RE: “Normative” ethical theories
September 21, 2025 at 3:58 pm
(This post was last modified: September 21, 2025 at 4:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You're a rational person. You can probably imagine that things have utility which you do not see. Though....... I have to ask, if even anti-realist ethical utterances leverage realist semantics, should the utility of such semantics really be in question, even if we've dispensed with their accuracy?
Do you know much about mesoamerican temple culture? I don't personally think that the incan sacrifice was an immoral thing. If it did what they thought it did they'd have been loons not to try, and it was far more voluntary and praise inducing than people tend to assume. The act itself is still wrong, and wrong in fact even in their own context - but you see that there is no necessity of condemnation just as there's no particular reason to praise their ignorance even if and understanding that it was well intentioned.
What specifically about an act makes it an airplane act or not? Is it just the utility of the label in persuading people? In utilitarian expressivism the answer is a resounding yes..but does that track with your observed experience? I won't comment on gods......because who cares. A real god really wishing makes a thing subjective or emotive, not objective, regardless of whether or not he'll beat the shit out of anyone who does otherwise or people believe it will, or might then act accordingly.
Thing is, this is all fiction, in context. There's nothing wrong with gods demanding and beating the shit out of those who refuse or fail to satisfy those demands. There's nothing wrong with this all being fictional and people acting like it's real. Not really. Right?
Do you know much about mesoamerican temple culture? I don't personally think that the incan sacrifice was an immoral thing. If it did what they thought it did they'd have been loons not to try, and it was far more voluntary and praise inducing than people tend to assume. The act itself is still wrong, and wrong in fact even in their own context - but you see that there is no necessity of condemnation just as there's no particular reason to praise their ignorance even if and understanding that it was well intentioned.
What specifically about an act makes it an airplane act or not? Is it just the utility of the label in persuading people? In utilitarian expressivism the answer is a resounding yes..but does that track with your observed experience? I won't comment on gods......because who cares. A real god really wishing makes a thing subjective or emotive, not objective, regardless of whether or not he'll beat the shit out of anyone who does otherwise or people believe it will, or might then act accordingly.
Thing is, this is all fiction, in context. There's nothing wrong with gods demanding and beating the shit out of those who refuse or fail to satisfy those demands. There's nothing wrong with this all being fictional and people acting like it's real. Not really. Right?
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!
