one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues — Alkis Piskas
I see, you mean the program, the regular plan that the driver should follow.The trolly scheme to collect travelers down the rail. Trollybus company bosses can be difficult... what if the driver knew he would loose his job? — EugeneW
Certainly.one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues
— Alkis Piskas
Not easy! — Agent Smith
Of course. You have acted based on "major good". This is exactly what I have mentioned a while ago to @EugeneW, bringing up court cases.I hit R hard with a wooden plank on his back to disconnect R from a live wire which is electrocuting him, saving R in the process. There are no assault charges filed against me, but I do get my citation. — Agent Smith
I have improved my Latin (and philosophical terminology) by looking up "salve veritate". Thanks! :smile:Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith
They actually both fit in. But not if you rely on "The Ten Commandments".How does not killing fit into it while saving not? — Agent Smith
BTW, I'm totally against "The Ten Commandments" or any "preset" moral codes or dogmas as a basis for morality. Or for whatever else in that matter. I have already mentioned in this thread that they impair moral judgement, and thus judgement in general. — Alkis Piskas
They actually both fit in. But not if you rely on "The Ten Commandments". — Alkis Piskas
Prepared in advance. (The term "preset" is mainly used in music, but I like it! ). Maybe the word "predefined" is more appropiate. What I mean is a laid down list --formulated methodically-- of things to do or not to do. (The word "list" is used loosely here, of course. But "The Ten Commandments" is actually such a list.)I don't quite get the descriptor "preset" — Agent Smith
I'm not sure about that. Codes can be a lot of things. They are usually any kind of symbols (words, images) used to represent other things, a systematic collection of laws or pronciples, etc. In this case, it's a set of conventions or moral principles governing behaviour in a particular situation.if you don't quite like the idea of a code, you're really rejecting all of ethics, ethics being a system of laws/injunctions/rules (codes). — Agent Smith
I trust your goodwill @Agent Smith. Really. But I can't believe that you are asking this after so many times that I presented my position on the subject of ethics. In fact, no one came to me with his/her position! So your question sounds quite ironic, doen't it. (No offense.)In short what's the alternative? — Agent Smith
What if I don't believe in your God or to any God? Does that make me immoral?If God wills your death, how does saving you square with God's plan? — Agent Smith
Prepared in advance. (The term "preset" is mainly used in music, but I like it! ). Maybe the word "predefined" is more appropiate. What I mean is a laid down list --formulated methodically-- of things to do or not to do. (The word "list" is used loosely here, of course. But "The Ten Commandments" is actually such a list.) — Alkis Piskas
Ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" do not include any kind of codes — Alkis Piskas
I trust your goodwill Agent Smith. Really. But I can't believe that you are asking this after so many times that I presented my position on the subject of ethics. In fact, no one came to me with his/her position! So your question sounds quite ironic, doen't it. (No offense.) — Alkis Piskas
What if I don't believe in your God or to any God? — Alkis Piskas
major good for the greatest number" — Alkis Piskas
Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith
Do you mean if a moral code can never diminish/invalidate the morality of an action and that it shows what is always the right thing to do for a certain situation? Well, let's take one of the most commonly discussed principle of "The Ten Commandments" , "You shall not kill". This can be very easily "broken" without diminishing morality, by just considering the case of killing to defend oneself. This is cosidered a justified action, which is not punished by courts or the society. So, what is actually invalidated here is the commandment itself. It is proven useless in this case. It proves that you cannot always act based on a predefined rule.I meant how does a moral code being preset diminish or invalidate the moral code that is (preset)? — Agent Smith
Right. It's not a code. It's more even than a principle. It's the foundation on which ethics and etchical behaviour are built. A code is addressed to a particular situation or a kind of situations. A foundation is independed of and covers any situation.You mean to say major good for the greatest number is NOT a code — Agent Smith
:smile: I certainly do. Thank you for coming back to that.I hope you understand my situation. — Agent Smith
Well, it's quite big a kettle though, isn't it? :grin:What if I don't believe in your God or to any God?
— Alkis Piskas
That's a different kettle of fish. — Agent Smith
Actually, not even the "greatest number" is always easily to judge. It is not based so much on numbers as to areas of larger magnitude and importance. These are like concentric spheres, one inside the other, whith the individual in the center. But of course, the number always matters."major good for the greatest number"
— Alkis Piskas
The "greatest number" is easily measured. — EugeneW
This is mostly were reasoning and judgment come in. It's not always easy to tell. It's not an absolute. It'sBut what is the "greatest good"? Doesn't this beg the question — EugeneW
How about the constructivist approach to ethics? In this system, we have multiple moral principles that get continuously evaluated based on events and the agents involved. This system would use pluralism (not relativism) and rationality (deliberation and choices) as its main method of arriving at the proper course of action. It could also use some universality, a la Ralwsian contract theory, and it could incorporate some Kant's categorical imperative (some), and finally it considers human nature (self-interest) when coming up with moral solutions.I see that you keep critisizing or findng inadequate etchics based on "major good for the greatest number". That "it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues", etc. OK. But you have still not answered my question: "What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?" — Alkis Piskas
Empty phrase that needs work.Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith
This has also been fashionable to say here in the forum. I wonder why? For those who disagree with other views, their counter is that the contributions here have been so poor in quality.Welcome to the forum. You have arrived at a low point in the contributors here, which is why the quality of responses has been so poor. — Banno
Empty phrase that needs work. — L'éléphant
"You shall not kill". This can be very easily "broken" without diminishing morality, by just considering the case of killing to defend oneself. — Alkis Piskas
Right. It's not a code. It's more even than a principle. It's the foundation on which ethics and etchical behaviour are built. A code is addressed to a particular situation or a kind of situations. A foundation is independed of and covers any situation. — Alkis Piskas
Should the numbers count? — Banno
I tried to learn about "moral constructism" but I was kind of lost ... So I will stick to your description.How about the constructivist approach to ethics? — L'éléphant
It would be good to see one or two examples here of how this works ...we have multiple moral principles that get continuously evaluated based on events and the agents involved. — L'éléphant
OK, this is similar to or implied by the previous description.This system would use pluralism (not relativism) and rationality (deliberation and choices) as its main method of arriving at the proper course of action. — L'éléphant
There. You lost me. I have no idea about Ralwsian's theory, not even Ralwsian himself. As for Kant's ethics, I have to refresh my memory --something which I have in mind to do anyway-- since it has passed a long time ...It could also use some universality, a la Ralwsian contract theory, and it could incorporate some Kant's categorical imperative (some), and finally it considers human nature (self-interest) when coming up with moral solutions. — L'éléphant
Interesting. How's that achieved? It would be good to see here too one or two examples here of how this works ...we aren't after the "greatest happiness" (whatever this is), rather we want equilibrium — L'éléphant
Yes, flies too do that. And then they are crashed! :grin:1. Fight (to the death)
2. Flight (run for your life)
3. Freeze (die)
Killing in self-defense is 1. What about 2 and 3? Some animals are known to roll over and play dead (possums) — Agent Smith
Right, it certainly isn't necessary. But the above example shows that in most cases, fighting is the generally accepted solution. Besides, aside from your situation you presented, in which death is certain, in real situations it is not always certain that someone will kiiled in the fight. So, by fighting you could save both lives. Or, by killing the aggressor, you may save other people's lives from being taken by the aggressor.The bottom line - it isn't necessary to kill (even in self-defense), you could just die! :chin: — Agent Smith
Not exactly. I just said that "major good" is not a code, not that codes are not needed. Any entity --individual, family, group-- can and usually does have a code of ethical conduct, "silent" if not expressed orally or in writing, which pertains to specific subjects. Rights, for exemple, is between the most important and known one in a group or society. Also about racism, etc. A family can set or does have a code for children's behaviour, inside and outside the house. The couples also have commonly agreed codes of conduct for themselves. And you, as an individual, can set and do actually have a code of conduct for yourself regarding various subjects. Even if you have not laid it down expressedly or even be really aware of it, you don't want to break it!So, you're positing an ethics without a code? — Agent Smith
I wouldn't classify this as a "code". Maybe as a method or rule. It's too general.Suppose you say each individual ethical case needs to be examined separately because each is unique and that precludes mechanical application of moral injunctions. Isn't that a code? — Agent Smith
So we can forget No. 3 because it's not a solution. — Alkis Piskas
this would not considered moral — Alkis Piskas
God moves in a mysterious way. — William Cowper
Die if need be, never kill. — Cândido Rondon
I just said that "major good" is not a code, not that codes are not needed. — Alkis Piskas
Maybe as a method or rule. — Alkis Piskas
I knew about them but not that they had that name or any name! :smile: Thanks for letting me know. (But I can't promise I won't forget soon this name! :grin:) Yes, killing oneself that way is not impossible. There's also Murphy's Law! :grin:Have you ever had the pleasure of watching Rube Goldberg machines? — Agent Smith
Sorry, but I don't like this at all. In fact, I find that besides that it cannot be even considered an argument or an acceptable reply in any discussion, it's also a coward way to explain out things. "I don't know" or "You are right" are at least honest replies. At least one "dies" with honor and dignity. It also shows wisdom. (Indeed, "Openly giving up", by admitting one's defeat is a missing category in your example-situation! :smile:)God moves in a mysterious way. — Agent Smith
Here it is. Another "preset" code that is to be followed blindly, ignoring circumstances and human judgement, esp. moral judgement. In fact, following such a "forced upon" code might not even show morality. It could show "obedience". One can of course really agree with such a code. But why don't you let the individual decide himself about what is right or wrong, if he can kill or not, etc., by just laying down for him the foundations of an ethics system? Wouldn't that be more fruitful?Die if need be, never kill. — Agent Smith
let's grant utilitarians that it is a mathematical calculation: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. — Agent Smith
Spock was interesting precisely because the writers could never quite make his total dedication to logic functional.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, only ceteris paribus; the novelty of the Taurek paper is that Taurek shows that it is never the case that all other things are equal. Or rather, that it is our choice as to what is to be considered relevant and what isn't. Consider the Captain and the Islanders in the final example in the paper, who are caught in the need to determine what it is that is relevant to the evacuation. — Banno
I completely forgot about virtue ethics (no codes). — Agent Smith
People couldn't use virtue ethics to solve moral problems as easily as they would've liked. — Agent Smith
Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. — Albert Einstein
Zombies are alive, technically.
— baker
Yes, Frankenstein's monster too. — Alkis Piskas
The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival — Alkis Piskas
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.