What do you think about the harm principle? As in "prevent unnecessary harm and suffering?"
People are likely to follow that more than anything else and our laws are pretty much based on that principle. — 8livesleft
1. Nihilism- I conclude that nihilism is true due to the inability to logically justify any moral judgement (why rape is wrong, why I should help others, etc.).
2. Emotivism- I consider this to simply be factual, as evidence seems to show that we use the emotional part of our brain when answering moral questions.
4. Relativism- True because people have varying moral systems depending on culture, etc. — Pinprick
3. Hedonism- Essentially factual just like 2. It’s obvious that we avoid pain and pursue pleasure. — Pinprick
5. Egoism- True by default. Evolutionary pressures have led us to experience pleasure when we make choices that benefit ourselves (also, helping others oftentimes helps us as well). — Pinprick
6. Pragmatism- In life, I essentially ignore all of the above and instead just try to do whatever feels right and works for the particular situation. — Pinprick
values are both objective and subjective — Pinprick
to a nihilist, nothing you could say would make any difference. If it could make a difference, then they wouldn't be nihilist, because something - i.e. what you said - would matter. — Wayfarer
What do you think about the harm principle? As in "prevent unnecessary harm and suffering?" — 8livesleft
Emotivism is a theory of moral semantics. It's not just a theory that we use the emotional part of our brains when answering moral questions, but a theory that moral claims are just expressions of emotion like "boo this" and "yay that", the likes of which are not semantically capable of being true or false. — Pfhorrest
Hedonism isn't just the view that we do seek pleasure and avoid pain, it's the view that we should, and so is contrary to nihilism and thus emotivism. — Pfhorrest
Again, egoism isn't a view about what people do do, but what they should do. — Pfhorrest
What exactly does that mean here? — Pfhorrest
Perhaps objective as in universal (i.e. altruistic), but not objective as in transcendent; and subjective as in phenomenal (e.g. hedonistic), but not subjective as in relative? — Pfhorrest
We have irrefutable evidence that moral decisions are not made by consultation of any one of these rules, but rather by a varying, often contradictory consultation of several models at once depending on the specifics of the moral choice to be made. — Isaac
But what do you think of the principle in terms of the likelihood that it will be followed? — 8livesleft
Are you referring to dual process theory? — Pinprick
Any moral 'system' which tries to claim moral decisions are based on a single metric is just pointless armchair speculation without any reference to the real world in which this simply doesn't happen. — Isaac
It's only that there's no single method we use to determine a course of action in moral dilemmas, we use different approaches as the context changes. — Isaac
This is more about finding a way to answer someone who asks what morality I ascribe to. — Pinprick
But since you say that in practice you ignore all those things that you say you think, it still looks like you don’t actually think them, but just say you do. So I’d recommend instead saying that you think the things that you act like you think, and finding the right label for that instead. — Pfhorrest
I get what you’re saying, but it’s just difficult for me to say I believe something that I know is irrational. IOW, all of my moral actions are irrational in my view. As such, I really see no need in trying to justify them since it can’t be accomplished. That said, in practice I have general principles that I try not to violate for emotional/pragmatic reasons (guilt, punishment, undesirable outcomes, etc.). — Pinprick
And my principles are heavily weighted towards what I shouldn’t do, as opposed to what I should do. — Pinprick
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.