Would it be okay for me to make threads on the different ethical theories that have shaped the world of philosophy over the years? Im trying to get that going on His but it aint happing :(
" This time on theories that are deontological i.e they basis the morality of an action on the inherent rightness or wrongness of an action.
>Murder is wrong because it is bad. can never justify it.
Talk about where it fails, where it succeed, better theories, is it even usable? The thread is open to any ethical theory btw." Is that allright to talk about or should I kill myself?
>>7402825
Do as you will. Expect shit-posting.
>>7402829
Allright well, what do you think about deontological theories? Are they a better alternative to telogical theories (e.g Utilitarianism?)
One thing I'll say about Kantian ethics is that it is held as much more extreme and untenable than it really is, and it is also much more 'flexible' than thought, because it demands the moral law and maximes to come from within. The categorical imperative does not tell you what to (not) do, it gives you a way of checking wether the rule you are following makes sense and is tenable.
>>7402840
It does tell you what is moral/immoral.
It does this by having very inflexible defnition of what doing the moral thing is, having a good will (which he defines as doing your duty) and following the catergoical impertaive.
If you don't do this then whatever action you were going to do is immoral and therefore shouldn't be done
Many would consider this untenable in application because it doesn't allow for emotions (the whole point was to use pure reason+moral law within) and/or consquences of said actions. How strong or weak of a critque do you think this is?
>>7402838
I think >>7402840 has a point. As for teleological, the degree to which they are applicable relies very much on how much true information you have at the time of your decision, for the purposes of predictability. And then it's hard to factor in such things as "happiness". How do you measure such things as "happiness" and "good" to decide which is the greater at any given time?
>>7402851
Yeah I would agree that >predictability is a strong critque of telogical theories. I mean you don't know the future so what could be a good action can easily turn out to be bad. At least with Kant there is stability in the idea that whatever good you do stays good.
>"happiness" and "good"
What do you think about the fact that Kant doesn't allow for feelings at all in his theory?
>>7402861
Eh, it's hard for me to say that. There are implicit preferences. It' just that they are not supposed to be your own alone. But I never finished Kant, so I won't speak further.
>>7402838
I think that deontological theories have a practical advantage. They are easier to follow and implement because they give you a set of rules to follow whereas utilitarianism for instance would be a lot more subjective because it relies on happiness of multiple individuals who may have opposing needs and wants.
>>7402879
I mean he is very explicit in saying that morals shouldn't be based on things like feelings or faith. How does that make you feel? Is he right or wrong in saying this? Also have you read anything that struck you as particualary attractive or unattractive?
>>7402881
Ah yes that is true for very simple situations, but wouldn't you agree they become exceddigly hard to implement when things get a bit more complex and less binary.
>>7402893
I think they become harder to justify, but you can make relatively arbitrary decisions and raise them to moral rules fairly easily. You can also easily come up with examples where different rules contradict each other. Personally i'm not a fan of dentological ethics, but i do think they are easy to implement and use once you have established the rules of right action.
>>7402881
because you can't look at the factors of a persons situation you can't make any neoucde jugement. For example if a killer came up to my house with my Grandma upstairs and said "where is your grandma tell me now im going to kill her and rape her and eat her flesh" Kant would argue that if i lied and said "shes away", im advocating for a world where its moral to lie in all situations if i see some personal benifit from it.
>>7402881
Also, what about conflicting duties? Kant gives no way to discriminate in situations.
>>7402896
Oh sorry didn't see your post there. >nce you have established the rules of right action
yeah i guess so. Much of the counter examples used against deontology are exterme examples that as a whole don't really take away from the kinda common sense apporach of deontology. but the way he establishes the rules is pretty intresting don't you think? First of all he belives that there is a "moral law within", do you think he is correct in this assumption?
>>7402884
When I say implicit I refer to how he considers that everyone ought to act one way and not another way, and you ought to consider how everyone ought to act.
Honestly, I'm closer to a Humefag, so you won't get a satisfying answer from me on the matter of ethics. That isn't to say I don't have any of my own, though!
>>7402925
Ahhh Awesome actually, as I really haven't read much about Hume lately, so maybe you can enlgihtmen me? First of all what type of ethics do you hold? Second his the one that things that moral definitions aren't derived from reason?
>>7402919
I think it's interesting, but i also think he is wrong in the sense that human reasoning is flawed and can't be the way to an objective moral system. Just look at how many different system we have, and most if not all of them believe they are well justified.
>>7402936
I suppose I just try to not to cause harm and to help the things I care about. I like to think about ethical dilemmas sometimes, but I wouldn't say I'm committed to any major ethical theory, thought I entertain several.
Hume on ethics essentially boils down to our inability to derive moral lessons from nature or reason.
I'd say most people don't base their moral decisions on ideas usually, anyway. Mostly they base their decisions on their impressions (basically, they make gut-decisions). It's why most self-professed utilitarians say they would choose to pull the lever but say they wouldn't choose to push the fat man onto the tracks. Both would amount to the same, but the latter just feels wronger, somehow.
>>7403003
Some of the ideas here seem to come to nowhere.
The idea-impression distinction comes from Hume.
The bit about pulling the lever and pushing the fat man comes from the trolley problem, a famous moral dilemma.
>>7402980
I believe that why he gave us the categorical imperative, because he is aware that human reasoning can be flawed in situations. I mean if he is correct that there is a moral law within us, that is as logical as say mathmatics, then you can have an objective moral system.
>>>7403003
So his he saying that we can't get right and wrong from reason and nature? where does he suggest we get them from?
>fat man onto the tracks
Most ultitarins i know would push the fatman unto the tracks desu. So would I.
>>7403135
I don't recall if he gave a straight-forward answer to that. I think he just took the same route as the logical positivists and acted dismissive towards the issue of ethics.
You have some hard-boiled friends. I suppose they are pretty philosophically articulate?
I didn't actually read about how utilitarians usually replied. I read on how people usually replied. Most people would push the lever. Most people wouldn't push the fat man. There is an overlap of people that seems to take the route that implies "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" route up until the point they have to get their hands dirty, at which point they get too squeamish.
>>7403227
>I think he just took the same route as the logical positivists and acted dismissive towards the issue of ethics.
By which I mean he didn't offer you answers. He did write at least one treatise on moral principles.
>>7403227
I mean yeah now that i think about it "most" is like 2 or 3 people I know. One of them is extremely smart academically but an utter, utter cunt. Talking more about Hume, is he cognitive or non cognitive when it comes to ethical language?
>>7402980
>that human reasoning is flawed and can't be the way to an objective moral system
What do you think theory's like Natural law, which base their objectivity on God but can be used by all?
>>7403301
I assure you I've read more than the wiki artilce buddy. I am intrested in what fault I made though? How have I misinterpreted Kant, how is my critque not valid my freind?
>>7403315
You haven't posted a critique--you are merely contradicting the other poster. That you don't even know that this is all you're doing is enough to signify you aren't worth wasting time with, which is why no one else responded to you before me. The only reason you got anything out of me is because I am a loser that can't let things like your idiocy slide unchecked.
Go die in a dank cave somewhere, you waste of life.
>>7403253
I can't tell you about his ethics on great detail, nor am I sure what if we mean the same by "cognitive", but I'd say Hume is pretty cognitive in general. He goes at length about mental faculties and the properties of stimuli of which they make sense of, and that stuff is what I remember from him most of all. It still feels very current.
>>7403339
wee lad calm down
>>7403339
Sorry you feel that way dude. I thought my contradiction could be taken as a critque as well since it is like, the first critque you learn about against Kant (how hard it is to apply in real life).
>>>7403348
Oh Cogntive when talking about ethics is the stance that when im using religous langauge im describing the world. Saying "This anon is bad" is as meaningfull as saying "this anon is black/white". You can prove his badness as much of a fact as his white/blackness.
>>7403370
Oh, then Hume would say you can't derive a definite conclusion on how this anon should act based on how anons act or how you think anons should act. I think. Don't want to induce you on error, but I don't have this stuff down to a T.
>>7403420
Oh I got you I got you. The is/ought comment on Kant was so nice by the way, loved it when i learnt about it. Do you believe that God can be a good basis for deontological theory's?
>>7402825
Ethics is a spook, end of thread
>>7403483
>spook
I'm not to familiar with Hegel's brand of philiopshy, could you expand upon it a bit more? sore
>>7403483
Nah,utilitarianism has it about right, the hedonistic variety anyway. That suffering is bad, and happiness good is self-evident to any rational being. Just imagine an entity being tortured, that insisted that what was happening to it was not bad in the slightest, if it suffered like us, this stance, with honesty at least, would be inconceivable, vice versa for pleasure. You could of course say that suffering can be valuable as a means to an end, but it would be untenable for a rational being to say it was good in itself. Likewise with pleasure, you could say taking heroin was bad, given the possible long-term consequences, but no one good honestly deny that the pleasure it created was in itself good.
>>7403479
Dunno. I get how God as a source of morality can work.
But people sometimes disagree on the nature of God, on what it is that God considers to be moral. If people can have misconceptions about God, then what does that tell us of moral arguments who hinge on God backing them?
And then there is the matter of people doing doing their duties for the sake of divine favor rather than for the sake of their duties.
But I'm not big on theology. Another anon should take over for me.
>>7403553
You can prolly pick up Stirner as a stand-alone work.
It's easy to get into, if you let go of your prejudices. I would say that it isn't all that applicable, though.
>>7403596
I'll try to, what do you suggest?
>>7403563
Ah ok,> people can have misconceptions about God, then what does that tell us of moral arguments who hinge on God backing them
Well I guess people can have a misconception of a number of things but i dont think that is a good way to find out if the things are valid or no. >he matter of people doing doing their duties for the sake of divine favor rather than for the sake of their duties
Oh that is intresting, do you think that in some way cheapens a good deed?
