Killercod1 t1_j9kv4db wrote
Reply to comment by brutinator in Thought experiments claim to use our intuitive responses to generate philosophical insights. But these scenarios are deceptive. Moral intuitions depend heavily on context and the individual. by IAI_Admin
What is "good"? Why should it be maximized? You sound like a zealous utilitarian.
Playing devils advocate here: why isn't killing a good thing? What's so obviously wrong about it? Perhaps, one may consider human life evil and seek for it's complete extinction. PETA members come to mind. Perhaps, human life isn't as valuable as capitalist profit is. Economy > humanity. There's some that would die on that hill to enforce these ethics.
Obviously, I dont subscribe to these ideas. I consider myself a humanist that wishes to maximize humanity's health and well-being. However, even the question of what is "health" and "well-being", is up for debate.
Whether or not something should be universally followed, is an opinion. Particularly, the "should" implies subjectivity. It's completely dependent on your personal beliefs and goals. In the real world, not everyone shares those beliefs and goals. Morals and ethics seem objective, until they face contradicting counterparts. Leading to war.
brutinator t1_j9kznhz wrote
Youre not playing devil's advocate, youre ignoring the question and diverting the discussion. If you are going to argue that all actions are amoral and/or equally ethical, then we have no basis to continuing this discussion. To put it in your terms, why bother being a "humanist" if all actions are equally healthy and increasing well being?
All youre saying is that because we dont know, we shouldnt subscribe to a single belief. While I think that position alone is contestible, thats not the question Im asking, and truth be told, is a little tautological. Obviously people cant do what they dont know.
To reiterate it a third time, if we DO know a universal ethical theory, why shouldnt everyone follow it?
Killercod1 t1_j9l3r2y wrote
Ethics have no quantifiable value. Since you cannot physically measure how "good" something is, it's entirely subjective. I'm not saying everything is equally valuable. I'm saying that there's no way to objectively determine the moral value of something. You can only determine it's value to individual people and groups. What would an all-encompassing good look like?
You always act in your own interest, even if those interests are for someone else's well-being. Your morals are your values. I never said you should be amoral. I'm sharing the fact that there are those with different values. You can call them evil, if you want. But, they will continue to exist. They may even overpower you.
You would have to prove that there is an ethical theory that trumps all others. This is conflicting with real world conditions, because there isn't one. Some people's values may align with other's. But, it's not true for everyone. The only way to make your ethics universal, is to defeat all contradicting ethics and people who uphold them. In doing so, you would be considered a fascist. The road of good intentions is paved with blood.
The point is, by enforcing your "universal objective" ethical theory, you would be eliminating all others. Who's not to say that you're the evil one?
brutinator t1_j9lbgjh wrote
Gotcha. Im not going to engage in this anymore because you are refusing to answer the central question.
Again, WHAT the "best" theory is is out of scope. I frankly do not care what it looks like.
Again, if you are going to suggest that "good" and "bad" do not exist, then I think the field of ethics is not for you: the entire core supposition of the field is that there exists good of varying degrees. What that is? How to achieve it? Sure, those are things to discuss, but it inherently relies on the premise that you CAN measure moral value. Show me a single ethical theory with decent standing that says that you can not determine if something is good or bad.
Again, you are constructing strawmen to argue against instead of engaging with the question. Never did I say everyone should be forcibly made to adhere to an arbitrarily decided moral code. Is every action that you do the same as everyone else enforced upon you by the threat of external violence? Do you eat? Do you drink water? Do you breath oxygen? Do you do those things because youll be executed if you dont? If no, then clearly there are things that everyone does, and can do, without the need for external violence. But I digress because, again, its out of the scope of the question.
Good bye.
Killercod1 t1_j9lgmzc wrote
Since "good" and "bad" cannot be materially measured, they can only be subjectively determined. They are social constructions, concepts. It's totally illogical to insist that they can be measured. You can only measure material.
How else would you make everyone adhere to your "universal" ethics, other than by enforcing them? Perhaps, you convince people otherwise. However, if you find someone adamantly opposed to it, their existence would contradict your universal theory. As it obviously wouldn't be universal if there's other conflicting ethics that exist.
People perform basic necessary tasks to live. By not performing them, they would be executing themselves, in a sense. Values are materially driven. It's likely that your values have conformed to benefit your own material conditions. If they haven't, I would consider you illogical. Your actions would be unpredictable and inconsistent.
Happy cake day
frnzprf t1_j9o1prk wrote
I agree that there is no universal moral truth.
I heard once the story that Moses went down with the ten commandments and when he saw that the Isrealites worshipped a golden cow, he destroyed the stone tablets out of anger. Then he wrote down the ten commandments again, but slightly differently.
I don't know if that's true. He definitely destroyed the tablets once. It was surprisingly difficult to find the respective parts in the bible - I'm going to try again. The story might very well be not true!
The point is: Moral laws only matter if people know them and agree with them, so in the end what people think is the only thing that matters.
That's not the intentended meaning by the bible passages, they were probably just written by different people, or the author has forgotten what he has written the first time.
Edit: The relevant section is Exodus 34. God says that he will write the same words as on the first tablet. Then he goes on to state some commandments, which aren't the classical "10 commandments" but it's not clear to me which of them will go on the stone tablets or whether they are maybe just some additions that are not important enough to be written in stone.
The bible is not important to my point though - only subjective morals matter.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments