Crazyguy strikes again!
Aug. 11th, 2004 10:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 07:39 am (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 08:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 08:10 am (UTC)But the poor darling seems to have been trying.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 08:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 09:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 11:14 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 10:33 am (UTC)DON'T DO BAD THINGS
*giggles*
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 10:34 am (UTC)Bad things are things god doesn't like.
Yes there is a god.
And aliens.
I can prove it.
Anyway, if god doesn't like something, it's bad.
How do we know what god likes? DON'T BE AN ATHEIST!
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 10:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 10:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 07:39 am (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 08:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 08:10 am (UTC)But the poor darling seems to have been trying.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 08:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 09:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-11 11:14 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 10:33 am (UTC)DON'T DO BAD THINGS
*giggles*
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 10:34 am (UTC)Bad things are things god doesn't like.
Yes there is a god.
And aliens.
I can prove it.
Anyway, if god doesn't like something, it's bad.
How do we know what god likes? DON'T BE AN ATHEIST!
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 10:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 10:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 10:23 pm (UTC)"DO"?
I AM "Bad Things"!
>:-D
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 10:23 pm (UTC)"DO"?
I AM "Bad Things"!
>:-D