Why don't philosophers create a system of ethics purely based on logic without any feelings or subjective inclinations? Wouldn't that ultimately solve the field of ethics?
Yeah utilitarianism is great, now please step into the torture both because your suffering gains more pleasure from our enjoyment than the pain it costs you
The word you're looking for is "utilitarianism", and that should tell you exactly why this is a horrible idea.
>>1355665
Because that doesn't make any sense. The axioms that ethics are based on are by their nature subjective and based on feelings.
>>1355665
What would drive purpose if not something that is ultimately subjective?
>>1355676
>>1355679
>>1355697
None of you guys get it.
OP, you are a fag. >>1355687 and >>1355696 are right. At the core you have feelings and subjective inclinations. Even utilitarianism is built around the concepts of happiness and suffering, the notion that happiness is desirable and suffering is undesirable, the notion that I should care about other people, etc. There is no hard logic behind these premises, they are just assumed to be true because you feel they are right.
The problem with all those retarded philosophical systems is that they relay on stupid "pleasure/suffering" decision making.
The question should be rather:
"Does this action advances the humanity towards becoming stronger, faster, resilient, more technologically and knowledgeably developed species?"
>>1355760
Why should that be the question? Why humanity specifically?
If evolution goes on long enough, we get replaced. If not, we die. 100,000,000,000 years from now, any descendants we might have left will be about as related to us as they will be to penguins.
And why would I want them to be supermen if they were to be unhappy or actually unfeeling?
What metrics do you use to access the superiority of your goals?
>>1355760
Why should I care about humanity? In a few decades I'm dead, so I won't even get to know what happens afterwards.
>>1355786
Consider a rival space-faring species of aliens that might have (malicious or not) intent of wiping us out.
>inb4 our survival does not matter
In that case kill yourself.
>>1355801
But I prefer to base my ethics on reality and not on infantile fiction.
>>1355786
>If evolution goes on long enough
Natural evolution is over for us buddy. In a few decades we will be able to rewrite our DNA like a child writing it's hello world program.
>>1355809
>another species in the galaxy is "infantile fiction"
>the idea of heaven and hell is not
>>1355801
>Consider a rival space-faring species of aliens that might have (malicious or not) intent of wiping us out.
Our far-cast descendants would be as alien to us, you understand that much?
If you mean that we are in danger in the near future - do you want to us to be a specie of preppers? Other intelligent species aren't a major issue, compared to gamma ray bursts, mega-meteorites, the inevitability of our star going supernova and eventually the heat death of the universe. You can't stop them all.
>In that case kill yourself.
I like being alive. I'd like my children to go on to live long lives. I have no delusions of grandeur concerning my lineage or my species. Every specie is a dead-end or a stepping stone to another. It's about the race, not goal, we all end up in the same place.
You won't ever cross a finish line at which point you'll be safe.
>>1355832
>I like being alive.
This makes sense.
>I'd like my children to go on to live long lives.
This not. If lineage is of no concert to you why would you waste considerable resources and time prolonging it?
>>1355830
Aliens almost certainly don't exist.
>>1355841
*concern
>>1355821
>Natural evolution is over for us buddy. In a few decades we will be able to rewrite our DNA like a child writing it's hello world program.
There is no difference between natural evolution and eugenics besides intent. We are still subjected to selection, including natural selection. Our descendants will be too, even if we can manipulate their genomes.
And it only reinforces my point. If you wanted to travel between star system or whatever, it would be easier to create populations with physiologies custom-made for micro-gravity than to build sealed habitats for modern day humans. Even easier would be to not use biological entities at all and just replace the crew with simulacra to make the decisions you'd like humans to make. Long-hall, stuff like Star Trek is a pipe dream.
The other anon makes me think he is a HFYfag from /tg/. Maybe even someone who takes 40k seriously.
>>1355856
I consider "species" in a more broad sense than biological definition.
So yes, tweaking our genetics or even abandoning organic matter altogether is in accordance with my worldview.
>>1355665
Because OP, people's individual morals are based either on reflexive sentiments that are drummed into them by socialization and upbringing, and the event that it isn't, and someone has actually spent time trying to fashion their own moral outlook based on reason, it must necessarily have a moral axiom as a starting point.
And that moral axiom is simply a given, and while it can be "logical" depending on what the axiom is, in principle it's simply taken as a given.
The question you should ask isn't why a moral philosopher should create a specific system of ethics that "solves ethics", it is how much of a rhetorician he can be in order to convince enough people to have the same moral axioms.
>>1355841
Because I'd love my children? Not because they have my genes and not because they were indoctrinated by me. Genetic and cultural information mutates over transmission, so each generation after mine tends to less and less related to me - assuming large numbers of people unrelated to me don't get wiped. And that isn't really desirable even if I was crunching numbers because among those people unrelated to me there might be genes or memes that would increase the fitness of the people related to me, were they to fuck/mingle.
So, for me, it would be a work of love.
>>1355717
This. You can't base an ethical system on logic alone, because logic alone cannot provide the axiom of "ought", what should be, from the observations of what "is". Every system of morality has to take a leap of faith in some form or another and assume a subjective "ought" as a starting point. Until you can eliminate that, your Objectivism will be impossible.
>>1355887
Here's a quandary for you:
Let's assume your child turned out bad despite your best intentions and you possessed evidence to lock him away.
Do you keep protecting him out of love still or sacrifice him for the good of the others?
>>1355927
I don't know. Because it's unspecified, and because I can't put an objective value on how much "love of my child" and "good of others" are worth to me, I wouldn't know until I was on the spot.
>>1355665
Because we'd get ethical answers that are entirely culturally unacceptable
>>1355946
fuck off you bluepilled cuck
>>1355665
As others have mentioned, ethics is based on subjective matter.
If you would like to attribute some notion of "worth" to an individual, and then make judgements based on that net worth, you'll end up with some form of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism, which can be a fine ideology, is impossible to implement due to our lack of knowledge about the future. For example, if you are forced to choose between killing one person and killing two people, you'll probably pick the former. But if you find out that the one person is on the brink of curing cancer and saving lives, you might pick the latter. This is a contrived example, sure, but it demonstrates the great problems we face when trying to make decisions based on value: value naturally fluctuates over time. If you ascribe the same value to each individual, you still face the above problems but in a slightly different form.
Unfortunately, this is why whether or not a decision was right is put to a jury or a panel of peers. If the consensus is that you deviate from the "correct" action by some large enough factor, then you have made the wrong decision. Otherwise, you have made the right decision. By "correct", I not only mean to factor in what others would have done in your situation, but also what they believe you should do.
>>1355665
>muh ebin logic
>subjectivity is bad but don't ask me to prove it objectively
Kill yourself fedoracuck
>>1355969
>>1356037
>>1356017
This man here m8
>>1355665
Because logically, ethics are bullshit. Ethics are inherently emotionally driven.
>>1356017
Anglos hate him!
Quick question, I always thought that "Morality" means what we consider to be good and evil, and "Ethics" is what we should and shouldn't do?
Is this correct or did I make it up at some point?
>>1356045
>argument pyramid
this is your daily reminder that the fallacy fallacy is a thing
this is your other daily reminder that a contradiction/central point refutation/counterargument/refutation are all equivalent
>>1355665
>ethics
>>1356082
Morality encompasses values, morals, virtues, judgments, etc.
Ethics is reflection on morality, like epistemology is reflection on knowledge and truth. It's a subset of philosophy.
>>1356017
thats a big forehead
>>1356092
>>1356102
Top lel.
>>1356102
Holy shit
>>1356086
I dunno it seems like contradiction is the cheapest and easiest.
You could construct a nice argument and the other guy says "No", that's not very helpful.
That's why the next tier up is at least he says "No, because..."
>>1356086
>fallacy fallacy
So is the fallacy fallacy fallacy. Please, don't tell me that name-calling is a valid approach to debate.
>contradiction/central point refutation/counterargument/refutation are all equivalent
They are not.
Backed contradictions are more valid than unbacked contradictions ("not an argument");
Presenting evidence for the opposite position is not the same as invalidating the position you oppose;
An argument's validity and truth does not necessarily hinge equally on all it's different parts, hence why refuting the "central point" is given more importance.
>>1355665
logic is subjective you dipshit
>>1355843
Do you have any idea of just how large the universe is?
>>1356140
>>1356051
The categorical imperative is a farce, and it can justify anything. Hitler could will the universalization of anti-semitism, that everyone ought to root out the Jude if they saw them, and it would be not only good but "right" and logically consistent to Kant.
>>1356170
No, because the categorical imperative doesn't apply to everyone who isn't a Jew, unless you're saying that Jews themselves would will the universal destruction of themselves.
The universalization principle actually means that it has to apply to all humans at any time, without resulting in contradictions.
>>1355665
They did. It is called science.
>>1356195
>unless you're saying that Jews themselves would will the universal destruction of themselves.
It's very easy to do if you express it with appropriate clauses and logical gymnastics
>everyone ought to be as honest as they can and willfully suffer the consequences according to honesty
>"I, The Eternal Jew/Capitalist/Insert Detested Minority Here, have been taking advantage of You Noble People and will change my ways or lead myself to execution"
You can even get more trivial than that and will the universalization of something like, suicide of everyone named Greg, or people who cut you off in traffic. Which brings us back to the starting point.
>>1356195
When I try using the veil of ignorance, to find an universal solution the trolley problem I end up approaching utilitarianism.
Assuming you want to live, but you don't know who you are in the trolley problem. The 5 would want to pull the lever. The 1 would not want to pull the lever. Let's say you are all 6 of them. 5/6 of the time you'd want to pull the lever. 1/6 of the time you wouldn't want to pull the lever. The self-interested rational gambler with no information of whose real position it would occupy (the guy under the veil of ignorance) would make the same call as the utilitarian in most dilemmas you can think of.
>>1356240
The utilitarian argument completely falls apart when you consider potential reasons why the self-interest of 1 person might outweigh the self-interest of 5 people. For example, what if the 1 person was a philanthropist heart surgeon and the 5 people were neo-nazis?
>>1356255
You can only base your decisions on what you know - there is no viable alternative. All you know is that there are more people on one side than the other. So, I don't think that is a sound counterargument to the utilitarian solution to the trolley problem, though in real life you'd certainly have the chance to gather more intelligence even if that just meant glancing at the different potential victims.
But that wasn't my point anyway, I was stating that if you were to try to find a solution to the trolley problem through the veil of ignorance you'd meet utilitarianism. Of course, this is because the trolley problem is a very simple binary dilemma with predictable objective outcomes. But I think you'd still find similarities in practice between the both approaches (original position behind the veil of ignorance to find the universal good vs. weighting the consequences to find the greater good) to a great number of ethical problems.
>>1355665
In order to create a system that increases the wellbeing of a society, you have to take its emotional wellbeing into account.
That's not to say you cannot apply logical action to promote emotional well being, however, since you're dealing humans, you cannot ignore emotion.
Similarly, you have to deal with the subjective, as none of us are omniscient. Our perception is, inevitably, subjective to one degree or another, thus any plans we make suffer to some degree of subjectivity.
Further, to apply any ethics, one must appeal to emotion, as that is the primary motivator of the masses.
Not that plenty of philosophers haven't *attempted* to create a logical-as-possible system of ethics with all that in mind, but the ones that tend to be of note, are those that go to the greatest extremes, and thus tend to get lost in their own idealism.
Most any philosophy taken to its ultimate extreme becomes toxic, thus a balance of approaches, constantly interacting with one another, tends to be the most hopeful approach. It's just that the ebb and flow of such balances is precarious, at best.
>>1356238
>"I, The Eternal Jew/Capitalist/Insert Detested Minority Here, have been taking advantage of You Noble People and will change my ways or lead myself to execution"
Which proves nothing, and is a bullshit hypothetical that you can conjure up in a critique against any moral system be it deontology or otherwise.
I mean, already in this thread there has been several reductio ad absurdums of utilitarianism.
What you're essentially saying is that in order for a person to even accept any moral system it must by necessity be immune to critical argumentation and be absolutist, which is absolutely ridiculous.
>>1356421
Aye. Man is not static and society is forever changing, as is the world around him, thus any system of ethics or morality, cannot be absolutist, and remain worthy of the term forever.
The best you can do is set some fundamental goals and prioritize them, even there, you need a lotta wiggle room, or you may ultimately doom any society that mindlessly clings to them.
they did
>>1355665
the only moral system based on logic and reason is a nihilistic one
>>1356125
you are aware that a contradiction or showing the contrapositive is equivalent to proving something straightforwardly, right?
"A implies B" is equivalent to "!B implies !A" (where "!" is my logical symbol for "not"). have you taken a basic logic course yet?
>So is the fallacy fallacy fallacy. Please, don't tell me that name-calling is a valid approach to debate.
i thought it was clear that my reference to the "fallacy fallacy" was just meant to be interpreted as a reminder that sometimes what might be construed as a fallacy is in fact very relevant to proving/disproving an argument at hand, but i guess i should write things at an easier level to understand.
>Backed contradictions are more valid than unbacked contradictions
obviously; unbacked contradictions are not contradictions and are no better than name-calling
>Presenting evidence for the opposite position is not the same as invalidating the position you oppose;
if you try to tell me "A implies B" and i show you you "!B implies !A" is logical nonsense, then I have refuted your position. that is all i meant to say, as i understand counterarguments/contradictions/refutations to be arguments which counter another argument (and implicitly) with success.
>An argument's validity and truth does not necessarily hinge equally on all it's different parts, hence why refuting the "central point" is given more importance.
i understand the concepts of "validity" and "truth" as binary. hence if one part fails, the whole argument fails. if you measure them on a scale of some kind, then sure, "refuting the central point" is most important.
>>1356113
some think that the contradiction is "cheap" and an easy way to prove something, but it is not in fact less valid.
>>1357236
This is the colloquial (conversational) "Contradiction", basically just saying "That's wrong", not the formal logical definition of contradiction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY
because ethics is founded on social and emotional ties, not logic
>>1355665
They tried, turns out it doesn't go like that.
>>1355797
Will to power lad
>>1355665
>beings affected by feelings
>a system that doesn't consider feelings at all
>that other thread just has everyone denying robot rights
Gotta love the doubletalk.
