Theistic morality

[rjh4 is back]

If we don't take the Golden Rule literally, so that EvF's criticisms would no longer apply, there is very little difference between this principle and preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism takes others' interests as seriously as one's own, which is basically putting oneself in another person's shoes. 'If I were that person, I wouldn't like to be kicked in the bollocks (continuing the example )' is the same as, 'That person's interest in not being kicked in the bollocks is as important as my interest in it.'

Fair enough.

Of course, by questioning the 'advantages' of one moral system over another, you are presupposing some set of moral principles by which we can judge which is better.

You sound like me. (I have said similar things to others here.) I agree that it could be taken that way but that is not where I was going. I was really only asking for an answer from your point of view and not some overarching set of moral principles (and you have provided the answer...so thanks for that).

That's the trouble with such things... it often boils down to a battle of what Daniel Dennett calls the 'intuition pump'. From Wiki: 'An intuition pump is a term coined by Daniel Dennett for a thought experiment structured to elicit intuitive answers about a problem.' This would apply to your thought experiment with Joseph, where you (I suspect) tried to undermine PU (as preference utilitarianism shall henceforth be known, because it's a bugger of a phrase to type) by pointing out that it would sometimes allow slavery and murder. Intuition pumping isn't a rational way to go about things, though.

I guess one difference I see is that PU appears to rely so much on knowing the results that one can conclude different things depending on when the decision is made. The approach I take allows each behavior to be judged on its own, so to speak. So regardless of the ultimate result, x vs not x in my hypothetical, I could still judge x as being bad (let's assume x was A murdering his neighbor...to avoid an unnecessary disagreement, (I think we both agree that would be bad.)) while recognizing that some of the ultimate results are good.

Having said that, I do want to say that I realize that such compartmentalization of such moral decisions/judgements is not limited to a view such as I take. I would guess that one could hold to PU and compartmentalize like I would (and maybe you even do this too when it comes down to practice). Consequently, my comment in the previous paragraph is really limited to our discussion and your position as you presented it.

Any thoughts on this?

---

Well I was just trying to point out the point that you now say you understand, that's all. I'm not objecting to anything really.

Ok...thanks for clearing that up.