Outside of sociopathy, all humans seek to please some authority (but a better word than 'please' is needed here.) & not just any authority - an authority that is legitimate. This fuzzy idea of legitimacy (which begins in childhood) brings with it all kind of ideas of what makes someone legitimate. — csalisbury
The best we can do is just muddle along. Hey, unenlightened? — Banno
Even if we never had to act while tired or in pain and always had hours to flowchart outcomes, there would be unknowns. — frank
theory cannot conceive that it is itself corrupt, and the calculation cannot calculate the consequences of calculating. — unenlightened
If I hold a theory that it is morally good to murder my wife on the basis of the perceived consequences, — Isaac
But if someone really thinks, in advance,I that it is open to question whether such an action as procuring the judicial execution of the innocent should be quite excluded from consideration-I do not want to argue with him; he shows a corrupt mind. — A
If I have a corrupt mind, I will have corrupt ethics and make corrupt calculations. — unenlightened
Their decision-making methods may be flawed, either by our own or by their standards. — Isaac
Morality is ultimately about judgement. It's about living with the consequences of our past actions. We head into the future with the innocent but potentially destructive desire to live. — frank
Outside of sociopathy, all humans seek to please some authority (but a better word than 'please' is needed here.) & not just any authority - an authority that is legitimate. This fuzzy idea of legitimacy (which begins in childhood) brings with it all kind of ideas of what makes someone legitimate. — csalisbury
If I have a corrupt mind, I will have corrupt ethics and make corrupt calculations. This much must surely be accounted for, as one has ample evidence for its occurrence in the world. "I am an exceptionally fine fellow, and therefore anything that helps me is a good thing and anything that hinders me is a bad thing." I don't need to name names do I? — unenlightened
Interesting, despite 'hints' of psychologism (i.e. Protagorean / species relativism) vis-à-vis rational ethics, or moral philosophy. (Maybe these 'hints' are merely apparent and figments of my own philosophical idiosyncracies, or sensibilities. :chin:)Given an ethical model, or morality (classification of human events as moral or immoral), the realisation of right (moral) action involves applying one of the following:
1) General approach (e.g., Master Rule, or Method)
2) Particular approach (e.g., Virtue)
The amount of time available for decision-making depends on the exigencies of a situation. Required response time varies along a continuum between immediate and eventual.
1) Immediate decision-making requires automatic processing.
2) Eventual decision-making permits controlled processing.
So, the exigencies of a situation determine the type of mental processing required (automatic and/or controlled), and which right action approach is most suitable. For example, the application of a:
1) Master Rule Approach is suitable for automatic processing.
2) Method Approach is suitable for a combination of automatic and controlled processing.
3) Virtue Approach is suitable for controlled processing. — Galuchat
Clarification: Do you mean that consequentialism has higher confidence than virtue but lower confidence than deontology? so that deontology (highest), consequentialism (median) & virtue (lowest)?I think time is not the only factor determining method. I think confidence in available data also plays a role, particularly between virtue (low confidence) and consequentialism (high confidence). Also position and confidence in social h[ie]ra[rc]hy plays a strong role between deontology (high confidence) and conseq[uen]tialism (low confidence). — Isaac
Morality is just as much about judging possible future actions as it is about judging actual past actions. — Metaphysician Undercover
Clarification: Do you mean that consequentialism has higher confidence than virtue but lower confidence than deontology? so that deontology (highest), consequentialism (median) & virtue (lowest)? — 180 Proof
Okay. Even better ...No. One scale is to do with confidence in the data, the other is confidence in ones social group. — Isaac
I guess the Bayesian-ness here gives me less confidence with this "inclination". You may be right though.All I'm saying there is that one might be more inclined to use consequentialist decision-making methods if one had a high degree of confidence in the data
So duty when higher confidence in social group and (fall back on) virtue when lower confidence in social group? Intuitively makes sense.The other scale is similar, but with duty and social groups. People tend to be more happy to use unquestioned duty to determine right actions in groups to which they are strongly attached. — Isaac
I guess the Bayesian-ness here gives me less confidence with this "inclination". — 180 Proof
So duty when higher confidence in social group and (fall back on) virtue when lower confidence in social group? Intuitively makes sense. — 180 Proof
Such allegations of "corrupt" can only be supported in relation to the principles of some system. — Metaphysician Undercover
I do not want to argue with him; he shows a corrupt mind. — A
Strictly speaking, we can only judge hypotheticals. We dont know future events and so there's nothing to judge. 'Looking backward, living forward'. We enter the future ass first. — frank
Well indeed. So they remain unsupported. — unenlightened
Given an ethical model, or morality (classification of human events as moral or immoral), the realisation of right (moral) action involves applying one of the following:
1) General approach (e.g., Master Rule, or Method)
2) Particular approach (e.g., Virtue) — Galuchat
No they do not remain unsupported, we support them all the time, by referring to ethical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
Given an ethical model, or morality (classification of human events as moral or immoral), the realisation of right (moral) action involves applying one of the following:
1) General approach (e.g., Master Rule, or Method)
2) Particular approach (e.g., Virtue) — Galuchat
Galuchat, I am impressed how methodically you have thought this through. — god must be atheist
My only objection to your presentation is the notion of "given ethical model". It is given either in a general approach, or in a particular approach, and both approaches involve a basic sense of morality, but neither approaches spell out what that basic sense of morality is. — god must be atheist
Well indeed. So they remain unsupported.
— unenlightened
No they do not remain unsupported, we support them all the time, by referring to ethical principles. That's what I told Banno, and Banno suggested that we might just declare that courage is a virtue without reference to any ethics for support. But that's not reality, in reality we support those judgements with such references. — Metaphysician Undercover
The application of an approach to realise (actualise) right action is a function of Normative Ethics (the topic of this thread), whereas; "what morality is" is a function of Descriptive Ethics, which is off-topic. — Galuchat
I really don't understand your argument. You seem to be declaring what we do and then complaining that we're not doing it. I'm saying that Anscombe is saying that there are positions she will not engage with. If you want to engage with them, that's up to you. As a vegetarian, I am simply not interested in the nutritional value of meat. — unenlightened
This is true. Very true. The saddest part is, that ethical principles are what each person who refers to them calls them. They are arbitrary, while appearing to have a certain theme (but that is only appearance.)
Ethical principles either don't exist, or we haven't discovered them yet. Therefore the referring to ethical principles is a snow job, a wool over other's eyes, it is a pungent force of argument, without any essence or logical backing. — god must be atheist
As a vegetarian, I am simply not interested in the nutritional value of meat. — unenlightened
Ethics is not a matter of enforcing your morality onto others — Metaphysician Undercover
What does that say about ultimate morality? What is it judged by? — Qwex
What does that say about ultimate morality? What is it judged by? — Qwex
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.