RE: “Normative” ethical theories
September 7, 2025 at 11:29 am
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2025 at 11:56 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Well, that's the fun thing about quasi realist expressivism and it's confluence with prgamatic ethics. OFC you have genuinely held beliefs on moral desert, even if, intellectually, you think you are or suspect that you may be wrong on a fact-basis. That those beliefs and opinions are not actually grounded in truth apt statements but may change or be changed for explicitly truth apt reasons, non truth apt reasons, or no reason at all. Pragmatism in and of itself makes no comment on the nature of -those- beliefs, and you'll find a pragmatic theory of every variant..because regardless of the second order questions and their answers pragmatism is more about what to do with all of that, whatever or however it is, the first order bit. Normativity. Moral desert occupies the same space.
Should people get more, exactly what, or less than they deserve? Is it more or less praiseworthy (or more or less punishment worthy) for a good person to do a bad thing, a bad person to do a good thing, a good person to do a good thing, or a bad person to do a bad thing? We needn't be hung up on what good or bad is, here - or whether the worthy-making property of each question is a moral one. Perhaps things are more or less praise and punishment worthy depending on the outcomes of that act itself and not the instigating act in context of our societal goals.
Let's take retribution as an example. Over, exact, or less than? Do we feel differently between different subjects? Say a person thinks or feels, in general, people should get exactly what they deserve for good or for ill. That this is how we should organize society and justice. Maybe we think or feel that a given act deserves death in return because it caused a death. Maybe we think or feel that even if an act didn't cause death then death is still on the table because the act is particularly detestable. Or maybe we don't think or feel that explicitly but will accept it in the case of a particular subject. Say.... a person who hurts kids. Or maybe we think or feel that even if people kill people or hurt kids they still don't deserve to die and/or we should not then make ourselves killers on their account.
What do you think? Can you think of any edge cases to what you think..where as soon as you posit an opinion you realize that there are exceptions to what you -say- or -think- is an explicitly philosophic and thus truth-apt, even if not objectively truth-apt, system?
Should people get more, exactly what, or less than they deserve? Is it more or less praiseworthy (or more or less punishment worthy) for a good person to do a bad thing, a bad person to do a good thing, a good person to do a good thing, or a bad person to do a bad thing? We needn't be hung up on what good or bad is, here - or whether the worthy-making property of each question is a moral one. Perhaps things are more or less praise and punishment worthy depending on the outcomes of that act itself and not the instigating act in context of our societal goals.
Let's take retribution as an example. Over, exact, or less than? Do we feel differently between different subjects? Say a person thinks or feels, in general, people should get exactly what they deserve for good or for ill. That this is how we should organize society and justice. Maybe we think or feel that a given act deserves death in return because it caused a death. Maybe we think or feel that even if an act didn't cause death then death is still on the table because the act is particularly detestable. Or maybe we don't think or feel that explicitly but will accept it in the case of a particular subject. Say.... a person who hurts kids. Or maybe we think or feel that even if people kill people or hurt kids they still don't deserve to die and/or we should not then make ourselves killers on their account.
What do you think? Can you think of any edge cases to what you think..where as soon as you posit an opinion you realize that there are exceptions to what you -say- or -think- is an explicitly philosophic and thus truth-apt, even if not objectively truth-apt, system?
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!
