Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

simonperry955 OP t1_iwym6ry wrote

Reply to comment by eliyah23rd in The structure of moral normativity by simonperry955

>Would it not be better to start with the individual as they are at a specific moment and proceed to their goals, limitations and frustrations?

Do you mean, how does an individual make moral choices, within a certain environment? I choose what I think will bring me long term thriving: physical, psychological, social, moral. But think about the people who live in Iran. If they do the right thing, they end up in jail. To bring about the best long term thriving for me, is a prudential instrumental matter. To go against one's culture to stand up for what I believe in (e.g., human rights, women's rights) can lead to my thriving being curtailed, yet I still do it. I think that for certain people, some values are sacred: of infinite value. They see these values as more important than anything else, including popularity, or personal thriving.

2

eliyah23rd t1_ix4aeqh wrote

Not quite clear what specific issue you are getting at here. It might come to me with more reflection, but I'll give my best answer for now.

I am not arguing that my current values are necessarily selfish. They might not even be for the purpose of "thriving". They are what they are regardless of how these values came to be. These values may be sacred to me and I would lay down my life for them. Yes, a researcher might identify a causal pathway that included the search for meaning or the pressure of my parental context. I might even be aware and accept the findings of the research. However, regardless of cause, the sacred remains sacred and may take precedence over any thriving.

So what would be the agenda of my prescriptive research?

  1. To identify the structure of the values I do have. For example, to highlight the fact that there is usually a multiplicity of values that could easily conflict in practice. Or to highlight that consistency and universalism are some of my goals.
  2. To figure out ways multiple people, each with their own and differing goals can work together.

For both these goals the prescriptive and descriptive researchers must collaborate. Or, at least, the descriptive researcher has much to teach the prescriptive practitioner.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_ix9ld2u wrote

If you want me to be prescriptive, then I prescribe: if you want to be prosocial, then cultivate cognitive empathy (p. 163) and sympathetic joy (ps. 164, 165) and Perfect Compassion (ps. 33 and 42). These are based on the virtues of truth and compassion, or wisdom.

I think to figure out how multiple people can achieve their differing goals together, respect for the fact they want to thrive and flourish is a good place to start.

I don't prescribe being anti-social ("dark"). If you want to try it, see how far you get ...

2

eliyah23rd t1_ixdhhc7 wrote

So as we have agreed I think, the prescription is hypothetical.

I think the prescription you offer uses both 1 and 2. 1. You may think you only have value X, but you also have unspoken values Y and Z. 2. The best way for both you and I to achieve Y and Z is to cultivate empathy and sympathetic joy

1

simonperry955 OP t1_ixe9d1d wrote

That way, everybody wins (in theory). Perfect Compassion treats the well being of individuals as the highest good. People who hold other values sacred, may violate Perfect Compassion.

I think cognitive empathy can be cultivated.

1