical principle to "act as if your rule of action were universal" is my preferred ethical principle.

I agree that morality is natural, but I don't agree that genetics created it. Morality, to me, is a natural balance to intelligence that is much more fundamental to the universe than anything "derived" from genetics. The balance of privilege and responsibility CANNOT be broken. Intelligent aliens would obey the same moral laws we do, provided their intelligence was similar in magnitude. More IQ=more moral consequence.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:42:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rational egoism, switching to utilitarianism when that theory is paralyzed by bringing violence into the situation. (Jews in the attic, hostage situations, people tied to train tracks, or anything else crazy).
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:56:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some version of utilitarianism.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:03:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:00:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:25:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Love.

This could be called quixotic if it weren't so devoid of substance.

I love you too.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:09:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:03:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:00:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:25:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Love.

This could be called quixotic if it weren't so devoid of substance.

I love you too.

I love cheeseburgers.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:10:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:09:33 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:03:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:00:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:25:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Love.

This could be called quixotic if it weren't so devoid of substance.

I love you too.

I love cheeseburgers.

I love lamp.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:18:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:40:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:20:23 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:16:12 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
If you had to choose one comprehensive moral theory to adhere to, which would you pick and why?

I've pondered this question fairly frequently. I don't have a definitive answer, by any means, but I'd tend to lean towards a deontological ethical theory that, perhaps, allows for the consideration of consequences of the actions.

Would this consider consequences of actions based on the greatest amount of good or personal good or would it be purely situational?

What do you mean by "personal good," exactly?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:42:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:25:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Love.

I would probs love FREEDO if he would just come back over to mutualism with me.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:47:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I have to presuppose some normative system as true for myself, I'd go with Karma Yoga (just descriptively, not including beliefs about "reincarnation" or any of that).

Without raising more questions than I answer, the best way to summarize it would be: Do your thing, but enjoy action for its own sake and do not desire after the fruits of that action.

If you gotta go to work, don't enjoy it because of the pay. If you have to kill someone, don't enjoy it because you've attained some desire for power or revenge.

Basically, once a person is able to constantly maintain the "right" state of mind (seeing his "self" in all versus his "self" as a ego in your head), you can loose him on the world and by definition he will do no evil. Why? Because only a madman would hurt himself for no good reason. And only a madman would eat his own finger to satisfy the desire to not be hungry.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 9:01:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kantian deontology.

You can just about justify anything under the categorical imperative depending on how specific you chose to be.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 9:03:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 9:01:50 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Kantian deontology.

You can just about justify anything under the categorical imperative depending on how specific you chose to be.

What about "Don't eat too much candy?"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 9:03:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 9:01:50 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Kantian deontology.

You can just about justify anything under the categorical imperative depending on how specific you chose to be.

That's a good thing?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 10:43:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 9:01:50 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Kantian deontology.

You can just about justify anything under the categorical imperative depending on how specific you chose to be.

No you can't. I actually think the categorical imperative is a relatively strict measure of morality if you apply it correctly.

But I do like Kant's theories on morality.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 1:49:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:45:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Islamic moral code -- objective morality as divine law.

Kinda vague. Divine command theory or what?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA