RE: Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?
October 5, 2018 at 1:26 pm
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2018 at 1:28 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(October 5, 2018 at 10:05 am)DLJ Wrote: That does seem to quite cover the decision-making elements of governance i.e. costs, benefits and risks. But "good" is a value-judgement (with intrinsic, contextual and security components).Sure, but something being a value judgement isn't an obstacle to objectivity; not all value judgement is equal, and not all value judgement is equally accurate. Factual statements can be made about the value judgement itself.
Quote:On the other hand, the models I teach also include elements of Accountability and Responsibility which swing towards deontology and maybe even virtue.The good serves the right, and there is certainly more than just one thing in this world that's right.
The short-hand for 'governance' is "doing the right things and doing things right".
The second part is the easy bit as it relates to compliance and following practices and processes using an assortment of quality criteria (measurable using both subjective and objective metrics), but the first part hinges on what is meant by 'right' ... this can be but is not always based on something like a PEST (or PESTEL) analysis. It could also be interpreted through different lenses (autonomy ethics, community ethics, divinity ethics, ideology (of various types)).
This is trivia but I think it's the basic framework for why pluralism is compelling.
In any case - we can take any example above and assess what, if anything..in each system is meaningfully objective, and meaningfully subjective. Community ethics, for example..is necessarily more subjective than autonomy ethics (and this is a good thing). Divinity ethics have issues of fundamental demonstrability, but they're fantastic vehicles for normative ethics. Ideological ethics run a strong risk of being true...but only trivially so. These, ofc, are the easiest to argue for and establish...but the conclusions are often unsatisfying.
Quote:I'd be grateful of an example. And a definition of 'facts' in this context.
Cheers.
There is no pet or idiosyncratic definition for "facts" in moral realism. That's the entire position. That some statements are facts in precisely the same way, to precisely the same extent, with all of the same caveats...as any other fact.
As for an example, I'll give you a good one. It is right to pay your bills. It is wrong to starve your family.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!