RE: How worthless is Philosophy?
May 20, 2024 at 12:19 pm
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2024 at 12:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The grey area of "should" is plentiful.
Supposing that there is some set of criteria that ought to compel a normative response in a subject, it is still an open question as to whether or not it can or will, what that means for the moral agent whatever they decide, and what that decisions means for the moral agents relationship(s) to other moral agents. I'll use a purely subjectivist example to show this.
If we posit that, because of our shared biology, there is a category of things that ought to be "bad"..or even just revolting - it may still be the case that a person does not conform to the expectation. Perhaps they're just wired different, in a non pejorative way. They're fully functioning in every respect..individually, socially, but in some non-threatening manner uncommon to the general population they have a thrown switch. Or, it may be, that there is something demonstrably and biologically wrong with them. They are malfunctioning because of some inherited disorder, life trauma, or bodily damage. Or...it may be....that they are non-novel, un-damaged, and simply un-compelled. Perhaps the effect of our biological and social conditioning is not entirely uniform among all members of our species. Maybe our brains aren't explicitly or exclusively rational as a matter of fact or process. In all of these cases, we have the possibility of some cognizable set of bads which does not lead to any binary resolution.
...and then....
In any of the cases above, other moral agents (who may be in any of the states described) can rationally or credibly disagree about the interpretation or description of the first agents moral content, their own ability to accurately assess moral content as a second or third party, and the specific resolution of moral dilemma, conflicts, and responsibilities. We may view the damaged as less deserving of moral judgement. We may accept a "bad" decision with some sufficient list of confounding factors...most notable of all those factors being our fundamental moral capabilities. Do we understand that there are exterior circumstances which strongly dissuade moral behavior? Do we understand that people can have many compelling reasons to fail, or can be presented with impossible situations - where all options are bad or equally bad? Do we then believe that scorn is unwarranted or less warranted? Or, in the case of good moral action...do we think that some people are just naturally good or better than others? That because they are more typical of the biological norm less effort or consideration (if any) is required for them to arrive at good decisions? Should we revere them for this..or should we withhold praise because the the good they do is more or less water flowing downhill? Should people..fundamentally...get exactly what they deserve...more than they deserve, less than they deserve...and do the answers to those things change when we think about good things..and then bad things?
Supposing that there is some set of criteria that ought to compel a normative response in a subject, it is still an open question as to whether or not it can or will, what that means for the moral agent whatever they decide, and what that decisions means for the moral agents relationship(s) to other moral agents. I'll use a purely subjectivist example to show this.
If we posit that, because of our shared biology, there is a category of things that ought to be "bad"..or even just revolting - it may still be the case that a person does not conform to the expectation. Perhaps they're just wired different, in a non pejorative way. They're fully functioning in every respect..individually, socially, but in some non-threatening manner uncommon to the general population they have a thrown switch. Or, it may be, that there is something demonstrably and biologically wrong with them. They are malfunctioning because of some inherited disorder, life trauma, or bodily damage. Or...it may be....that they are non-novel, un-damaged, and simply un-compelled. Perhaps the effect of our biological and social conditioning is not entirely uniform among all members of our species. Maybe our brains aren't explicitly or exclusively rational as a matter of fact or process. In all of these cases, we have the possibility of some cognizable set of bads which does not lead to any binary resolution.
...and then....
In any of the cases above, other moral agents (who may be in any of the states described) can rationally or credibly disagree about the interpretation or description of the first agents moral content, their own ability to accurately assess moral content as a second or third party, and the specific resolution of moral dilemma, conflicts, and responsibilities. We may view the damaged as less deserving of moral judgement. We may accept a "bad" decision with some sufficient list of confounding factors...most notable of all those factors being our fundamental moral capabilities. Do we understand that there are exterior circumstances which strongly dissuade moral behavior? Do we understand that people can have many compelling reasons to fail, or can be presented with impossible situations - where all options are bad or equally bad? Do we then believe that scorn is unwarranted or less warranted? Or, in the case of good moral action...do we think that some people are just naturally good or better than others? That because they are more typical of the biological norm less effort or consideration (if any) is required for them to arrive at good decisions? Should we revere them for this..or should we withhold praise because the the good they do is more or less water flowing downhill? Should people..fundamentally...get exactly what they deserve...more than they deserve, less than they deserve...and do the answers to those things change when we think about good things..and then bad things?
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!
