Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:32 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Serious] Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
#71
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
(May 9, 2021 at 10:52 am)Angrboda Wrote: The meaning of rational is also something that I'm beginning to think you don't understand. Something isn't rational simply because reason was involved somewhere along the way -- it must be rational top, bottom, and middle. Partially rational isn't rational.

Perfect is the enemy of good. You are not being reasonable.
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
#72
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
There's always the possibility that no one is being irrational, that in this thread and in real world situations which we apprehend as being of moral import....there are misunderstandings of facts and information asymmetry between agents in those relationships.
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!
Reply
#73
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
(May 8, 2021 at 10:17 am)Angrboda Wrote: There's plenty of debate as to whether mathematical objects are real or not.  When you say that mathematics can't survive this sort of skepticism, you are implying that math does or should survive such skepticism when the reality is that there is considerable disagreement as to whether it does.

I do not assume math survives (or should survive) that kind of skepticism. A good case can be made for mathematical fictionalism. But a good case can be made against it too. But (we must admit) you really have to dial up the skepticism to consider mathematical fictionalism. And if someone wants to do that-- fine. But many of my interlocutors are hesitant to use that level of skepticism with math. But they throw that much plus the kitchen sink at morality.

And that's fine. Moral realism has trouble surviving the kitchen sink test... and that's an issue. But so does math. That's all I'm saying.



Quote:You're confusing bad in the moral sense with non-moral senses of bad.

I'm not confusing them, I'm putting them in the same category. Think about Epicurus' project. He wanted to discover "the good life." And he wound up at the conclusion that pleasure is good (ie worth seeking in one's own life, and that's the point he argued). Now. If you buy that, then when you ask the question "How can I do good for others?"-- you have an answer.

G.E. Moore Wrote:What is good? and What is bad? and to the discussion of this question (of these questions) I give the name of Ethics, since that science must, at all events, include it.
...
But this is a question which may have many meanings. If, for example, each of us were to say ‘I am doing good now’ or ‘I had a good dinner yesterday,’ these statements would each of them be some sort of answer to our question, although perhaps a false one. So, too, when A asks B what school he ought to send his son to, B’s answer will certainly be an ethical judgment. And similarly all distribution of praise or blame to any personage or thing that has existed, now exists, or will exist, does give some answer to the question ‘What is good?’ In all such cases some particular thing is judged to be good or bad: the question ‘What?’ is answered by ‘This.’ But this is not the sense in which a scientific Ethics asks the question.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/53430/53...3430-h.htm

Quote:If I go in for surgery, and I experience pain during the surgery, that doesn't mean the surgeon harmed me in any way that is morally relevant.

Assuming you get relief from the surgery, that pain is an "instrumental good" that is ultimately designed to reduce pain. So it is a morally relevant affair. You could say that it is "good" that you had the surgery because the happiness/relief from pain the operation afforded you outweighs whatever pain might be involved in the procedure.

What if you had power of attorney of a woman with severe alzheimer's? And let's say she is diagnosed with the same thing you had the surgery for. And you know that the surgery worked well to give you relief. Would it be right to let her suffer, even though you have it in your power to use her copious bank funds to pay her medical expenses?

That's a straight up moral question, wouldn't you agree? And it starts with the recognition that pain/suffering is bad.

And don't worry I won't tell anyone about the "pillow incident" Wink

But, yeah. Consequentialist theories struggle to show the importance of intention. It's a real weakness in those theories IMO.
Reply
#74
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
I'd say that, even when we're discussing those things which we deem necessity - or things which may be medical necessity - it's still the case that surgeons concern themselves with the harm they might do. They're careful, we hope - and have made arrangements for anesthetics.

The anesthetics may not be medically necessary, interestingly enough.....but we still tend to think they should be present if they're available and would help. We might even see this a a positive commitment to do something, rather than a negative axiom to avoid another thing. Harm avoidance is generally straightforward - or at lest can be. Responsibilities to help, maybe not so much. In the general we might agree with the notion but it's hard to build consensus over what, exactly, we have to help with or who we have to help. Children, for example - present and future. All of them, with everything? Just mine, just with a few things? Maybe we have moral responsibilities to children - but they don't include preventing abortions or environmental apocalypse.

If that were the case, and assuming people are or can be rational agents and they've been provided with and understood some argument to that effect which leads them to conclude as much - I don't think we'd stop feeling as though we did. We'd find another way to communicate it. Sometimes, these declarative statements seem to be just that. This thing is true, and anywhere it isn't true I will make it true. Non-negotiables.
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!
Reply
#75
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
(May 10, 2021 at 11:43 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Far too much moral reasoning is based on speculations about the future. The trolley car problem, for example, relies on comparing two possible futures and the dilemma of having to choose one over the other. Rather than judging the choice on either utilitarian or deontological grounds, I want know how the moral agent at the crux of the dilemma made his or her decision. Maybe the rightness or wrongness of the moral agent’s action isn’t in the action itself or its outcome; but rather embedded in the nature of the moral agent. Did he or she act in his or her fullest capacity as a human being attempting to exercise sound judgement?

I think it's an interesting issue where the locus of morality lies. In the act? In the rule or maxim? In the moral agent?

I tend to want to say "in the act." There are right and wrong actions, and even responsible moral agents commit wrong acts.


Quote:With respect to future generations, I would like to see a moral justification based on the notion that the people alive today are not necessarily obligated to speculate about possible events in the far future but can be obligated to live virtuous lives with the incidentally effect of benefiting future generations. For example, the moral dilemma of the ancient world was not about whether to abolish slavery, which was inconceivable; but rather how to best accommodate an apparent necessary evil. IMHO, we cannot fault the ancients for failing to imagine a world in which industrial-technology replaced forced-labor, whether it be chattel slaves, serfs, or in-debted servants. But we can reflect on whether they did the best they could overall, which I think is all anyone can ask.

IDK. I love the Greeks, but they were insensitive bastards when it came to ideas about slaves. I'm sure you know Aristotle's thoughts on the matter. Plato urged against talking to slaves as if you took them seriously. Those thinkers, who were dedicated in many respects to discovering what is right and just, didn't even speak up for slaves... or consider their welfare at all. They can be faulted for those morally blind ideas.

Do you think there is such a thing as "moral progress" Neo? I think there is. And I think slavery is a fine example. While it was once inconceivable to abolish slavery, now it is inconceivable to reinstate it. To me that means that good triumphed. There have been many steps forward made, and many more to come.

That's my issue with religion. It seems to want to keep morality stagnant (at least some factions of it). I mean, slavery is biblical, right? In one sense doing unto others as you would have them do to you would seem to take slavery off the table. But then: "slaves obey your masters." I know the passage doesn't usually get a fair shake from atheists; it's more compassionate that it seems at first blush-- but I still hate it, and think it's wrong... morally wrong. And it was indeed used in the South to legitimize evil. I don't hold THAT against Paul. But I do question his motivations in saying it in the first place. And I'm very hesitant to say he did the right thing by putting that passage in his letters. Of course, maybe he wouldn't have said something so dumb had he known people were going to treat his communiques as the word of God.

@The Grand Nudger

Do you think intention factors into moral theory at all? In one respect, I think consequentialism does capture the importance of good intentions. After all, good intentions generally lead to better outcomes. But again, fringe cases threaten this position. Also, if a moral agent considers all possible outcomes, from which she selects the "best" or "most good"... isn't that what good intention is?
Reply
#76
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
It could explain why we feel differently about two people who've committed the same bad thing based on their circumstances or dispositions, I think. We sometimes assert that children can't be counted on as having a specific and relevant intent to harm. We don't expect a person fleeing or fighting for their life to make stellar moral decisions.

I'd say that picking the best or most good thing is good intentions, but it's also a term of art. In a list of two exclusively bad things - the best or most good being referenced could be genocidal on the one hand, or purposeless cruelty on the other. I don't think this is an edge case. I think that the majority of human decisions on things of moral import - places where we have to sit down and work through our next step - are exclusively sub-optimal decision fields.

The only place that every moral decision has to have any good resolution, is in our imagination. The consequences of things, likewise, may not be so directly tied to our intentions for them. Insomuch as our intentions are at least in principle a demonstrable item - I think they play in pretty much any 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!
Reply
#77
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
(May 10, 2021 at 7:58 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I tend to want to say "in the act." There are right and wrong actions, and even responsible moral agents commit wrong acts.

Yeah, I have tended to consider the question “What does it mean to be virtuous?” more basic than “What is right action?” and usually take it for granted that the virtues of a moral agent is a pre-condition for his or her right action. Unless of course there are paradoxical situations in which someone can face a circumstances with sound judgement, courage, and competency…and despite such virtue, make morally reprehensible choices.

I find it difficult to come up with one, which could just be a failure of imagination. A lot of comedy IS based on accidental fortunes and unlikely successes of seriously-flawed protagonists. And all of tragedy is about bad things happening to good people. And yet even, maintaining the distinction between guilt and culpability seems to undo any paradox. Oedipus may have been guilty but he wasn’t culpable for Apollo’s wrath.

(May 10, 2021 at 7:58 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Do you think there is such a thing as "moral progress" Neo? I think there is. And I think slavery is a fine example. While it was once inconceivable to abolish slavery, now it is inconceivable to reinstate it.

I’m not entirely convinced it was moral progress - independent of technological changes - that made the abolition of chattel slavery achievable. So with all due respect to my Quaker ancestors, I do not see this as a purely moral triumph. IMHO, individual human beings are about as virtuous as they have always been, it’s just that modern humans face different moral dilemmas than pre-historic, ancient, or pre-industrial men and women. For example, I’ll never be faced with the possibility of my brother’s widow wanting me to impregnate her so she has children to care for her in old age.

I suppose the modern world can boast that our institutions often mitigate the consequences of our more common individual moral failures. For example, while chattel slavery has been explicitly abolished and many Western countries have at least some workplace protections, the impulse to dominate and exploit one’s fellow man and/or indifference to the suffering of strangers still expresses itself. In the West, have we not off-shored exploitation to repressive governments, communist nations, and/or desperate populations? As Nietzsche might have said, we think we are good because our claws are blunt. Lack of vice is not the same as virtue. And there have been trade-offs, the ancients did not stockpile weapons capable of destroying all life as we know it. Can we truly say that today’s geo-political order which puts the world in danger of total annihilation is morally superior to scattered tribes raiding each other for resources?
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
#78
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
Insomuch as those stockpiles are also a part of a moral order which we've discarded or believe to have been flawed, I think we can say that we've improved, sure.

Thing is, we're still those scattered tribes competing for resources. Always have been. It's not inconceivable that one band of raiders is less shitty or maybe even just a little bit better than another. In Raid World, there is no non raid option. You select among equally raidful things and you don't have to see any one of them as a good thing. I'd argue that it might even help a band of raiders select the least shitty thing, if they realize how shitty every choice available truly is. This, ofc, compared to a hypothetical society in raid world that always sees at least one option as good.
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!
Reply
#79
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
(May 14, 2021 at 4:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(May 10, 2021 at 7:58 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I tend to want to say "in the act." There are right and wrong actions, and even responsible moral agents commit wrong acts.

Yeah, I have tended to consider the question “What does it mean to be virtuous?” more basic than “What is right action?” and usually take it for granted that the virtues of a moral agent is a pre-condition for his or her right action. Unless of course there are paradoxical situations in which someone can face a circumstances with sound judgement, courage, and competency…and despite such virtue, make morally reprehensible choices.

[Image: main-qimg-e356ba2d3700ba0997dfd41090f01916]

There's a certain Malthusian logic to his choice. But was he wrong?
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#80
RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
Maybe not. The delivery was ham fisted - what do we expect, but that was a central premise to his likability as a villain. Our sympathy to his cause. It is, after all, a human author using an actor as a puppet and a monster for a mask.
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!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Toward a Planet of Dogs? Leonardo17 1 381 November 9, 2023 at 9:31 am
Last Post: FrustratedFool
  Maximizing Moral Virtue h311inac311 191 12778 December 17, 2022 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Objectivist
  As a nonreligious person, where do you get your moral guidance? Gentle_Idiot 79 6403 November 26, 2022 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war? Macoleco 184 6574 August 19, 2022 at 7:03 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Why is murder wrong if Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true? FlatAssembler 52 3739 August 7, 2022 at 8:51 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  On theism, why do humans have moral duties even if there are objective moral values? Pnerd 37 3087 May 24, 2022 at 11:49 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Can we trust our Moral Intuitions? vulcanlogician 72 3605 November 7, 2021 at 1:25 pm
Last Post: Alan V
  Any Moral Relativists in the House? vulcanlogician 72 4581 June 21, 2021 at 9:09 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  A Moral Reality Acrobat 29 3185 September 12, 2019 at 8:09 pm
Last Post: brewer
  In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order Acrobat 84 6902 August 30, 2019 at 3:02 pm
Last Post: LastPoet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)