RE: “Normative” ethical theories
Yesterday at 12:41 pm
(This post was last modified: Yesterday at 12:47 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Yeah, np. As an addendum, and since I’ve already recommended kagan- this business about doing realism while rejecting realism is something he observed and quantified in the process of the research which lead to his book on the geometry of desert. I’ve run into it both in moral discussions and in normal life. He turned it into a reliable predictive model for self respondence.
What you and I (and he) might call considerate and thoughtful people are guarded with their moral convictions ( and condemnations) if pressed. We might casually make some moral remark which other people immediately accept as true and obviously true. However…if prompted to think objectively or directly queried about moral realism or objectivity some portion of that same group will immediately reverse their initial responses. You can get a very good read on which ones before you do this by asking them questions about moral desert, about whether people should get more, exactly as much, or less than they deserve. Even more specifically in the negative sense.
So called “underpunushers” those who think that it might be better if we get less than we deserve when those consequences would be negative are reliable reversers. It’s hypothesized that we become wary of our moral convictions when we fear that they may lead to someone suffering in ways we do not easily anticipate.
TLDR version….it turns out that even when there’s only one person involved, internal moral disagreement is fairly easy to prompt.
What you and I (and he) might call considerate and thoughtful people are guarded with their moral convictions ( and condemnations) if pressed. We might casually make some moral remark which other people immediately accept as true and obviously true. However…if prompted to think objectively or directly queried about moral realism or objectivity some portion of that same group will immediately reverse their initial responses. You can get a very good read on which ones before you do this by asking them questions about moral desert, about whether people should get more, exactly as much, or less than they deserve. Even more specifically in the negative sense.
So called “underpunushers” those who think that it might be better if we get less than we deserve when those consequences would be negative are reliable reversers. It’s hypothesized that we become wary of our moral convictions when we fear that they may lead to someone suffering in ways we do not easily anticipate.
TLDR version….it turns out that even when there’s only one person involved, internal moral disagreement is fairly easy to prompt.
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!
