RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
March 10, 2020 at 9:33 am
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2020 at 9:54 am by The Grand Nudger.)
....and in pursuit of that
What Kloro is looking for is not an explanation of why skullfucking our neighbors kid is antithetical to an (or our) orderly society, but why it's antithetical -to good-.
Things which provide human beings or a human society with a survival advantage are not interchangeable with "the good" unless it's impossible for the right thing™ to disadvantage human beings or a human society. That doesn't appear to be impossible. We might contend that there's broad overlap, but that's as far as we can take that one in an objective system. Utility to an individual or a particular society is the definition of relativism. It's a fun baby to split, because cultural relativism is a true comment on applied morality - and being a true comment it seems like it must have some role to play in an objective morality - but it doesn't. It's more an example of compelling reasons to do one set of things, which may contain plenty of good, but also bad.
Similarly, the comment that bad acts,..so defined, are eww/ugh reactions is explicitly non-cognitivist. Like the above, it is absolutely true that people do this, but this isn't an example of objectivism (or any rational position on any issue whatsoever). It asserts that we purport to report facts with moral statements, and don't. Things aren't good or bad based on a particular set of true and mind independent propositions (those things that scientists can study, in your formulation), they're not propositions at all, just "ugh!".
Even more deleterious to any objective system that a rational inference can be applied to, is the notion that humans define..rather than describe, what good and bad are. If there are facts, we don't actually get to decide what those facts are - and a government (to use your example) which simply decides that theft is wrong may be looking out for it's own interests, or the interests of a large number of it's people, but whether or not there is moral import to a legal structure and whether or not it accords to moral facts remains an open question. Very often, at least in our case..there isn't and it doesn't. Robin Hood beckons. It's morally wrong to be a racist twatwaffle...but it's not illegal, and should not be illegal, else we want to prosecute thoughtcrime. It's morally wrong to deprive another person of necessary resources or sustenance, but it's legal and should remain legal....otherwise, we're going to have to hold a trial for every poor starving schmuck who outbids another poor starving schmuck for a can of corn.
Utilitarian consequentialism is popular, especially at the level of policy and process (which is why it so often turns to societal organization and legality for examples)..but utilitarian consequentialism may be a derived good, a prism which we look through while applying our silent but efficacious moral principles....not the good-making system. The products of utilitarian consequentialism could only be as good as (and often much less than) the asserted facts upon which it's premised. Facts which, if they existed, would be the right and wrong making properties. Facts which, if they existed, would be more than a persons own subjective report of harm. Facts which, if they existed, would be more than a list of useful articles to state authority.
..etc etc etc.
I think that the most relevant criticism of utilitarian consequentialism is that it's ability to handle natural facts is only matched by it's inability to grasp non-natural facts. This is what god botherer's ham fistedly attempt to argue over, but never seem to be able to express without reference to some superstition they hold. Consider the earlier rejection of a utilitarian argument. It doesn't matter to Kloro if or whether the natural facts suggest or demand that we kill one kid to privilege the other - it is wrong for some non natural fact that the natural facts do not (or cannot) ameliorate. Similarly, in his disagreement over open marriages, it doesn't matter that the natural facts cannot support a conclusion of "wrong" - it is wrong for some non-natural fact that the natural facts do not (or cannot) ameliorate.
Let's assume for generosity that it may be, that it just is. How would you (or anyone else with thoughts on the matter) express that purported fact in whatever moral system you prefer?
What Kloro is looking for is not an explanation of why skullfucking our neighbors kid is antithetical to an (or our) orderly society, but why it's antithetical -to good-.
Things which provide human beings or a human society with a survival advantage are not interchangeable with "the good" unless it's impossible for the right thing™ to disadvantage human beings or a human society. That doesn't appear to be impossible. We might contend that there's broad overlap, but that's as far as we can take that one in an objective system. Utility to an individual or a particular society is the definition of relativism. It's a fun baby to split, because cultural relativism is a true comment on applied morality - and being a true comment it seems like it must have some role to play in an objective morality - but it doesn't. It's more an example of compelling reasons to do one set of things, which may contain plenty of good, but also bad.
Similarly, the comment that bad acts,..so defined, are eww/ugh reactions is explicitly non-cognitivist. Like the above, it is absolutely true that people do this, but this isn't an example of objectivism (or any rational position on any issue whatsoever). It asserts that we purport to report facts with moral statements, and don't. Things aren't good or bad based on a particular set of true and mind independent propositions (those things that scientists can study, in your formulation), they're not propositions at all, just "ugh!".
Even more deleterious to any objective system that a rational inference can be applied to, is the notion that humans define..rather than describe, what good and bad are. If there are facts, we don't actually get to decide what those facts are - and a government (to use your example) which simply decides that theft is wrong may be looking out for it's own interests, or the interests of a large number of it's people, but whether or not there is moral import to a legal structure and whether or not it accords to moral facts remains an open question. Very often, at least in our case..there isn't and it doesn't. Robin Hood beckons. It's morally wrong to be a racist twatwaffle...but it's not illegal, and should not be illegal, else we want to prosecute thoughtcrime. It's morally wrong to deprive another person of necessary resources or sustenance, but it's legal and should remain legal....otherwise, we're going to have to hold a trial for every poor starving schmuck who outbids another poor starving schmuck for a can of corn.
Utilitarian consequentialism is popular, especially at the level of policy and process (which is why it so often turns to societal organization and legality for examples)..but utilitarian consequentialism may be a derived good, a prism which we look through while applying our silent but efficacious moral principles....not the good-making system. The products of utilitarian consequentialism could only be as good as (and often much less than) the asserted facts upon which it's premised. Facts which, if they existed, would be the right and wrong making properties. Facts which, if they existed, would be more than a persons own subjective report of harm. Facts which, if they existed, would be more than a list of useful articles to state authority.
..etc etc etc.
I think that the most relevant criticism of utilitarian consequentialism is that it's ability to handle natural facts is only matched by it's inability to grasp non-natural facts. This is what god botherer's ham fistedly attempt to argue over, but never seem to be able to express without reference to some superstition they hold. Consider the earlier rejection of a utilitarian argument. It doesn't matter to Kloro if or whether the natural facts suggest or demand that we kill one kid to privilege the other - it is wrong for some non natural fact that the natural facts do not (or cannot) ameliorate. Similarly, in his disagreement over open marriages, it doesn't matter that the natural facts cannot support a conclusion of "wrong" - it is wrong for some non-natural fact that the natural facts do not (or cannot) ameliorate.
Let's assume for generosity that it may be, that it just is. How would you (or anyone else with thoughts on the matter) express that purported fact in whatever moral system you prefer?
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!
