Here's a principle for you: there is a difference between saying how things are and saying how they ought to be. — Banno
That is not polite at all.... — Nickolasgaspar
It's not fun to have your assumptions questioned. — Banno
Well, actually, it is. It's kinda why we are here. — Banno
↪Banno
You are posting an abstract that is irrelevant to a specific method I am describing. Whether we ought to follow the outcome of the system in question IS IRRELEVANT.
I am trying to evaluate the system itself...and you avoid this challenge.
My system doesn't use "what is" to arrive to what "ought to be". IT identifies a common characteristic shared by KNOWN acts with positive moral value and uses it as an objective standard in our future evaluation. The system arrives to the "oughts" through the principles without taking in to account "what is the case".
Why this is so difficult for you??? — Nickolasgaspar
any acknowledgments or objections? — Nickolasgaspar
I understand the distinction Hume is making to be between the quantifiable (what is/is not) and the qualitative (what ought/ought not). — Wayfarer
not better....more rational and I accept the rules of the game. — Nickolasgaspar
My system doesn't use "what is" to arrive to what "ought to be". IT identifies a common characteristic shared by KNOWN acts with positive moral value and uses it as an objective standard in our future evaluation. The system arrives to the "oughts" through the principles without taking in to account "what is the case". — Nickolasgaspar
First of all lets assume that future societies do manage to find out that a currently "immoral" practice X does promote the well being of individual members and society's as a whole in the near or far future. — Nickolasgaspar
no immoral behavior against a specific population or members of a society can be justified as moral just because other larger populations (in future or contemporary) are benefited by it. — Nickolasgaspar
those qualities do not demand special skills...anyone can do it. — Nickolasgaspar
The naturalistic fallacy remains: that babies act in a certain way does not imply that you ought also act in a certain way. — Banno
so an interesting philosophical question would be why they don't do it? — Nickolasgaspar
I'm not talking about finding out in future, I'm talking about a disagreement in predictions. If your metric is the harm to well-being an action might cause then you're always predicting the future since you're always talking about consequences. You say "hitting that person is bad because it will cause then harm, not "hitting that person is bad because it has caused them harm". — Isaac
-You will need to provide an example on that where the well being of people changes dramatically during time.I'm pointing out that one could then say "yes, but it will cause them an even greater well-being further on" — Isaac
-The principle is the tool by which we choose our "theory". The principle stays unchanged.What I'm describing, in a roundabout way, is really just an example of the general problem of underdetermination applied to your 'moral science' - the same body of evidence can used to support multiple theories — Isaac
You're already describing the behaviour in question as immoral and we're talking about determining whether a behaviour is immoral or not. If what you mean to say is "no harmful behaviour against a specific population or members of a society can be justified as moral just because other larger populations (in future or contemporary) are benefited by it — Isaac
So if we agree on the principle....are we reasonable to thing that if we choose the act that increases our well being ..can we be sure we have a Moral system that can produce objective moral values?
If not why? — Nickolasgaspar
killing a terrorist before blowing up a school. — Nickolasgaspar
From helping small kids cross the street — Nickolasgaspar
It offers evaluations based on contemporary knowledge on the implications specific acts have on well being. — Nickolasgaspar
-You will need to provide an example on that where the well being of people changes dramatically during time. — Nickolasgaspar
-The principle is the tool by which we choose our "theory". The principle stays unchanged. — Nickolasgaspar
Take any act you accept as objectively moral or immoral and check whether it shares the same characteristic with any other act that you can thing (promotes or reduces the well being of members) — Nickolasgaspar
Can you imagine other metrics that are affected by moral or immoral acts and can be used as an objective principle for new evaluations? — Nickolasgaspar
-I agree with that statement...this is why we are discussing it.But there are still issues to iron out - hypothetically :- — Tom Storm
-Sure, we talk about total strangers in our society. Would it be at our interested if we lived in a society that allows people to blow up public buildings? Is this a society that would qualify as ideal?There's a choice made here to care about strangers who don't really matter to us. They are not our children, right? — Tom Storm
-No, morality is not that altruistic. ITs more about us not being pleased living in societies where our existence and well being can be affected by others at any time.Are you sure that your concern for wellbeing isn't just a form of sentimentalism based on a fading Christian ethic and its concern for underdogs and losers?
Why not just take care of ourselves and our own circle and not care about other's wellbeing? — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.