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

Moral philosophy- What is your view?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 12:12:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is your view, and why? I am mostly referring in Metaethics, but would not mind hearing views in Normative/Applied ethics. I don't generally discuss philosophy (I am fairly ignorant about it), so feel free to explain anything and everything. :-)

http://www.philosophybasics.com...
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 2:06:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
According to Aristotle, "Nature does nothing in vain", so it is only when a person acts in accordance with their nature and thereby realizes their full potential, that they will do good and therefore be content in life. He held that self-realization (the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents) is the surest path to happiness, which is the ultimate goal, all other things (such as civic life or wealth) being merely means to an end. He encouraged moderation in all things, the extremes being degraded and immoral, (e.g. courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness), and held that Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. Virtue, for Aristotle, denotes doing the right thing to the right person at the right time to the proper extent in the correct fashion and for the right reason - something of a tall order.

At 2/22/2015 12:12:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
What is your view, and why? I am mostly referring in Metaethics, but would not mind hearing views in Normative/Applied ethics. I don't generally discuss philosophy (I am fairly ignorant about it), so feel free to explain anything and everything. :-)

http://www.philosophybasics.com...
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...

See above (for some reason (????) my cell phone INSISTS on copying to the top).

This is from your first link. That sounds a lot like Budhism, which I am beginning to study, especially the part about moderation.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

Morality is, most fundamentally, the natural balance of responsibility for the privilege of intelligence. Every privilege in nature is associated with a responsibility, there are no exceptions. Driving privileges require responsibility; getting promoted at a job; having a child; being exceptionally strong; being exceptionally rich; being a leader... whatever privileges exist in nature, there MUST be a responsibility associated with it. Think of a person who has a 1,000 IQ, who could outsmart anybody they wanted and cause as much harm as they wished without consequence. Wouldn't you say they would hypothetically have a greater responsibility than anybody else? Of course they would, and we are no different, we simply have less intelligence and less responsibility than said hypothetical genius. However we still do have considerable intelligence and considerable responsibility to use it wisely, and that is the heart of morality.

Morality actually manifests itself in the form of pride. We feel superior to those who aren't us. We also feel that people like us are superior to those who aren't like us (e.g., nationalism, ethnocentrism, etc.). It takes effort, and lots of it, to control pride and look at things logically. Logically, humans should operate as ants do, working towards common goals and utilizing resources in the most efficient way possible. People often respond to this point of mine and say that individuality is great, but individuality is not weakened through humility and selflessness, it is strengthened.

Taking another step towards specificity, pride is expanded out into what early Christians called the "seven deadly sins." I think that, although the metaphysics behind them is laughable, they had an excellent view on morality founded on the work of Jesus Christ.

Pride is the basis of immorality; self-superiority. Being selfish (greed), hating another because their success (envy), letting anger overcome you (wrath), or being excessively lazy (sloth), consumptive (gluttony) or indulgent (lust) are the seven ways in which an intelligent being, ANY intelligent being (hypothetically an alien would be subject to the same natural moral system) will abuse the responsibility of being intelligent.

The crux of moral action is whether or not you are doing something because it is reasonable or because you are emotionally-driven. All of our actions are based on reason unless emotion interrupts our judgment and makes them immoral.
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.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 8:48:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

If you categorized yourself, where do you think you would fall according to metaethics or normative ethics? http://www.philosophybasics.com...

Morality is, most fundamentally, the natural balance of responsibility for the privilege of intelligence. Every privilege in nature is associated with a responsibility, there are no exceptions. Driving privileges require responsibility; getting promoted at a job; having a child; being exceptionally strong; being exceptionally rich; being a leader... whatever privileges exist in nature, there MUST be a responsibility associated with it. Think of a person who has a 1,000 IQ, who could outsmart anybody they wanted and cause as much harm as they wished without consequence. Wouldn't you say they would hypothetically have a greater responsibility than anybody else? Of course they would, and we are no different, we simply have less intelligence and less responsibility than said hypothetical genius. However we still do have considerable intelligence and considerable responsibility to use it wisely, and that is the heart of morality.

Morality actually manifests itself in the form of pride. We feel superior to those who aren't us. We also feel that people like us are superior to those who aren't like us (e.g., nationalism, ethnocentrism, etc.). It takes effort, and lots of it, to control pride and look at things logically. Logically, humans should operate as ants do, working towards common goals and utilizing resources in the most efficient way possible. People often respond to this point of mine and say that individuality is great, but individuality is not weakened through humility and selflessness, it is strengthened.

Taking another step towards specificity, pride is expanded out into what early Christians called the "seven deadly sins." I think that, although the metaphysics behind them is laughable, they had an excellent view on morality founded on the work of Jesus Christ.

Pride is the basis of immorality; self-superiority. Being selfish (greed), hating another because their success (envy), letting anger overcome you (wrath), or being excessively lazy (sloth), consumptive (gluttony) or indulgent (lust) are the seven ways in which an intelligent being, ANY intelligent being (hypothetically an alien would be subject to the same natural moral system) will abuse the responsibility of being intelligent.

The crux of moral action is whether or not you are doing something because it is reasonable or because you are emotionally-driven. All of our actions are based on reason unless emotion interrupts our judgment and makes them immoral.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:15:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 8:48:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

If you categorized yourself, where do you think you would fall according to metaethics or normative ethics? http://www.philosophybasics.com...

I believe the ends cannot justify the means. I cannot under-emphasize how vehemently I believe this. That puts me firmly in the camp of deontology. I am a rule-deontologist because I believe in the seven deadly sins as rules.
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.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:49:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 9:15:47 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:48:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

If you categorized yourself, where do you think you would fall according to metaethics or normative ethics? http://www.philosophybasics.com...

I believe the ends cannot justify the means. I cannot under-emphasize how vehemently I believe this. That puts me firmly in the camp of deontology. I am a rule-deontologist because I believe in the seven deadly sins as rules.

I agree to an extent. I find consequentialism to be flawed. I believe some consequences can not justify the means used to achieve them.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 11:12:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 9:49:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:15:47 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:48:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

If you categorized yourself, where do you think you would fall according to metaethics or normative ethics? http://www.philosophybasics.com...

I believe the ends cannot justify the means. I cannot under-emphasize how vehemently I believe this. That puts me firmly in the camp of deontology. I am a rule-deontologist because I believe in the seven deadly sins as rules.

I agree to an extent. I find consequentialism to be flawed. I believe some consequences can not justify the means used to achieve them.

I don't think even the sternest consequentialist would argue that some consequences can't justify the means... that's not saying much! I believe it is impossible for good ends to come from bad means, there is only the perception that good ends can be achieved but that does not happen - not in real life anyway. Situations like the Trolley Problem do not exist in natural reality.
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.
ScareCr0we
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 1:00:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

Of course it's real. The question is weather or not it's true.
"You need people like me. People you can point at and say 'That's the bad guy'!"-Unknown
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 1:07:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 12:12:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
What is your view, and why? I am mostly referring in Metaethics, but would not mind hearing views in Normative/Applied ethics. I don't generally discuss philosophy (I am fairly ignorant about it), so feel free to explain anything and everything. :-)

http://www.philosophybasics.com...
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...

I've browsed your links and have taken a few philosophy type tests in the past to see which philosophers I am most aligned with (Socrates, Plato and Hegel are common results) but rather than to adopt any of their philosophies, I would rather present the basis of my own. . . and see what you and others might think of that.

Interested?
"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...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 1:28:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 1:07:23 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/22/2015 12:12:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
What is your view, and why? I am mostly referring in Metaethics, but would not mind hearing views in Normative/Applied ethics. I don't generally discuss philosophy (I am fairly ignorant about it), so feel free to explain anything and everything. :-)

http://www.philosophybasics.com...
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...

I've browsed your links and have taken a few philosophy type tests in the past to see which philosophers I am most aligned with (Socrates, Plato and Hegel are common results) but rather than to adopt any of their philosophies, I would rather present the basis of my own. . . and see what you and others might think of that.

Interested?

I'm interested.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:41:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 1:00:46 AM, ScareCr0we wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

Of course it's real. The question is weather or not it's true.

Convince me you are not making a meaningless semantic gesture here...
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.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:45:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 11:17:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Moral relativism. Utilitarianism. Whichever branch says the ends justify the means. I've never found an all-encompassing label.

You can either be a deontologist (ends cannot justify means) or a teleologist (ends do justify the means. Teleological beliefs are also called consequentialism. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialist theory. Just read the link he provided it explains it.
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.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:50:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:45:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:17:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Moral relativism. Utilitarianism. Whichever branch says the ends justify the means. I've never found an all-encompassing label.

You can either be a deontologist (ends cannot justify means) or a teleologist (ends do justify the means. Teleological beliefs are also called consequentialism. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialist theory. Just read the link he provided it explains it.

I'd be disappointed if that was teleology. Aristotle's usage of teleology in his arguments was atrocious.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:56:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:50:28 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:45:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:17:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Moral relativism. Utilitarianism. Whichever branch says the ends justify the means. I've never found an all-encompassing label.

You can either be a deontologist (ends cannot justify means) or a teleologist (ends do justify the means. Teleological beliefs are also called consequentialism. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialist theory. Just read the link he provided it explains it.

I'd be disappointed if that was teleology. Aristotle's usage of teleology in his arguments was atrocious.

I believe Aristotle was a virtue ethicist, which is the exception to the dichotomy I presented earlier. Instead of ends or means, he simply focuses on the character of the person acting. He creates the spectrums of virtue... you shouldn't be cowardly, you shouldn't be too courageous, you should be a moderately cautious. Or something like that :P
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.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:58:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:56:02 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:50:28 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:45:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:17:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Moral relativism. Utilitarianism. Whichever branch says the ends justify the means. I've never found an all-encompassing label.

You can either be a deontologist (ends cannot justify means) or a teleologist (ends do justify the means. Teleological beliefs are also called consequentialism. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialist theory. Just read the link he provided it explains it.

I'd be disappointed if that was teleology. Aristotle's usage of teleology in his arguments was atrocious.

I believe Aristotle was a virtue ethicist, which is the exception to the dichotomy I presented earlier. Instead of ends or means, he simply focuses on the character of the person acting. He creates the spectrums of virtue... you shouldn't be cowardly, you shouldn't be too courageous, you should be a moderately cautious. Or something like that :P

Yes. He also used teleology to justify natural masters and natural slaves.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 9:01:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 1:07:23 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/22/2015 12:12:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
What is your view, and why? I am mostly referring in Metaethics, but would not mind hearing views in Normative/Applied ethics. I don't generally discuss philosophy (I am fairly ignorant about it), so feel free to explain anything and everything. :-)

http://www.philosophybasics.com...
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...

I've browsed your links and have taken a few philosophy type tests in the past to see which philosophers I am most aligned with (Socrates, Plato and Hegel are common results) but rather than to adopt any of their philosophies, I would rather present the basis of my own. . . and see what you and others might think of that.

Interested?

Being pro-life, you are probably going to be starting with deontology. But I'd be interested to hear what your ideas are.
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.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:01:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 2:06:26 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
According to Aristotle, "Nature does nothing in vain", so it is only when a person acts in accordance with their nature and thereby realizes their full potential, that they will do good and therefore be content in life. He held that self-realization (the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents) is the surest path to happiness, which is the ultimate goal, all other things (such as civic life or wealth) being merely means to an end. He encouraged moderation in all things, the extremes being degraded and immoral, (e.g. courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness), and held that Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. Virtue, for Aristotle, denotes doing the right thing to the right person at the right time to the proper extent in the correct fashion and for the right reason - something of a tall order.

At 2/22/2015 12:12:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
What is your view, and why? I am mostly referring in Metaethics, but would not mind hearing views in Normative/Applied ethics. I don't generally discuss philosophy (I am fairly ignorant about it), so feel free to explain anything and everything. :-)

http://www.philosophybasics.com...
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...

See above (for some reason (????) my cell phone INSISTS on copying to the top).

This is from your first link. That sounds a lot like Budhism, which I am beginning to study, especially the part about moderation.

If you categorized yourself, where do you think you would fall according to metaethics or normative ethics?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:04:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 11:12:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:49:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:15:47 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:48:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

If you categorized yourself, where do you think you would fall according to metaethics or normative ethics? http://www.philosophybasics.com...

I believe the ends cannot justify the means. I cannot under-emphasize how vehemently I believe this. That puts me firmly in the camp of deontology. I am a rule-deontologist because I believe in the seven deadly sins as rules.

I agree to an extent. I find consequentialism to be flawed. I believe some consequences can not justify the means used to achieve them.

I don't think even the sternest consequentialist would argue that some consequences can't justify the means... that's not saying much! I believe it is impossible for good ends to come from bad means, there is only the perception that good ends can be achieved but that does not happen - not in real life anyway. Situations like the Trolley Problem do not exist in natural reality.

I guess that speaks to my ignorance. I thought individuals would seek a philosophy that was accurate as much as possible.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:05:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 11:17:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Moral relativism. Utilitarianism. Whichever branch says the ends justify the means. I've never found an all-encompassing label.

What flaws do you see with relativism or utilitarianism?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:19:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 10:04:09 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:12:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:49:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:15:47 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:48:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

If you categorized yourself, where do you think you would fall according to metaethics or normative ethics? http://www.philosophybasics.com...

I believe the ends cannot justify the means. I cannot under-emphasize how vehemently I believe this. That puts me firmly in the camp of deontology. I am a rule-deontologist because I believe in the seven deadly sins as rules.

I agree to an extent. I find consequentialism to be flawed. I believe some consequences can not justify the means used to achieve them.

I don't think even the sternest consequentialist would argue that some consequences can't justify the means... that's not saying much! I believe it is impossible for good ends to come from bad means, there is only the perception that good ends can be achieved but that does not happen - not in real life anyway. Situations like the Trolley Problem do not exist in natural reality.

I guess that speaks to my ignorance. I thought individuals would seek a philosophy that was accurate as much as possible.

Accuracy is a troubling way to categorize morality. If I'm an archer trying to hit a bulls-eye, then accuracy is the primary factor, and it becomes clear that my actions should all depend on that. But in morality, it's not so simple. Person A, you, says there's a bulls-eye in location 1 and methodology alpha is the most accurate at getting there. Person B agrees that there is a bulls-eye in location 1 but insists methodology beta is better. Person C insists there are many bulls-eyes, and it's only a relative matter as to which one we should aim for. Person D insists bulls-eyes don't actually exist. I could probably make dozens of discrete analogies about bulls-eyes, accuracy, and methodologies for hitting the mark(s), and associate each analogy with a particular ethical theory. I mean if it was as simple as you are inferring, we wouldn't have a branch of philosophy that's been keeping people busy for thousands of years, and a world full of people that can't agree on even the simplest principles to work from.
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.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:26:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 10:14:51 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm drawn to virtue ethics, I think.

Your avatar just made me intensely thirsty.

Virtue ethics is popular with intellectuals and philosophy students because it bypasses the perceived flaws in teleology (being too complex) and deontology (having to declare rather subjective standards to rest morality upon like God). The problem I see with it is that it doesn't really say anything. One end of the spectrum is too little, the other is too much, and I want "just right." Well, what exactly is "just right?" There's a gray area in the middle and it moves according to my desires.
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.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:32:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 10:19:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/23/2015 10:04:09 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:12:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:49:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:15:47 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:48:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:37:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality, to me, is real. Whenever somebody says it isn't, I tell them how they condone murder and rape, and they tell me some roundabout answer that never makes any sense.

If you categorized yourself, where do you think you would fall according to metaethics or normative ethics? http://www.philosophybasics.com...

I believe the ends cannot justify the means. I cannot under-emphasize how vehemently I believe this. That puts me firmly in the camp of deontology. I am a rule-deontologist because I believe in the seven deadly sins as rules.

I agree to an extent. I find consequentialism to be flawed. I believe some consequences can not justify the means used to achieve them.

I don't think even the sternest consequentialist would argue that some consequences can't justify the means... that's not saying much! I believe it is impossible for good ends to come from bad means, there is only the perception that good ends can be achieved but that does not happen - not in real life anyway. Situations like the Trolley Problem do not exist in natural reality.

I guess that speaks to my ignorance. I thought individuals would seek a philosophy that was accurate as much as possible.

Accuracy is a troubling way to categorize morality. If I'm an archer trying to hit a bulls-eye, then accuracy is the primary factor, and it becomes clear that my actions should all depend on that. But in morality, it's not so simple. Person A, you, says there's a bulls-eye in location 1 and methodology alpha is the most accurate at getting there. Person B agrees that there is a bulls-eye in location 1 but insists methodology beta is better. Person C insists there are many bulls-eyes, and it's only a relative matter as to which one we should aim for. Person D insists bulls-eyes don't actually exist. I could probably make dozens of discrete analogies about bulls-eyes, accuracy, and methodologies for hitting the mark(s), and associate each analogy with a particular ethical theory. I mean if it was as simple as you are inferring, we wouldn't have a branch of philosophy that's been keeping people busy for thousands of years, and a world full of people that can't agree on even the simplest principles to work from.

As I suggested - my ignorance.

However, is deontology not the most accurate method of explaining your views? The way you describe it, an individual cannot narrow down which theory describes their views. What am I missing? Do people subscribe to multiple theories? Would deontology not be distinct from consequentialism or virtue ethics?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:24:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 10:05:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:17:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Moral relativism. Utilitarianism. Whichever branch says the ends justify the means. I've never found an all-encompassing label.

What flaws do you see with relativism or utilitarianism?

Not many, which is why I support them. People like to criticize moral relativism for saying exactly what it does - that murder, rape, etc, are not objectively, morally speaking, wrong. Under a utilitarian ethic, they would be wrong. They can be wrong legally, ethically, etc.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:31:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 10:32:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

However, is deontology not the most accurate method of explaining your views?

It is.

The way you describe it, an individual cannot narrow down which theory describes their views. What am I missing? Do people subscribe to multiple theories?

You're missing the fact that "accuracy" is not a great way to define these things. I see your objective - you want a prescriptive theory to tell you what to do. John is eating a pizza with Jake, and there's one piece left at the end. Should John take the piece before Jake finishes his piece and goes for it? Is there an ethical theory that tells John what to do and "accurately" guides him through his ordeal?

I would say there is, and I would also say my system - being the best system in the history of the universe - is not only the most accurate but also the simplest. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the next guy can say morality has no meaning, that murder and rape aren't inherently wrong, or even that what is bad is actually good.

So how do different moral systems help John in his pizza dilemma? A utilitarian would be looking for maximum utility. Is the pizza worth more to John or Jake? What are the repercussions of each action? What about other actions which we haven't considered? Is there a pot of gold buried in the sand a mile away that John could find instead of eating pizza that would be quite more beneficial than sitting around eating pizza? Perhaps the pizza contains the cure for cancer and instead of eating it they should be analyzing it with a tunneling electron microscope. This is what I mean when I say that utilitarianism, and consequentialism as a whole, is unwieldy and infinitely complex - you never know what truly is the most beneficial course of action, or even what the scope of the actions you are analyzing truly is. And even if you had this information, it's difficult to measure utility in the first place. What's one unit of happiness? If both John and Jake want the pizza, which one will truly be happier with it?

My system eliminates the complexity by being concerned only with vice. One simply acts according to reason, until emotional vice enters the picture and interrupts our decision-making process. These vices are:
1) Pride (self-superiority)
2) Envy (hating others for their success)
3) Wrath (anger)
4) Greed (selfishness)
5) Gluttony (consumption)
6) Lust (desire)
7) Sloth (laziness)

So when John gets to the last slice of pizza, his instincts tell him that there's a conflict ahead (I want to eat the pizza, but I sense Jake is going to be mad if I do). So he consults the seven emotional impetuses that he knows will cause him to commit immoral action. With only seven to run through, he quickly identifies two that apply here: gluttony and greed. So there are two questions to ask himself:
1) Am I being excessively consumptive by eating this slice? Do I require the calories for energy and the nutrients for my bodily processes to function? If the answer is "no," then it doesn't matter whether Jake wants the pizza, we've already determined it's not good to eat it. We're just fattening ourselves by not controlling our diet. Assuming he does need the calories or nutrients,
2) Am I being selfish by eating the slice? Are there others that need it that I am hurting by consuming it? In this case the answer is certainly "yes," so he should stop himself from taking it. My analysis agrees with common manners so we can be reasonably certain we're making the right decision.

Now if Jake's not a moral person and he doesn't stop himself, then that conversation can commence about sharing the piece. But what's important is that John doesn't commit an immoral action. Immorality breeds guilt, and guilt is not a pain that goes away. Guilt is a peculiar type of pain that can last a lifetime, while things like physical pain, having a broken heart, or losing a loved-one to death will eventually heal.

Now one can say that the utilitarian would come to the conclusion about sharing the piece, but how, exactly? Why share the piece when you could be entering the winning lottery numbers at the gas-station down the street, or maximizing your utility by saving the guy who's drowning in his tub a few houses down? At what point does pizza even come into the equation?

Would deontology not be distinct from consequentialism or virtue ethics?

It is.
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.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:33:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 11:24:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Under a utilitarian ethic, they would be wrong. They can be wrong legally, ethically, etc.
If rape were to achieve a better utilitarian result, then rape is actually morally right. So the latter is more correct.
Senpai has noticed you.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:35:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 11:24:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/23/2015 10:05:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:17:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Moral relativism. Utilitarianism. Whichever branch says the ends justify the means. I've never found an all-encompassing label.

What flaws do you see with relativism or utilitarianism?

Not many, which is why I support them. People like to criticize moral relativism for saying exactly what it does - that murder, rape, etc, are not objectively, morally speaking, wrong. Under a utilitarian ethic, they would be wrong. They can be wrong legally, ethically, etc.

So how does one weigh legal utility versus ethical utility versus happiness utility versus environmental utility versus biological utility... If murder was legal then all of a sudden the utilitarian accepts that as a viable option?
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.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:37:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 11:33:29 AM, Beginner wrote:
At 2/23/2015 11:24:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Under a utilitarian ethic, they would be wrong. They can be wrong legally, ethically, etc.
If rape were to achieve a better utilitarian result, then rape is actually morally right. So the latter is more correct.

Rape doesn't achieve happiness for the greatest number of people. So, no, it can't be morally right under utilitarianism. The suffering of others is seldom necessary for the happiness of most.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:38:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 11:24:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/23/2015 10:05:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:17:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Moral relativism. Utilitarianism. Whichever branch says the ends justify the means. I've never found an all-encompassing label.

What flaws do you see with relativism or utilitarianism?

Not many, which is why I support them. People like to criticize moral relativism for saying exactly what it does - that murder, rape, etc, are not objectively, morally speaking, wrong. Under a utilitarian ethic, they would be wrong. They can be wrong legally, ethically, etc.

Yea, and don't forget relativism is illogical because it violates the Law of identity. ;-)

That is not my view, just an objection I heard recently.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten