RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
May 10, 2021 at 1:24 am
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2021 at 2:09 am by The Grand Nudger.)
You're concerned that my moral system will hold you accountable for something - but, perhaps it won't..and so what if it did? I'm only giving you a different take on morality than the one you hold because you asked. We may have a disagreement - but if there are no facts to be had in this disagreement, there's no reason to argue facts..either. You could be charged as a murderer in 40 states - I don't think that's a good outcome for the people seeking to or willing to help people end their lives any more than I think being charged with a crime for having an abortion is a good outcome, as I just explained.
- but I do understand that it's a rational system.....and as I keep mentioning, the setup pretty much excludes any good outcomes ....... doesn't it?
In that rational system up above, a system which we both probably have at least a few disagreements with together, a person could also be charged as a murderer for shooting a pregnant women in the stomach. We do assert that the unborn are like us in a relevant enough way to justify such a thing. It's not actually on account of believing that they aren't that we decriminalized abortion either - it was an issue of a competing and compelling interest.
The things that compel and motivate us aren't always moral things. Our rights are not limited to the good alone - as if I could only say nice things with my freedom of speech. The things that our moral systems might imply aren't always comfortable or comforting. There may be things which we don't see as wrong, which are. Probably won't make you feel any differently about them, not in a flash if ever - at least, that's never been my experience - as I mentioned. I think that we have responsibilities to children, even ones that haven't been born yet. In many cases, I see a limited range of options before us for even attempting to satisfy that obligation -and- some of the time, all of the options are bad (our environmental issue at present is full of this kind of thing, too). Picking a bad option, or falling into the neccessarry harm, is still bad, still harm - that's a consequence of a natural realist system. It's the thing itself that's bad, literally. I may find it compelling. Still bad. I may not be able to avoid it. Still bad. I may think it's good. Still bad. I may be personally offended by the notion that in some rational and objective moral system a thing I think is something other than bad, is bad.
Two people who pull a trigger are at least equally responsible for the things that they have equally done - which is pull a trigger. That doesn't necessitate that we deal with both of them in the same way. We understand that there are ways a person can end up doing bad things which aren't as much of a concern to us as others. I haven't seen the stats on it, but I don't think that people who help loved ones shuffle off the mortal coil end up being repeat offenders very much. Same probably isn;t true of straight up dyed in the wool murderers. I'm similarly unworried that a woman who seeks and gets an abortion will wake up and snatch a kid to kill the next day.
I'll point out, again, that fishing for personal incongruencies in my apprehension or takes that you imagine might shame some another person... is pointless. When you find one - and it's dead certain that you will if you keep the line in the water long enough-..... I'll just go "neat, so that's me failing again at what I'm trying, just like I already told you happens all the time".
Moral realism is not the belief that I'm in possession of the right answers, Angr - let's make that perfectly clear shall we...? You're asking the wrong guy for something like that. It's a belief about how we could get them. A productive way to make the attempt. The application of some rigor and factual analysis. Using tools that have worked before in places where they could work gain, and..perhaps, in places were we haven't applied them quite as well. There's never a point in realism where there's no room for disagreement or the introduction of any fact deemed relevant that may have never been considered before. Moral realism, like the sciences and as opposed to moral absolutism or fatalism - offers provisional certitude, at best. I've repeatedly stated that I think that we have moral responsibilities to children, that I think this claim is true. In this post and in others. There's something that I think is true - the right answer - but I'm still here discussing it as a thing that I could have very well gotten wrong.
Do you believe that there is a right or a wrong answer to a math question you can't personally solve? If you wanted to attempt to solve it, how would you approach it? I see the question of our moral responsibilities and - what we've been discussing for the past few posts, moral desert, a bit like that.
- but I do understand that it's a rational system.....and as I keep mentioning, the setup pretty much excludes any good outcomes ....... doesn't it?
In that rational system up above, a system which we both probably have at least a few disagreements with together, a person could also be charged as a murderer for shooting a pregnant women in the stomach. We do assert that the unborn are like us in a relevant enough way to justify such a thing. It's not actually on account of believing that they aren't that we decriminalized abortion either - it was an issue of a competing and compelling interest.
The things that compel and motivate us aren't always moral things. Our rights are not limited to the good alone - as if I could only say nice things with my freedom of speech. The things that our moral systems might imply aren't always comfortable or comforting. There may be things which we don't see as wrong, which are. Probably won't make you feel any differently about them, not in a flash if ever - at least, that's never been my experience - as I mentioned. I think that we have responsibilities to children, even ones that haven't been born yet. In many cases, I see a limited range of options before us for even attempting to satisfy that obligation -and- some of the time, all of the options are bad (our environmental issue at present is full of this kind of thing, too). Picking a bad option, or falling into the neccessarry harm, is still bad, still harm - that's a consequence of a natural realist system. It's the thing itself that's bad, literally. I may find it compelling. Still bad. I may not be able to avoid it. Still bad. I may think it's good. Still bad. I may be personally offended by the notion that in some rational and objective moral system a thing I think is something other than bad, is bad.
Two people who pull a trigger are at least equally responsible for the things that they have equally done - which is pull a trigger. That doesn't necessitate that we deal with both of them in the same way. We understand that there are ways a person can end up doing bad things which aren't as much of a concern to us as others. I haven't seen the stats on it, but I don't think that people who help loved ones shuffle off the mortal coil end up being repeat offenders very much. Same probably isn;t true of straight up dyed in the wool murderers. I'm similarly unworried that a woman who seeks and gets an abortion will wake up and snatch a kid to kill the next day.
I'll point out, again, that fishing for personal incongruencies in my apprehension or takes that you imagine might shame some another person... is pointless. When you find one - and it's dead certain that you will if you keep the line in the water long enough-..... I'll just go "neat, so that's me failing again at what I'm trying, just like I already told you happens all the time".
Moral realism is not the belief that I'm in possession of the right answers, Angr - let's make that perfectly clear shall we...? You're asking the wrong guy for something like that. It's a belief about how we could get them. A productive way to make the attempt. The application of some rigor and factual analysis. Using tools that have worked before in places where they could work gain, and..perhaps, in places were we haven't applied them quite as well. There's never a point in realism where there's no room for disagreement or the introduction of any fact deemed relevant that may have never been considered before. Moral realism, like the sciences and as opposed to moral absolutism or fatalism - offers provisional certitude, at best. I've repeatedly stated that I think that we have moral responsibilities to children, that I think this claim is true. In this post and in others. There's something that I think is true - the right answer - but I'm still here discussing it as a thing that I could have very well gotten wrong.
Do you believe that there is a right or a wrong answer to a math question you can't personally solve? If you wanted to attempt to solve it, how would you approach it? I see the question of our moral responsibilities and - what we've been discussing for the past few posts, moral desert, a bit like that.
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!
