conuly: (Default)
[personal profile] conuly
We're going over Kant's theory on ethics, and how it compares to utilitarianism. They're supposed to be similar in that they both attempt to describe the key moral principle. This leads to a reminder that some ethical theories say that there IS no key moral principle (but we're not covering those theories). Up pipes our friend:

But there IS a key moral principle! Don't do bad things!

Thank you, Captain Obvious! Clearly, philosophers were just wasting their time trying to define morality. They should've just gone with the "not doing bad things" definition and left it at that. Of course.

Date: 2004-08-11 07:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] priyatelka.livejournal.com
Oh God. That is too fucking funny.

You know, now that I think of it, that may be my problem...that I've been doing bad things. I wonder if there is a place where these things are listed? I wonder if I would agree that the things listed are bad things? I wonder if it matters if I agree or not?

Oh no, I'm questioning the "don't do bad things" moral doctrine already!

Date: 2004-08-12 10:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] priyatelka.livejournal.com
Heh heh. Thank you, kind Goddess!

Date: 2004-08-11 08:07 am (UTC)
ext_45018: (Default)
From: [identity profile] oloriel.livejournal.com
Yay, what brilliance! Now we only need a general, always appropriate, all-embracing definition of "bad things", then we can throw every further discussion about morality overboard. Maybe that guy will come up with one soon...

Date: 2004-08-11 08:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lasarus.livejournal.com
Well, the guy's got a point, I guess *g* Only it begs the question: how do you define 'bad'?

But the poor darling seems to have been trying.

Date: 2004-08-11 08:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lasarus.livejournal.com
Only he screwed up :-/

Date: 2004-08-11 11:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dkmnow.livejournal.com
Me [to Kant]: "Yeah, I've gotchyer' a priori right here, pal!"

First, it sounds like Cap'n Ob needs to learn the distinction between morals and ethics. "Morals" are culturally derived hand-me-down constructs of habitual perception. "Ethics" is an attempt to study and/or codify human "valuation" phenomena. Worlds apart. Virtually all apparent correlations between the two are illusory.

And second...

The uncomfortable fact in ethics is that the decisive moment of judging "good or bad" - one's assumption about how any given choice will ultimately serve the "summum bonum" - is inherently subjective. In a universe of infinite variables, it impossible for any human to have "all the facts." That given, it is impossible for any human to truly know how a particular choice will ultimately serve "the greatest good", if at all.

Thus, our lack of omniscience - the extent of our ignorance of past, present, and future - defines the functional limitations of utilitarianism. But the only way to "circumvent" those limitations is to adopt a collection of rigid universalist principles, to be enforced in all situations regardless of the variables. Such a system of valuation is doomed to fall prey to any number of functional contradictions - far more so than even utilitarianism - and must then itself become a perpetrator of injustice...


Ugh! Now I've run out of steam. I guess I'm just sick of ever and always arguing this case against the evils of "moral" simpletonism.

::sigh::

;-p

Date: 2004-08-15 10:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dkmnow.livejournal.com
"do"?

"DO"?

I AM "Bad Things"!

>:-D

Date: 2004-08-11 07:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] priyatelka.livejournal.com
Oh God. That is too fucking funny.

You know, now that I think of it, that may be my problem...that I've been doing bad things. I wonder if there is a place where these things are listed? I wonder if I would agree that the things listed are bad things? I wonder if it matters if I agree or not?

Oh no, I'm questioning the "don't do bad things" moral doctrine already!

Date: 2004-08-12 10:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] priyatelka.livejournal.com
Heh heh. Thank you, kind Goddess!

Date: 2004-08-11 08:07 am (UTC)
ext_45018: (shoebox_project marauders by green_queen)
From: [identity profile] oloriel.livejournal.com
Yay, what brilliance! Now we only need a general, always appropriate, all-embracing definition of "bad things", then we can throw every further discussion about morality overboard. Maybe that guy will come up with one soon...

Date: 2004-08-11 08:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lasarus.livejournal.com
Well, the guy's got a point, I guess *g* Only it begs the question: how do you define 'bad'?

But the poor darling seems to have been trying.

Date: 2004-08-11 08:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lasarus.livejournal.com
Only he screwed up :-/

Date: 2004-08-11 11:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dkmnow.livejournal.com
Me [to Kant]: "Yeah, I've gotchyer' a priori right here, pal!"

First, it sounds like Cap'n Ob needs to learn the distinction between morals and ethics. "Morals" are culturally derived hand-me-down constructs of habitual perception. "Ethics" is an attempt to study and/or codify human "valuation" phenomena. Worlds apart. Virtually all apparent correlations between the two are illusory.

And second...

The uncomfortable fact in ethics is that the decisive moment of judging "good or bad" - one's assumption about how any given choice will ultimately serve the "summum bonum" - is inherently subjective. In a universe of infinite variables, it impossible for any human to have "all the facts." That given, it is impossible for any human to truly know how a particular choice will ultimately serve "the greatest good", if at all.

Thus, our lack of omniscience - the extent of our ignorance of past, present, and future - defines the functional limitations of utilitarianism. But the only way to "circumvent" those limitations is to adopt a collection of rigid universalist principles, to be enforced in all situations regardless of the variables. Such a system of valuation is doomed to fall prey to any number of functional contradictions - far more so than even utilitarianism - and must then itself become a perpetrator of injustice...


Ugh! Now I've run out of steam. I guess I'm just sick of ever and always arguing this case against the evils of "moral" simpletonism.

::sigh::

;-p

Date: 2004-08-15 10:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dkmnow.livejournal.com
"do"?

"DO"?

I AM "Bad Things"!

>:-D

Profile

conuly: (Default)
conuly

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     12 3
4 5 6 78 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 1617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 18th, 2026 09:52 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios