/lit/ - Literature

>>11466945
Sure.
Don't think I have much interesting left to add theoretics wise, but I'll add some clarifications.

I threw around the term "good" quite often in my post and I used it in a few different senses. I used it to describe good people, to describe actions, and to describe outcomes. When it comes to good outcomes in the framework of consequentialism, I'm referring specifically to the (weighed) quantity we're trying to maximize. This is often referred to as "the good." Classical Utilitarians equate the good with hedonistic pleasure and want to maximize that. Sam Harris has a rather loose notion of well being that he wants to maximize - he's very much a consequentialist. He might not identify as one, but his notion of well being is basically his idea of the good. But overall we're getting at the same thing - we're trying to maximize something, we just may disagree on what specifically to do that with and how to pragmatically measure it.
Good actions are ones that further the good and avoid violating individual rights in my framework, while good people are those who attempt good actions to the best of their ability and develop virtues to pragmatically do so, not just sit on their asses all day. The goodness of people and actions are, of course, measured by degrees, and it's perfectly permissible for people to chase their own selfish desires within certain bounds. Hence I don't think every good person needs to be a martyr, but they should do their part.

In practice, this all becomes intuitive for me rather than a science. I'll generally support policies in government if there's empirical evidence that they up wealth, health, and/or happiness. If I think a virtue does good for society, I'll promote it and try leading by example. And generally in private affairs, deontological considerations respecting the individual take center stage. It's only when large numbers of people are involved that such principles might come to be compromised.

I think a fair criticism of what I've been saying is that others could accept my presented theoretics and come away doing vastly different things in practice. Someone could justify ancap if they take NAP to be some immutable principle while advocating only doing good of your own volition. And, to be honest, their ethics would be more well defined than my own.

Hence I'm still working on my system. Doing my best to see how I can quantify these gut instincts of mine.