New Ethics Thread

File: 23 KB, 333x499, AfterVirtue.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

New Ethics Thread Anonymous Wed Jul 11 22:35:32 2018 No.11447421 [Reply] [Original]

General discussion of ethics. Last one I can recall died after a 12 day run. (>>/lit/thread/S11193487))

What I hope to accomplish:
>A general discussion over ethics and how one should conduct themselves within the confines of life.
>Construct an exhaustive reading list that covers all major theories.

Major theories:

>Consequentialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/?PHPSESSID=4b08d0b434c8d01c8dd23f4348059e23

>Deontology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

>Virtue Ethics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

>Egoism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/

General talking points:
>To which theory do you subscribe?
>Do you deviate from the general consensus of your preferred theory in any major way?
>What do you feel is the strongest argument in favor of your position?
>What is the strongest argument against?
>Would you like to give a book recommendation?

This is an open discussion so answer the discussion points as you like, or skip any you like, or bring up anything else relevant to the topic of ethics more generally.

Bonus topic points:
>Why is ethics important as a philosophical domain?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 11 22:56:52 2018 No.11447466 Can i into ethics if ideas such as 'justice' have never really had a strong pull on me?

Anonymous Wed Jul 11 23:01:40 2018 No.11447480

>>11447466
Ethics is the idea of the proper way to live a life generally. This can be based on justice, ego, an altruistic purpose or teleology or other things. Effectively if you do anything you have some moral compelling you to do it because you have a way to live. Aiming for the proper ethic is simply attempting to align your moral to the best possible principal.

tl;dr: yes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 11 23:01:49 2018 No.11447481 yaaaawn

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 11 23:54:59 2018 No.11447608 >>11447481 interesting take. Care to extrapolate?

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 00:05:38 2018 No.11447629

>>11447421
Ok you got you're 4 major theories. But I don't see why an egoist would ever want to sit around discussing this. Deontology and consequentialism are unworkable armchair speculations. So you only have one option left, as limited as it is. What's there to discuss?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 00:10:47 2018 No.11447637 >>11447421 Can you give me a quick rundown on each of these? As in, explain it to a brainlet?

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 00:21:52 2018 No.11447686

>>11447629
Egoism is not necessarily the downright rejection of ethics altogether but the assertion that they are based on the self, i.e. what ultimately contributes most to ones well being is that which they should aim for. This in some ways diminishes the option of a transcendent "good", but at the same time down plays the necessity of one for an individual to make choices.

>>11447637
I have a link to both the wikipedia page and the stanford encyclopedia on each. For an even more basic introduction:

>Consequentialism
That which ends in a net increase of well-being is good. i.e. the ends justify the means.

>Deontology
That is good which serves its purpose. Think of a sort of "destiny" mechanism.

>Virtue
That is good which follows some innate ethical code. i.e. some set of actions are constantly better than others. This theory prioritizes individual responsibility and has almost a "means justifies ends" aspect interestingly enough.

>Egoism
The moral should be ground in the self. Happiness is the closest thing to goodness achievable. A strong subscriber to egoism may help others, but only because it will make the self feel good, and/or the other person may help them later on.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 00:32:34 2018 No.11447729 >>11447686 >well-being what is this exactly? >>11447686 >That is good which serves its purpose Care to expand upon this? Also I have seen the OP book in my local used book store last few visits. How is it?

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 01:08:32 2018 No.11447864

>>11447686
I'm not saying egoism rejects ethics. I'm saying they reject (honestly) discussing ethics with you. How is that going to benefit them?
Far better for the egoist to go snort some coke, steal your wallet and sleep with your wife, all while convincing you the only true ethical behavior is generosity and forgiveness.

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 01:14:59 2018 No.11447886

>To which theory do you subscribe?
Virtue Ethics, particularly Thomistic ethics. Along with that, I feel compelled to mention I'm a realist and believe in Natural Law Theory.
>Do you deviate from the general consensus of your preferred theory in any major way?
I would say yes in comparison to all of the analytic philosophers who are virtue ethicists.
>What do you feel is the strongest argument in favor of your position?
Realism and natural law
>What is the strongest argument against?
the arguments for realism and NLT are inductive
>Would you like to give a book recommendation?
Obviously After Virtue and probably Natural Goodness. (The goldmine of learning are the journal articles people)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 03:11:38 2018 No.11448180 >>11447886 Maybe we could get a list of goldmine journal articles going?

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 05:44:09 2018 No.11448631

>>11448180
I for one would certainly welcome the idea. I am not especially familiar with philosophical articles, but remain very open to reading them if there are any suggestions.

>>11447864
Interesting point. I would say that it still would benefit the egoist to learn of the different theories if not only because of the possibility of them being wrong. If they retained any reasonable doubt of their assertion, I think the advantage of learning the opposing point would be found to be self-evident.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 05:59:13 2018 No.11448664 >not being an error theorist

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 06:26:30 2018 No.11448738 >>11447421 Do you guys lean towards moral naturalism or moral non-naturalism?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 06:31:47 2018 No.11448752 >>11448738 Personally I believe that there is inherit and objective morality, but I reject the claim that that which is natural is necassarily good.

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 06:43:44 2018 No.11448774

I have my own take on morality. I am primarily a moral idealist and believe in moral absolutes.
For example, killing and stealing is always wrong no matter the reasoning behind it or purpose it serves.
However, all these codes of conduct must be based on an objective ideal, for which I turn to the inherit logic of human behavior. Essentially the golden rule states don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to your self. If you break this rule then you are a hypocrite or have committed an error of logic in how you treat others.
More so than this, there should be a distinction between what should be done and what ought to be done. This brings the ideas of justice and rationality into the mix. I believe it is evil to murder a man in defense of your own life(even if they are trying to kill you), however it is equitable (or just) and rational. A sort of practical evil, if you will.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 07:56:51 2018 No.11448929 >>11448774 Books for this?

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 09:35:05 2018 No.11449190

>>11448774
I do not think that the belief in the incomplete detachment of ethics from rationality is especially unique. The problem I see with this line of thinking in practicality is that it necessitates evil, while, in my opinion, a perfect good should be above all things desired. As a subscriber to virtue ethics, I would argue that there is some set of virtues that takes into account the needs of the ego, all while still having some altruistic proponent. That is to say that the most desirable outcome should always be that which follows good actions.

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 10:26:39 2018 No.11449399

>>11448929
I read a variety of books and papers on normative ethics and formed my own conclusions.

>>11449190
In general I think morality is in line with rationality, but there are circumstances where serving the greater good comes into conflict with ethical behavior, in which evil is preferred and sometimes even necessary.
All other ostensible ethical dilemmas are solved by recognizing that one is responsible for ones actions. For example you are trapped on a sinking raft and you drown a few passengers so that the raft will stay afloat longer. You are still responsible for committing a criminal act of murder of an innocent even if it appears it was in the service of the greater good.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 14:03:48 2018 No.11450397 >>11449399 Which papers exactly?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 14:24:23 2018 No.11450466 >>11447421 Where exactly does Nietzsche fall on the scale?

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 14:49:57 2018 No.11450554

>>11449399
This is still based on a fundamental good. The virtue ethics assertion is that whatever it is that is an actual virtue must be deep enough to account for this. If the evil act is preferable to the good, then it is not actually evil but may only be given different circumstances. Because of this, there is still some underlining moral involved in making that decision that would also apply to a drastically different scenario. I.e. the pull to save as many lives as possible outweighs the normal surface level assertion of not committing murder which was actually based on the same principal.

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 15:22:51 2018 No.11450701

>>11450466
Nietzsche is quite critical of Deontology and Utilitarianism (most common brand of consequentialism); he doesn't have as strong a criticism of virtue ethics—Mactintyre (probably the most important philosopher of ethics still living) claims that the fundamental choice in ethics is between what might be called Nietzsche's anti-ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics (I am paraphrasing, of course), and provides a strong case for the superiority of Aristotle.

If interested, I recommend After Virtue, the book in the OP's image. Its very very good.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 15:44:35 2018 No.11450791 >>11450701 How much background do I need for After Virtue? I read some of the basics for Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Nietzsche, etc, on ethics but by no means in depth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 16:21:21 2018 No.11450978 >>11450791 Just start reading it really.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 16:23:29 2018 No.11450985 >>11447686 Consequentialism =/= utilitarianism But utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 17:11:24 2018 No.11451199 File: 434 KB, 601x654, Photoshop_2018-07-12_03-57-54.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Any book recommendation before reading After Virtue or can I jump right into it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 17:12:22 2018 No.11451202 >>11451199 Literary read the comments above you man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 17:53:08 2018 No.11451361 >>11448631 You should really start getting into journal articles. I'd love to have us all get an ongoing list started.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 18:51:14 2018 No.11451651 Here's hoping this thread lasts just as long, if not longer.

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 19:08:52 2018 No.11451737
File: 158 KB, 950x1177, Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Portrait_of_a_Young_Girl_-_WGA20359.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11451651
I agree. Talking about virtue is almost good in itself: plus a proper study of Ethics is interesting AF and is a good defense against the overload of poorly thought sophistry that is being spoonforced to modern day Americans.

I wonder if there could be an /Ethics General/ on Lit: it certainly is a topic which is woefully under discussed today. It is significant, I think, that 4chan has a politics board, but not an ethics board.

Anyway, thanks OP for starting this thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 19:53:26 2018 No.11451936 >>11451737 Agreed, agreed, good sir!

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 19:55:30 2018 No.11451949

>>11447686
Not sure if I agree with that taxonomy you just gave anon. From my learning, it's more along the lines of:

>consequentionalism
An action is moral if it results in good consequences, but what a "good" consequences is varies by theory.
I.E utilitarianism is based around a hedonistic principle where an action is good if its consequences maximize (result in more) pleasure and minimize (result in less) pain.)

>deontology
An action is good if (and only if) it coheres with some kind of moral duty ("deon" in greek means obligation)
I.E Kant's ethics is based around moral duties which are absolute because of the categorical imperative (where we ought to refrain from performing actions if it means using other individuals as means rather than treating them as ends in themselves). This system is importantly different from consequentialism bc it leaves no room for exceptions, and thus even if using someone as a means would result in good consequences we still have a duty to refrain from doing so.

>Virtue ethics
An action is good if it expresses a virtue and bad if it expresses a vice. This is probably the loosest moral system and doesn't involve following a strict ethical code. But it does involve categorizing features of character into good or bad and judging which actions are linked with what good or bad features of character.
I.E Aristotle's golden mean, which states that a virtue is always positioned in between two vices, one of which is an absence of the virtue (bravery and cowardice) and one of which is an overabundance of the virtue which then becomes a vice (so bravery and dangerous overconfidence). Thus rushing into a battle alone and running away from a battle are both wrong because they express vices, while running towards the battle with a good group of your fellow soldiers is right because it expresses the virtue of bravery (this is just an example)

>Egoism
I'd probably say that Egoism is closest to a version of Virtue Ethics, but one which says that the only virtues are those which serve your self-interest. But you could probably come up with a consequentialist or a deontological version of egoism too, so I wouldn't really count it as a moral framework in the same way these are, it's more of a claim about values

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 19:57:23 2018 No.11451957 Never heard it discussed here but for any ethicist whose looking for a more modern reading of all ethical theories in relation to the modern age (technology, farming, cities) check out Hans Jonas "Imperitave of Responsibility"

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 20:09:36 2018 No.11452014

>>11451949
I pretty much agree with all of this. My comment was directly replying to someone asking to explain it to a brainlet, which is why I opted for the oversimplified versions. That being said yours are much better and I appreciate your contribution.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 20:16:45 2018 No.11452061 What about other books by MacIntyre? Should I read any of them?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 20:47:48 2018 No.11452221 >>11447686 Not sure I'd agree with your explanation of virtue ethics. The best summary of it is contained in the Nicomachean Ethics: "virtue is a disposition".

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 20:50:24 2018 No.11452231

i thinks ethics as a realm of study is stupid! you do what you do because that's what you see other people do. somebody decided that they didn't want their stuff stolen so they said NO WE WILL NOT DO THAT IN THIS CHRISTIAN CAVE! and they did that with a lot of other things that made them feel unhappy and bam we have ethics. i don't see how the field evolved into anything more complicated than that

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 20:54:31 2018 No.11452252

>>11452061
Read after virtue by him. But it seems like he doesn't subscribe to natural law theory, being the analytic philosopher he is. Given that, you might be left wantingn more from him. I highly suggest the book with some supplementary material on natural law theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 20:54:44 2018 No.11452257 File: 6 KB, 214x236, Grayons.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11452231 Holy shit Ian! Great job BTFO'ing the entire field of ethics!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 20:55:46 2018 No.11452262 >>11452252 Not him, but what supplementary books and articles would you recommend regarding Natural Law?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 20:56:22 2018 No.11452267 >>11452252 So most of the things he has to say are contained in After Virtue? Also, please recommend me resources on natural law theory.

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 21:01:54 2018 No.11452297

>>11452262
>>11452267
I'm unsure right now... I mean I'm a realist cuz Im a mathematics major and that places into my assenting to NLT. Do some research. If you two are students, go to JSTOR.

You can also look up Aquinas's Summa on natural law.

Heres a basic claim: Man's nature tends towards virtue. It was how he was created and we can objectively observe and define his natural tendency towards virtue and what those virtues are.

Oh and yes, most of MacIntyre's stuff is in After Virtue.

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 21:07:03 2018 No.11452324

>>11452221
I tried to put it in as simple terms as possible and I am aware I left out some important aspects. The main focus of my comment on it was to simply explain the virtue/vice divide, in that "some actions are consistently better than others". I am aware my comment did not really do it justice for anyone that understands virtue theory already. It was meant to explain the very basic underlying premise.

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 21:48:41 2018 No.11452497

>>11452267
Dunno what the other guy is talking about:
After Virtue might be read as a self contained unit, but I believe Macintyre intended it to be read with two of his subsequent books: "Dependent Rational Animals" and "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?"

Personally though, I would recommend moving from AV to "Encyclopedia, Geneology and Tradition", as in that later work, Macintyre goes quite a way towards better establishing the Nietzschean/Foucaultian position, and then proceeding to advance a strong argument against it.

Also, if you are interested in more of Macintyre's later Thomistic turn, I would reccommend "God, Philosophy, Universities"—it is, among other things, a quite good explanation of why exactly Thomas Aquinas is so important in the history of philosophy/ethics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 22:11:30 2018 No.11452576 >>11452497 MacIntyre makes a case against Nietzschean philosophy in Encyclopedia, Genealogy, and Tradition?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 22:28:08 2018 No.11452658 File: 70 KB, 720x789, 17201060_10209166909146420_1917889690681178571_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] reminder: macintyre is the only person other than icycalm to take nietzsche seriously.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 22:32:09 2018 No.11452684 >>11452658 What about Girard, Foot, and Santayana?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 22:33:34 2018 No.11452695 >>11452684 shut up bitch

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 22:51:43 2018 No.11452768

Am I wrong to think egoism was the natural position for most of the Greeks? Like there seems to be an acceptance of egoism in Greek philosophy so implicit that it isn't even articulated as such. Aristotle talks about the virtuous man wanting the best things for himself and being a friend to himself most of all and mostly focuses on virtues that are useful in improving your own life. The Republic is basically Socrates defending the idea of justice against the charge that it's not in a person's self-interest to be just, with nobody suggesting that you should be just anyway even if it's a net harm to you. I haven't read any stoicism or Epicureanism but they also seem to be based in their own ideas of what's best for the practitioner of these philosophies rather than focusing on society as a whole.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 12 22:58:58 2018 No.11452797 >>11452695 Okay, so I'll add those three to your list

Anonymous Thu Jul 12 22:59:09 2018 No.11452800

>>11452768
I always took it as egoism was their default position, and these philosophers were trying to explain why they should no longer follow such an ideology. Because the ideas would be rather fundamentally rooted, it might have simply taken an appeal to the ego in order to convince the listener that the ego was not above all else. So when Aristotle speaks about virtues benefiting the virtuous, it is not necessarily the case that he himself believed this was the ultimate reason for virtue, but he used this to explain that it was better at indirectly accomplishing what egoism could often not directly accomplish.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 00:13:01 2018 No.11453052 >>11452267 Honestly? Just read all of what he has to say.

>>	lel Fri Jul 13 00:19:17 2018 No.11453073 >>11447421 Why should I read this book? Convince me pls

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 00:20:58 2018 No.11453078 >>11453073 to see the pragmatic value of virtue ethics. From there, you'll find that virtue ethics is objectively true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 00:29:25 2018 No.11453116 >>11453073 Because you want to know the best way to live your life, and you are willing to spend a few hours of reading to learn through another man's work in the direction of that answer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 00:30:54 2018 No.11453121 >>11452061 Whose Justice? Which Rationaltiy?, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, Dependent Rational Animals, Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity

>>	lel Fri Jul 13 00:31:47 2018 No.11453126 >>11453116 But what will I find in this book in particular in order to achieve waht you say?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 00:33:21 2018 No.11453133 >>11447421 lmao like how is ethics even real nigga? like just do what you want and shit hahaha

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 00:47:36 2018 No.11453178 >>11453133 Its funny because one of the first replies of this thread predicted this type of egoist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 00:59:21 2018 No.11453204 >>11448774 What do you mean by "evil" then?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 01:07:43 2018 No.11453234 >>11453078 That's pretty suspicious. People are more likely to be convinced something is objectively true even if it isn't when they're already convinced of the pragmatic value of it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 01:09:23 2018 No.11453242 >>11453178 that's not egoism. "whatever you want" =/= what is good for you.

Anonymous Fri Jul 13 01:10:52 2018 No.11453246

>>11453234
He wasn't a Thomist at the time. He typically doesn't try to argue from Thomistic metaphysics. It genuinely is a good book, just read it.

This is super simplified but you can read AV then say "Thomistic metaphysics and Natural Law Theory reveal to us our set of virtues and our intended telos."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 01:11:55 2018 No.11453249 >>11453246 then say "The set of values and the telos that MacIntyre is unable to turn to in AV are the ones shown with Aquinas's metaphysics and NLT."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 02:36:38 2018 No.11453452 >>11453204 What do you mean by mean?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 03:21:04 2018 No.11453523 >>11453452 Not nice.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 03:45:29 2018 No.11453563 >>11452497 >"Dependent Rational Animals" and "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?" those are pathetic title, is a secular humanists clinging to its little human rights?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 04:29:03 2018 No.11453641 >>11453563 Umm calling him a secular humanist? LOL

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 04:48:09 2018 No.11453672 >>11453563 >literally judging a book by its cover another day on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 04:48:11 2018 No.11453673 >>11453563 >Thomistic turn Implies >catholic conversion

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 05:08:35 2018 No.11453723 Who do virtue ethicist basically just read like 1st century self-help gurus?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 05:10:29 2018 No.11453731 Why do virtue ethicist basically just read like 1st century self-help gurus?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 08:20:20 2018 No.11454232 >>11453731 Because virtue ethicists are the only ones whom have finished the Canon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 08:23:58 2018 No.11454240 >>11454232 I have made an embarrassing typo. Please ignore that, friends.

Anonymous Fri Jul 13 10:28:55 2018 No.11454610
File: 99 KB, 480x336, FB_IMG_15312389887184544.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

1: Ethics is concerned with the regulation of behavior.
1.1: Ethical statements concern what ought to be and not what is. Thus empirical ethics is impossible.
1.2: Ethical statements are concerned with how agents ought to act and not the agents themself. Thus universalism is the only possible ethics.
2: Self contradictionary statements are incorrect.
2.1: If an ethical statement leads to a contradiction, then it's incorrect.
2.2: If 1.2 and 2.1 are correct, the only way for an ethical statement to be correct if it can be universal with contradiction.
Guess Kant was right all along.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 10:30:54 2018 No.11454620 >>11454610 How would the people on the left answer to "Why act morally" and "What happens if I and others just ignore your system and act as we please"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 10:35:33 2018 No.11454643 >>11454620 Kant would answer that following the CI is the only course of action that can stand rational scrutiny. For the others, I don't know.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 10:39:01 2018 No.11454662 >>11454643 Then I'll just behave irrationally. So what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 10:51:44 2018 No.11454718 >>11454662 Well if you have knowledge about the CI then you'll realise that anything you do is retarded and meaningless as it is built upon arbitrary axioms.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 10:53:28 2018 No.11454726 >>11454718 Okay? And? I'll just do what I want anyway. Is this the extent of ethics? "If you don't agree with my ethical system then you're dumb."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 10:56:40 2018 No.11454740 >>11454726 Well your moral system is built on an unprovable, arbitrary axiom which only exists due to your emotional desires and nothing more so It's you that habe to prove that you ought to do what you want to do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 10:57:55 2018 No.11454746 >>11454740 I don't have to prove anything and I'll just do what I choose whether I can prove I "ought" to or not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 11:02:10 2018 No.11454765 >>11454620 Bentham would organise state issued police death squads to exterminate all citizens who are a net drain on the total aggregate happiness. All moral reprobates get the bullet under classical utilitarianism

Anonymous Fri Jul 13 11:07:50 2018 No.11454790
File: 12 KB, 184x184, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11454746
Yes you have to prove it as you take it for a fact. As we are in an argument it means that you need to be able to motivate your stand point. If you can't motivate your ethical egoism then I have won the argument as you provided zero proof for your case.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 11:10:39 2018 No.11454806 thread is too long for me to read, but should i read this macintyre book? im not particularly interested in morality, but open to new shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 11:12:29 2018 No.11454817 >>11454790 Okay, then you win the argument and I'll just do what I want anyway. So what?

Anonymous Fri Jul 13 11:20:27 2018 No.11454854

>>11454817
Well you have no reason to. Isn't it depressing that you'll live your entire life like a monkey or a small child, unable to motivate your actions without anything except your feelings and the realisation that you can't justify that which gives your life meaning? That you'll be driven, unable to understand why, wandering with fleeting purpose, with no moral standards and remembering that you got btfod by some random schmuk on a mongolian basketweaving forum.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 11:22:23 2018 No.11454864 >>11454854 Nah, it doesn't bother me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 11:32:48 2018 No.11454900 >>11454854 I'm not sure he got btfo'd, so much as berated while trying to walk away.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 11:39:05 2018 No.11454932 >>11454900 No, my entire point was that these ethical systems are not binding in any way and it doesn't actually matter if someone refuses to follow it. He was never capable of showing anything contrary to that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 12:03:15 2018 No.11455082 >>11453563 Pathetic post.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 12:04:55 2018 No.11455091 >>11454662 Living a virtuous life is the only way to achieve true happiness. Any who objects with that statement are still prisoners in Plato's cave.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 12:16:33 2018 No.11455158 >>11454854 You're already presupposing a moral system here u dumb-ass.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 13:40:55 2018 No.11455577 >>11452257 bro how'd u guess my name???

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 13:46:41 2018 No.11455615 >>11454610 Who is the balding guy? Looks a bit like Singer but I can tell he isn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 13:49:06 2018 No.11455628 >>11454765 Based. Can someone here post the utilitarian death squads image?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 13:50:58 2018 No.11455641 >>11454806 Yes. You might want to look at the last thread on this subject since this one has devolved into screeching by those who are mad at "muh moral reasoning".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 14:05:06 2018 No.11455723 >>11455577 I'm psychic. I can also tell you that all Ians like video games!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 14:43:12 2018 No.11455900 >>11452576 Yes. It is quite an in-depth account. I will say the book itself is quite difficult though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 15:13:13 2018 No.11456071 >>11455900 Compared to AV, how difficult?

Anonymous Fri Jul 13 15:31:39 2018 No.11456177

>>11454610
Ad 1. Whose behaviour? And justify why you chose whatever group you chose.
Ad 1.2 How an agent ought to act depends in many instances upon properties of the agent himself. To solve this by saying that "but IF he were X, he too would have to ..." and so on, is to reduce your statement and the word "universalism" to meaninglessness. By that stretch, Jewish law would be universalist too, so long as it were to preface itself by considering all beings and saying that IF you are a Jew, the following applies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 15:34:12 2018 No.11456186 >>11454765 Lesson learned: I'll be an undercover drain. >>11454854 >Isn't it depressing that [...] No, to be quite tbqhwy with you

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 15:43:21 2018 No.11456231 >>11456071 Quite a bit more—Difficulty level might be estimated by saying that A.V. is readable for a smart undergraduate, EG&T is more at the graduate student level.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 15:48:33 2018 No.11456258 >>11447421 ethics: do what i want or i will use socialized violence to kill you, also isn’t i weird how the strongest people always decide what is ethical? ok here’s endless walls of text

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 16:01:52 2018 No.11456344 >>11456231 Thanks for the insight man; I appreciate it!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 16:15:59 2018 No.11456415 >>11456258 Book 1 of republic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 16:18:16 2018 No.11456439 >>11456415 >muh constitution of the soul >muh you're actually hurting YOURSELF, dumbo

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 16:22:44 2018 No.11456459 File: 513 KB, 800x600, 1529812354291.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11456439 >You played yourself!

Anonymous Fri Jul 13 17:02:09 2018 No.11456658

>>11456258
From my understanding the consensus is that ethical behavior is beneficial. If then it is true that it is beneficial toward the ethical individual, it would make sense that they would be strong, as they are taking part in especially beneficial behavior. Beyond this, it is not unreasonable to prescribe motives to these philosophers as self-seeking and attempting to sway the behavior of others, but I believe that it is equally as likely that they give the lessons on altruistic motives of attempting to better the lives of everyone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 18:13:46 2018 No.11456980 bump

Anonymous Fri Jul 13 19:44:40 2018 No.11457353

>>11452014
No worries man, your version is much simpler and approachable for someone just learning about this stuff so I definitely understands its usefulness and I didn't realise that was the context. A lot of what I posted about maybe needs a bit more explanation before it's accessible to someone new to the field

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 21:07:20 2018 No.11457680 >>11456459 >You Plato'd yourself

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 13 22:28:48 2018 No.11458131 >>11447421 This man, in my country he is everything.

Anonymous Fri Jul 13 23:27:23 2018 No.11458399

Here is a crude reading list based on the old thread, but it is basically just taking every recommendation ever made there. I will let them be sorted out here.

>Short History of Ethics, Alasdair Macintyre
>Nicomachean Ethics
>Discourses of Epictetus
>Meditations of Marcus Aurelius'
>Confessions of Saint Augustine
>Works of Love by Soren Kierkegaard
>The Ego and It's Own
>Thus Spake Zarathustra
>Beyond Good and Evil
>Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious
>After Virtue
>JL Mackie - Ethics
>Jonas Olson - Moral Error Theory
>Richard Joyce - The Myth of Morality
>Anscombe (No specific work)
>Iris Murdoch - The Sovereignty of the Good
>Philippa Foot (No specific work)
>Genealogy of Morals
>Utilitarianism by Mill
>Critique of Practical Reason, Groundwork to >the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant
>An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of >Morals by Hume
>The Methods of Ethics by Sidgwick
>Modern Moral Philosophy by Anscombe
>Reasons and Persons by Parfit
>Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy by Williams
>Principia Ethica - Moore
>Analects by Confucius
>Practical Ethics - Singer
>A Theory of Justice by Rawls
>Thomas Aquinas (No specific work)
>Reasons and Persons
>Max Scheler's Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values
>Charles Taylor (No specific work)
>The Crooked Timber of Humanity by Issah Berlin
>Foot (No specific work)
>Rawls (No specific work)
>Étienne Gilson's The Spirit of Thomism
>St. Augustine of Hippo (Various works)
>Hilary Putnam's "Ethics Without Ontology."

I do not think I missed any but it is possible. Entries are listed in no particular order (But it is more or less the order they appeared within the thread) and appear with original format. I.e, if the poster of the recommendation said "Book X by author Y" then that would be found here, whereas if they said "Author Y, book X" then that would too be acceptable. If this annoys anyone you are free to fix it but I do not want to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 00:02:51 2018 No.11458519 >>11458399 >Étienne Gilson's The Spirit of Thomism great short introduction to Thomism

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 01:00:51 2018 No.11458675 >>11458399 For starters, add the years of publication and sort by that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 03:03:50 2018 No.11458960 >>11458399 Good list. Can't wait to see what additions everyone else has to suggest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 03:31:28 2018 No.11459010 >>11447421 >being this Jewish Just kill kikes and be smart. That’s ethics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:50:26 2018 No.11459309 >>11459010 This isn't even a good false flag attempt Rabbi.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:19:48 2018 No.11460593 >>11458675 I've been rather busy lately but I will see if I can get around to it soon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:24:45 2018 No.11460861 >>11460593 I meant just anyone, but thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 17:20:15 2018 No.11461693 Bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 17:38:54 2018 No.11461788 >>11455723 my fav is Overgrowth oWo

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 18:12:53 2018 No.11461972 >>11461788 Thanks for that information Ian! Since this thread is about ethics, what can you tell me about ethics in gaming journalism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 19:58:31 2018 No.11462529 If the thread is still up later I might try to do some formatting on the list.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 20:03:25 2018 No.11462550 >>11447421 based MacIntyre https://youtu.be/CYJ9BOcOxy8

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 21:27:28 2018 No.11462888 >>11453563 MacIntyre is an Aristotelian-Thomist you retard.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 21:51:18 2018 No.11462967

To be honest. Morality and ethics is just a play of words that is useless in the end. Human beings will always do things that fulfill, in some way, their primal desires. You can say that you are Kantian but if you don't fulfill your, let's say, sexual desires, you WILL crush everything you said you would stand for. Your subconscious WILL take control of your action. So the true morality is not talking what ought to be done, but rather do and go in blindfolded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 23:28:04 2018 No.11463299 >>11462967 Wow. Just wow.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 00:10:59 2018 No.11463445 >>11462967 Can I interest you in some Jung?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 03:13:27 2018 No.11463992 bump

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 04:11:48 2018 No.11464157 File: 3 KB, 227x162, zerosum.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11447480 >Ethics is the mask you wear until Tactics tells you to take it off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 04:23:27 2018 No.11464189 File: 373 KB, 913x618, kys.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11459010 >>11459309

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 06:38:45 2018 No.11464463 File: 72 KB, 502x450, AnimeSnap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11464189 snap

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 12:40:37 2018 No.11465535 bump

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:18:51 2018 No.11465894 Hey guys, who should I read now?

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:52:51 2018 No.11466482
File: 67 KB, 752x1063, smoking_girl_by_ashiimiyu-daw9ydl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11447421
I'm honestly still in the process of trying to formulate ethics for myself that fits that gut feeling of mine that I believe we all work off of.
In general, virtue ethics seems only tangentially related to morality. Virtues are only good insofar as instilling them as habits into yourself can further the good. But if a virtue, say, led to unnecessary slaughter quite reliably, then one shouldn't adhere to it. Overly tribalistic type virtues and indeed pacifistic ones could yield such things.
But I think the draw of virtue ethics is that it's very pragmatic. It knows that being good takes work. People should keep the idea of virtues, but contain it within other ethical theories.
What I have in mind, personally, is a deontological-consequentialist mix for foundations. No matter what form of consequentialist you are, there is some sort of theoretical statistic you wish to derive to determine what outcome was better between two actions. But that inherently removes the value of the individual from discussion. So we can imagine scenarios such as, for example, the accidental death of a bad rapper bringing overall joy. Then someone who murderers said rapper in a way that looked accidental would be said, by certain consequentialist metrics, to have done a good. But this seems to me, absurd, since the individual should have inherent value.
So I would advocate for having a consequentialist system where certain liberates and protections are afforded to individuals. Stuff like "furthering the good is only necessary to being good when doing so is at little cost to oneself" or "you shouldn't take from others just because it provided some good" or "respect the wishes of others toward themselves or their property." I.e., some means are bad, but we should be very concerned with ends such as health, overall wealth, and happiness.
I would also separate good people from people who do good, one is someone with good intentions behind their actions, the other being someone who creates good outcomes.
Where I'm troubled is in answering exhaustively every single end we should be aiming for and how to measure it, or deciding how to weigh between which may be more important in a given situation. Health, wealth, and happiness, for example, need to be capable of being collapsed to an overall statistic we call "the average good", which seems impossible to do without feeling arbitrary.
And there are also edge cases. If killing one person saves 3 lives, I feel I shouldn't kill the one person. But if it saves a million, I believe that number justifies it. Same could be said of theft or any other thing I can think of to deontologically prohibit. Where is that dividing line in the sand? I can't say.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:56:59 2018 No.11466506 >>11447421 >Major theories: There is no ethics but virtue ethics. One would think someone who opened a thread with After Virtue would understand this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:58:33 2018 No.11466818 File: 103 KB, 1280x720, TrumpDab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11466506 Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:27:12 2018 No.11466945 >>11466482 Interesting. If the thread is up when I get back I'll have a proper reply ready for you. Keep posting your thoughts here though smoking girl anon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 18:14:09 2018 No.11467157 >>11463445 Why Jung?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 21:24:27 2018 No.11467911 >>11467157 Why not Jung?

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 22:26:24 2018 No.11468132
File: 24 KB, 500x500, 6a4d1c1246b4bedb4c1b6715da59335e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>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.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 22:46:34 2018 No.11468209 >>11468132 Well keep working at it Smoking girl. The best way would probably be to either just keep posting here and work things through with other anons, while maybe discussing this in university as well. Read plenty too.

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 01:36:25 2018 No.11468810

>>11468132
Consequentialism is unworkable. You'll never be able to calculate The Good. Not only do you have to account for the current complicated present, but the endless possible futures you are or are not creating.

And still, even if some planetsized-computronium-brain can weigh the utility perfectly, humans would still reject it. They would reject that amount of control over their lives. Fully knowing their own lives will be made worse, they will reject it just out of spite.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 02:57:49 2018 No.11469020 >>11467157 In a way you described the shadow and the phenomenon of someone not willing to confront it being controlled by the very thing they try to avoid. Jung deals with this. It was why he was added to the list up there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 03:46:15 2018 No.11469191 >>11468810 This. Just. Utilitarianism. Just.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 03:58:13 2018 No.11469224 >>11469191 Someone explain consequentialism outside of utilitarianism please.

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 03:59:07 2018 No.11469228

>>11468810
I see your point on the difficulties of completely bearing out consequentialism to its logical conclusion. That is, being able to calculate the consequences of our actions and then assign value to those consequences. That said, I don't see how that defeats the project, it's only to admit that it's a difficult one. We may not be able to predict the future, but we get better and better at it as time marches on, and from the trial and error of various actions we've taken, we can usually figure out what generally yields better results. Maximization is ideal, but mere improvement from something previous is always great, and so we perpetually work toward more improvement.
So, as an example, should drinking and driving be legal in the US? I say no. We know that it dramatically increases the likelihood of an accident as drunk driving takes up about a quarter of fatal accidents, and ever since widespread enforcement of precise laws against it, the fatalities have halved. Now, perhaps I can't suggest the absolute best policies we implement for the best outcomes, but we can narrow in on some things to decide what's relatively better between what we've thought to try. And in some cases, the superiority of one position over another is, to most people's estimation, cut and dry.

As for people rejecting a computer telling them what is moral. I mean, I can see how you might be right. People don't want to be told what is right or wrong - they want to reason it out themselves. All this objection really does though is tell me that you can't get humans to further the good by merely telling them what it is. Doesn't defeat the actual position. You also can't tell people something is wrong because of a set of deontological rules without justifying the rules to them. In practice, you're probably going to want tell people relevant facts so they can make judgments for themselves to get them to further the good.

Also, reminder that I'm not a pure consequentialist anyway and do see inherent value in the individual.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 04:09:12 2018 No.11469253 >>11469224 You can't really

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 11:28:25 2018 No.11470530 >>11469224 Ok but keep the thread going for a while.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 13:30:25 2018 No.11470988 >>11469228 Not sure about individuals really.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 14:12:32 2018 No.11471152 >>11470988 Feel free to elaborate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 14:16:50 2018 No.11471171 >>11471152 Ok. Keep the thread alive till I get back though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 14:29:48 2018 No.11471234 >>11468810 >You'll never be able to calculate The Good. Just like you will never be able to fully define a deontological system or a virtue system which applies to all cases indisputably. That's not a good argument against trying.

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 14:43:32 2018 No.11471299

>>11471234
The difference is that virtue and deontological systems are constant. You may be able to figure each of them out and test it. In each case then, if you discover something that is consistently good within virtue or deontology you can apply this later on, whereas every unique scenario needs to be evaluated in a consequentialistic system. Thus, you can eventually define good using either virtue or deontology if you ever define good, whereas for consequentialism the idea is too loose to be beneficial in any regard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 17:23:15 2018 No.11471955 >>11471152 Nah I'm good.

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 18:06:05 2018 No.11472201

>>11471299
One pragmatic way to apply consequentialism is to derive helpful rules of thumb/policies that generally promote the good, because obviously we cannot rely on ourselves to calculate the best possible outcome in every single situation. That requires making a hard science of the social sciences, which isn't going to happen any time soon. So take a principle or virtue and test what its implementation bears out on society. Thus, a consequentialist may be an ardent supporter of the golden rule because they recognize that it's intuitive enough for people to live by and makes society generally better. There's a difference between theory and practice.
Most virtue and deontological systems don't contain ideas that are overtly geared toward causing general suffering to others, interestingly. Usually it's to the contrary. But if you take that sort of system as your absolute base and completely cut any consideration of consequences out, you can't explain why things generally sort out that way, which leaves them with an air of being arbitrary.

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 18:36:40 2018 No.11472333

>>11472201
I would agree with you, except that the only time I have seen vritue and deontology taken out of the context of the consequences of well-being is within the belief of a telos. Having largely done away with that more recently, consequences tend to be the merit as to whether a belief is legitimate. That being said, this does not make anyone claiming virtue but grounded in consequence to be a consequentialist because they do not take it upon themselves to predict outcome, only to follow virtue (or purpose for the deontologists).

One interesting thing about ethics pointed out then, is that we all largely agree on the proper way to behave, and the discussion is merely within why it is that way and not some other. In this regard then consequentialism has decent argument, but in my opinion is largely supplemented by a set of consistent virtues which take the focus away from the individual's ability in predicting the furture and toward willingness to follow what is morally upright.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 19:26:34 2018 No.11472546 Other communitarians besides MacIntyre?

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 19:27:29 2018 No.11472551

>>11472333
Depends. You can fall into what's called the rule consequentialist camp where rules are only given legitimacy by the consequences they bare out in their implementation. It's generally recognized that you'll never be able to calculate the perfect action like the basic theory overall would suggest, so being able to come up with workable rules with consequences as the justification for them becomes very attractive. They aren't ever really departing from consequentialism fundamentally, though. A fair analogy would be something like playing the game of pool. The physics of the system is very well understood and the aim of the game is very clearly defined, but players aren't breaking out their computer simulators between plays or crunching any numbers mentally. Rather, they have general rules of thumb, habits, and a whole lot of experience that gives them guidance on what to do. So the analogy is that society in general is the system, the good is what we're trying to maximize, and rules are our pragmatic way of getting ever closer to an ideal we'll probably never reach.
That said, even this form of consequentialism doesn't work for me. I want to be able to say things like "killing when not in self defence is wrong" without having the justification be that it would make the family sadder or that it marginally lowers some statistic. The act is just wrong in itself.

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 21:11:32 2018 No.11472966

>>11472551
In order for something to just be wrong you would need some sort of teleology. I believe one can be constructed of sorts, and the end result is virtue ethics, and thus this is the theory present at the level in which we live. However, if you want to discuss how to construct this, you need a basis of the teleology made. Personally, at this level I had taken an approach similar to that of the consequentialists, in that an action which improves the well-being of people is in at least some regard good. From this, my assertion was that this in an entirely impossible rule to follow, and thus could not be used for human ethics directly, but may work as a basis for some ethic.
With then an "artificial" teleology of sorts in place, you should be left with some rules that naturally result in something following this telos. This level is entirely livable, and results in something similar to "killing someone just being wrong" but still has a reason underlining it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 22:37:44 2018 No.11473286 bump

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 00:35:54 2018 No.11473719

>>11469228
>>11471234
The crucial difference for consequentialism is you can never stop calculating. It is something like the "Halting Problem", which is undecidable. Really, worse for consequentialism, it is unethical to not return the greatest good. Perhaps the most ethical thing is to ignore that genocide and spend another 5 years developing a GMO potato; it will save far more lives. Or maybe not. We never know, and we will never even know if the system is getting any better.
Deontological systems only aim for internal consistency. (A program that will also ultimately fail.) Virtue ethics only has the middling hope of a good life, rather than some necessarily maximal flourishing.

Spite flourishes, however, not only because the humans don't know what is the best. Even when they know it is the best. They believe it is for the best and well justified. And then still they choose to act the worse for everyone, perhaps even the most troublesome for themselves. They throw themselves down the stairs, just to make their ire stumble. And they do so with the thought, 'To be a decent man is to be a slave.'

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 03:41:27 2018 No.11474128 >>11473719 Can you expand on that part about virtue ethics? I am not sure I follow.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 04:40:23 2018 No.11474234 >>11474128 Can you expand on that part about expanding? I am not sure I follow.

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 08:05:36 2018 No.11474598

>>11474234
Certainly. The post I was replying to made a comment about virtue ethics only being able to produce a decent but not flourishing life, however I did not follow the logic behind this claim. Being as something as important and practical as ethics is something I would not want to be wrong about, I, in an attempt to learn the truth, asked him to clearify his claim and back the argument. Thus, by asking to expand, I was implying I wished to further understand both the logic and the conclusion of his argument, and I petitioned him to supply me with this information.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 11:25:18 2018 No.11475169 >>11474598 Very good, I'll allow it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:06:34 2018 No.11475349 Read the other communitarians.

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 13:19:39 2018 No.11475685

>>11474128
>>11474234
>Virtue ethics only has the middling hope of a good life, rather than some necessarily maximal flourishing.
Middling- Aristotle's golden mean.
Hope of a good life- the regular Socrates annoying everyone about virtue.
Necessarily- not possible for the proposition to be false, by identity.
Maximal- that greatest good of utilitarianism.
Flourishing- eudiamonia, of course.
Is that a poor definition? It seems workable, the more troublesome area is, as it was 2500 years ago, what is virtue (arete)? How should a modern person be striving? I have some ideas, but I'm curious what this Senegalese cricket enthusiast forum thinks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 13:51:21 2018 No.11475823 >>11475685 Say more

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 15:57:51 2018 No.11476348 bump

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 16:57:00 2018 No.11476609 Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 17:20:53 2018 No.11476701

>>11472966
>In order for something to just be wrong you would need some sort of teleology.
My understanding of teleology is that it works under the notion that things have a cosmic purpose or end goal. I'm not sure how what you're describing fits that, so I'd be interested to know if your usage differs from my understanding.

I think the conversation so far has elucidated that we share a lot of similar ideas, we just classify it differently. I'm happy to point out aspects of my thought as being purely consequentialist or as being purely deontological. Virtue plays a role, but it's embedded in the other theories - develop habits that I know will further the good since even if you can calculate the good, you need character to act it out.
>>11473719
>Really, worse for consequentialism, it is unethical to not return the greatest good.
A common criticism of consequentialism is that it requires too much of its adherents. The ideal consequentialist might be a martyr who lives a joyless life himself but helps everyone else. But I honestly see this as a strength of consequentialism - it provides a marker for relative goodness and for societal progress or decay. A government which has policies that lead to greater wealth, greater happiness, greater health and less death may be said to have progressed in how good its policies are. If you go from being a shut in to someone who provides support for his family and community, you can be said to have improved in your moral character. And yes - perhaps a martyr may be the most morally upright person in some circumstances, they after all often come to be revered. There is such a thing, I think, as being too good for your own good. That isn't to say that you NEED to be that way to be a good person, but we should recognize, honestly and with humility, who is doing the most good for the world with what they're capable of. I'm also of the belief that, counterintuitively, perhaps, that trying to calculate the best possible good in every scenario could lead to a regression of the good. Because where you could be applying rules that you know generally work, in the act of estimation for specifics you run the risk of your biases leading you down the wrong path. This tells me that you should primarily use consequentialism to evaluate rules and the consequences of their implementation and only run specific evaluations where the better answers are obvious.

As for deontology, that's a fair critique. It's hard to find a set of rules that won't come into conflict or to form some sort of conditional flowchart that works for every situation. And there's occasionally scenarios where, even if your rule set is consistent, it leads to intuitively absurd results. Take Kant saying you shouldn't even lie to save a life. Some may stay the course with their beliefs, others may want to reevaluate. And sadly a contraction only tells you that your system is wrong, not how to fix it. Deontology doesn't have inherent tools to fix these issues.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 19:05:46 2018 No.11477093 It's in your own best (selfish) interest to be virtuous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 20:43:24 2018 No.11477473 >>11477093 Big if True

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 23:37:44 2018 No.11478256 >>11476701 Hope this back and forth keeps up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 00:25:03 2018 No.11478443 >>11477093 This is like the tenth egoist posting here thinking they have just figured out ethics and that's funny to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:30:23 2018 No.11478615 Am I a pseud for loving Mencius? He's literally the greatest ethicist IMHO

Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:20:54 2018 No.11478763

>>11476701
>consequentialism ... requires too much of its adherents.
Although probably true, that is not what I meant. It isn't that the results of the ethical calculation will compel you to some tedious self-flagellation. Rather the calculation itself can never stop. The consequentialist is forever stuck in the parable of the Taoist farmer. Is this good or not? Keep calculating until the end of the universe, then we may know. 'Sure, it may seem to do good now, but if you just calculate a little longer, you will see this one small act inexorably leads to the birth of a hundred Super-Hitlers' (The bad kind /pol/.)
Further, admitting that the calculus can never be solved and instead using "rules-of-thumb", is the admission that consequentialism is ultimately unworkable and what you really need is maybe a little Kantianism to fix everything. Why not just use Kant in the first place?

>deontology...form some sort of conditional flowchart that works for every situation. (And endless exceptions to avoid the intuitively absurd results)
Which is how deontology ends up in a suspiciously similar incalculability problem as consequentialism.

>>11475823
Every culture has a different set of virtues in which it believes. Some like the Roman list are too long to remember, much less follow completely. Leaving a need to organize virtue into three categories: relations, knowledge, and drive. Without good relations to kin, neighbors and self, then what is the point of living? (Even plants, it turns out, have a vast network of communication.) Without episteme and techne, you'll never know the what and how of arete. (The Greeks talked endlessly about knowledge, so go look up their terms to find out more.) Without motivation you will never accomplish the acts you know to be good, or have will to resist that which is pleasurably bad.

Of course, three categories is not the only possibility. The stoics believed knowledge of what is good must also grant the motivation to act rightly. (However, my argument above on 'spite' would disagree.) Or someone might wish to breakout a category of duty, or manliness. (Even if to me it is a subset of proper relations.) In any case, the specific behaviors which are "proper relations" must be defined. The definitions need not stand for all time, but we should at least be able to agree what they are here and now. Unfortunately, our society is quite far from any such consensus.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:31:33 2018 No.11478922 File: 3 KB, 101x125, 1444476447857s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11478615 Yes you are. Shitty opinion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 04:26:50 2018 No.11479057 >>11478443 This and a few other threads produce these results.

Anonymous Wed Jul 18 05:39:00 2018 No.11479203

>>11478615
Mencius is definitely top tier. I would recommend reading "Instructions for practical living and other neo-confucian writings" by Wang Yang Ming. He takes Mencius and other confucian writings and further expands on them. Its a highly enjoyable read.

Besides the content of Menscius is very similar with the words of greats like Plato and Buddha. So if you like the one if would be weird not to like the other

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 07:31:47 2018 No.11479445 Ethics is one of the biggest pseud areas in philosophy. Autistic adolescents obsessed with "systems" and "winning arguments".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 11:03:44 2018 No.11480250 >>11478615 >>11479203 Can we get a recommendation of a work by him?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 11:23:20 2018 No.11480327 >>11480250 Mencius only wrote one work: the Mencius. But there are plenty of commentaries on him by later Confucians

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 11:28:02 2018 No.11480358 >>11478443 I'm not an egoist. I'm just saying (scientifically) virtue leads to the best life, it's in the best interest of egoists to be virtuous.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 14:31:06 2018 No.11481235 File: 50 KB, 492x700, BjorkSnap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11479445 snap

Anonymous Wed Jul 18 16:23:19 2018 No.11481827
File: 134 KB, 393x393, 1531793829538.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I kind of find it funny that I'm more or less the defacto consequentialist in this thread with how much I'm defending it, despite recognizing some flaws
>>11476701
a contradiction only*
>>11478763
Because the foundational theoretics of my ethics involve consequentialism. The theoretical project is being able to reduce relevant information as well as possible into one theoretical quantity we could call "the average good", such that given a set of outcomes, each one can be assigned with the quantity. If given this data in totality, a perfectly moral person will prefer an outcome with a higher average good than a lower one. Now, where the project runs into some difficulty is how to make a weighted function of all the relevant variables into one neat statistic. While that's a serious issue to work on, it's not as intractable as you'd think, since there are instances where any sensible definition of the average good should show a preference. So say between two outcomes, all relevant variables are relatively the same except one (say public health), where there's a massive discrepancy. Clearly, any sensibly weighed function on those variables would always have the preference for the same outcome. And I believe such cases are numerous enough to make the framework worthwhile, and as we consider more moral questions, the degree to which one at least personally weighs those variables will become clearer.

Now that is a whole different matter altogether from how one pragmatically achieves the good. I emphasize improvements in the status quo. For if there is perpetual improvement, that means we are on a trajectory toward maximizing the good, even if it's impossible to consistently land there. And the way you improve the status quo consistently is by adhering to rules and policies. To epistemically determine which is better between the two, you do analysis on empirical data, where we often can find superior results on one end. So there is a sense in which you do keep calculating, but not in the sense you seem to suggest. We are not always fretting over the minutia of everything we do, some tragedies are unavoidable, but we are always looking for a better status quo. That hardly seems like a problem to me - science is also always improving on the status quo, and that's a good thing.

Now, if I'm going to use rules in practice, why not just be like Kant in declaring the rules themselves to be what determines moral behavior? Simple, because whereas Kant believed in a static rule set, I believe in continually changing some for the sake of improvement on consequentialist grounds.

Now, there are rules I adhere to not on consequentialist grounds, such as killing being wrong unless done in self defense. I see basic rules like that as the solution to unbridled consequentialism justifying things like lynching. It's analogous to having a constitution as setting the stage for your democracy, you want certain things to just be off the table.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 17:53:39 2018 No.11482319 >>11481827 Still a good exercise.

Anonymous Wed Jul 18 18:04:15 2018 No.11482368

I believe in Normality. I believe everyone should behave and think like everyone else, in a group-think way, while having a strong conciseness of "We" and "Us". New information and attitudes should be decided by Cultural Critics in the academy and widespread by the mass media.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 19:55:15 2018 No.11482936 >>11452658 Could you elaborate?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 21:16:57 2018 No.11483268 >>11482936 pic is related. french pseuds castrate nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 22:08:12 2018 No.11483482 >>11482368 Could you elaborate?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 22:29:44 2018 No.11483555 >>11452658 I wonder how much of icycalm's apparent sociopathy is just posturing. Maybe he's actually extremely sensitive has adopted this worldview of endless war and domination as a way to experience constant internal strife and affirm the tragic

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 02:48:08 2018 No.11484273 I love how people can't stop bringing up icycalm here.

Anonymous Thu Jul 19 02:51:42 2018 No.11484284

>>11481827
With all the neet little egoists here and the /lit/any of 'start with the greeks', I don't know why you'd expect many consequentialists.
Nor is ethics a salad bar to take only the parts you like. Are you sure you are making improvements or just opening yourself to the bad parts of every idea? I cannot tell, because I could not follow all that you were suggesting. But perhaps if I state my concern another way, you might follow me.
In consequentialism, you can never know if all your calculating has merely found a local maxima. Have you climbed to the top of a dusty hill and seen, "I can go no higher, this must be the best view!", but further on there is a mountain and clear skies? This is not fretting over minutia. The utility lost from not discovering the mountain might be greater than all other utility gained that whole century.
Having your father assassinated seems like a rule you shouldn't break, but maybe there would never have been an Alexander the Great. Do you bother to include father killing in your calculations? Do you forbid it by your rules? Who knows, we might not know the full effects of it until the end of time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 03:06:15 2018 No.11484327 >>11483482 Basically like how things are right now desu.

Anonymous Thu Jul 19 03:42:22 2018 No.11484397
File: 246 KB, 640x640, 1531764227931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Is there any philosopher that deals directly with the fact that some people are simply subhuman and that you can't project your own morality and values unto them no matter how hard you try? Also, I don't mean this in an in-group kind of way, nor based on racism, but something that takes into account the very bottom of the barrel for human intelligence.
I'm personally of the belief that morality is something that goes both ways and is a shared construct, and I feel zero obligation to extend my considerations to people unwilling to be part of that construct.
I have yet to read a single account of this that isn't either that doesn't ultimately come down to deontology or utilitarianism, neither of which I find convincing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 05:09:02 2018 No.11484644 >>11484397 Seconding this. Need books and philosophers for this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 05:10:04 2018 No.11484645 >>11484327 Could you elaborate?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 05:11:02 2018 No.11484647 >>11484397 The Quran unironically.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 05:28:51 2018 No.11484687 >>11484647 Expand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 09:06:50 2018 No.11485213 >>11484687 Second

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 14:20:45 2018 No.11486615 >>11485213 Third.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 17:02:54 2018 No.11487374 bump

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 19:44:52 2018 No.11488198 >>11484647 Could you elaborate?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 19 23:08:24 2018 No.11488951 >>11488198 Fifth

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 01:21:07 2018 No.11489422 >>11488951 Sixth

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 01:38:09 2018 No.11489458 >>11484647 Not him, but I suppose it's because Idolators have no morality?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 03:00:52 2018 No.11489609 >>11489458 Big if true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 04:06:06 2018 No.11489760 bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 07:12:59 2018 No.11490284 >>11489458 That makes sense I suppose. Is there any logic behind it? for someone who hasn't read the quran

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 11:45:53 2018 No.11491343 Has anyone here read Alasdair McIntyre's (1995) "Marxism And Christianity"?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 11:54:15 2018 No.11491397 ethics is the most boring and pleb topic in philosophy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 12:48:56 2018 No.11491726 >>11491397 you miss-typed metaphysics

Anonymous Fri Jul 20 13:45:16 2018 No.11492022

>>11454620
I dunno about the people on the left but:
>What happens if I and others just ignore your system and act as we please
(Assuming a secular standpoint), nothing, unless there's a significant number of others ignoring the system. Ethical norms determine how the state and general populace respond to your actions. So you can ignore them provided that you're okay knowing the consequences - you may be arrested if you are caught behaving illegally, etc. On the other hand, if enough people agree with your personal ethics, you can change the societal norms and therefore the consequences to you doing as you please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 13:47:14 2018 No.11492031 >>11466818 Suck my dick Mr. Trump.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 14:37:21 2018 No.11492301 What books should I get for a start?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 14:47:34 2018 No.11492358 File: 38 KB, 360x500, 1532106654948[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ¿anyone read this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 16:13:34 2018 No.11492829 >>11492358 No, but I might now.

Anonymous Fri Jul 20 16:49:35 2018 No.11492992

>>11484284
>In consequentialism, you can never know if all your calculating has merely found a local maximum.
This doesn't concern me much. I believe the most a moral person should feel obliged to do is try every promising avenue of improvement, and perhaps go out of their way to randomly "explore" the landscape as it were. I wouldn't fault us for being unable to find the mountain at that point.
>Having your father assassinated seems like a rule you shouldn't break, but maybe there would never have been an Alexander the Great. Do you bother to include father killing in your calculations?
I would want to know at minimum if there were foreseeable benefits toward killing him. If no benefits were foreseeable, then it would definitely be immoral in my book. I would only ever compromise my rules if there was an overwhelming majority of people who would benefit in a nontrivial and predictable way, as I brought up in my first post itt.
I'm sensing that you're trying to test me on how to react to situations which are hard to predict. My answer is that a sufficient amount of issues have pretty definite answers that makes the effort meaningful. Worry about what you can foresee and control, not what you can't.
>>11484397
No idea. But I figure a tit-for-tat approach is best. Not all dumb people are ill natured. Only fight if they aggress first.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 18:10:38 2018 No.11493337 bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 20:23:45 2018 No.11493803 So a few people seem to subscribe to ethical egoism, but what are everyone's thoughts on psychological egoism?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 20 23:59:35 2018 No.11494645 >>11493803 No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 00:22:56 2018 No.11494739 File: 534 KB, 684x1552, smbc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11492992

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 03:18:42 2018 No.11495267 Heading out tomorrow, what should I buy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 07:47:20 2018 No.11495852 >>11495267 Pick a book from >>11458399 And then let us know if it's worth it.

Anonymous Sat Jul 21 08:42:46 2018 No.11495979

>>11493803
it's bullshit

>>11447421
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26348031
>A single overarching construct more accurately reflects hedonia and eudaimonia when measured as self-reported subjective and psychological well-being.
10.1037/emo0000324
>For those who believe that there are two qualitatively different
types of well-being, hedonics and eudaimonia (Biswas-Diener,
Kashdan, & King, 2009; Kashdan et al., 2008), questions could be
raised about the specificity of benefits in the aftermath of sex. As further evidence for the lack of distinctiveness between these
categories (Disabato, Goodman, Kashdan, Short, & Jarden, 2016),
the frequency and magnitude by which the presence or quality of
sex led to greater positive affect the next day was similar for daily
meaning in life.

Help, I'm slowly losing faith in virtue ethics. If it turns out that hedonism about well-being is correct I'll probably off myself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 09:19:23 2018 No.11496137 File: 168 KB, 423x369, bible-icon_345533.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11447421 I only need one book on ethics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 11:46:38 2018 No.11496659 >>11495852 The reason I asked everyone was because I needed a bit more specificity then that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 12:31:35 2018 No.11496873 >>11495979 Return to MacIntyre my friend. Stop being such a STEM faggot with your NIH shit. You might also want to regard what wisdom >>11496137 has to offer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 12:54:49 2018 No.11497001 >>11496659 But that is basically the answer everyone has already given. Why would you ask for such a general recommendation if the recommended list has already been compiled?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 13:23:52 2018 No.11497130 >>11496137 If you're going to try to convert atheists, you should start from a point of natural law, not Divine law. and don't be a divine command theorist

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 14:53:20 2018 No.11497596 >>11497001 I'm asking for some specifics, not just the whole general reading list. I'm not going to buy the whole reading list all at once.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 16:54:21 2018 No.11498296 File: 63 KB, 924x560, 1527237033767.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11496137

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 17:37:34 2018 No.11498576 >>11497596 >>11492358

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 18:40:09 2018 No.11498871 >>11494739 Funny enough, not a determinist but also don't believe in libertarian free will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 22:29:40 2018 No.11499749 >>11497596 Yeah that's why I said to pick one

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 21 23:07:44 2018 No.11499893 Who /Kantian/ here

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 22 00:46:40 2018 No.11500207 >>11499749 Yeah let him randomly just pick a few, so easy and such a smart thing to do!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 22 01:53:17 2018 No.11500439 >>11499893 No one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 22 05:26:00 2018 No.11500945 >>11496873 >Stop being such a STEM faggot with your NIH shit. b-but psychology is not even STEM

Anonymous Sun Jul 22 11:58:57 2018 No.11502170

>>11500207
It doesn't have to be random. Read a synopsis first of some of them and figure out which ones you are interested in. My point is that if you do not specify that here when asking for a recommendation we can't really give you anything more specific than that list.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 22 13:43:30 2018 No.11502796 >>11498576 Ok. I'll see if I can get that and then post here later.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 22 15:14:39 2018 No.11503285 >>11502170 Ok. Could I specifically get a few recommendations from that list so that I could have a reasonable number of books to buy and read before coming back to post about them on this thread?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 22 18:18:48 2018 No.11504388 bump

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 22 21:47:42 2018 No.11505273 My diary, desu

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 22 23:53:47 2018 No.11505729 >>11503285 I mean like are you looking for a specific subject? Personally i would like someone here to read up on Mill and discuss utilitarianism, so maybe that one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 02:22:54 2018 No.11506186 >>11505729 Maybe this person is you? Or maybe just read the conversation above we've been having. It's not like utilitarianism is just tangentially consequentialism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 04:14:43 2018 No.11506409 >>11506186 Did you mean to refer to another comment here?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 10:19:59 2018 No.11507494

>>11506186
I will buy I have a good size reading list to get through for the time being. I've seen the conversation already had and I am afraid I do not quite understand. What does consequentialism look like outside of utilitarianism? And why is nobody here willing to defend utilitarianism, as it seems like a reasonable position?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:51:52 2018 No.11507868

>>11506409
No, I figured you could just search the page for "consequential".
I started complaining about it here, >>11468810
Although I supposed one should note, I do assume all consequentialists believe a moral act depends only on the actual consequences as opposed foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences. Some limits must be put on the definition of consequentialism or any ethical theory will fall under consequentialism.

>>11507494
This definition >>11451949 of consequentialism and utilitarianism should work.
Utilitarianism gets has a bad reputation, but I'd bet most 'consequentialists' are actually utilitarians who don't like that particular label.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:26:34 2018 No.11508180 >>11507868 I would say they are different enough.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:32:54 2018 No.11508210 >>11507868 I agree with the definition as well, but I was wondering if we could get some examples of other theories of consequentialism? The only example given in the post is utilitarianism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 16:20:57 2018 No.11508915 >>11492358 >>11492358 How good is it?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 17:41:53 2018 No.11509333

>>11507868
One can distinguish themselves from consequentialism pretty definitely if there's a situation where some means of attaining a morally preferable end is nonetheless seen as abhorent enough to not merit carrying it out, even if the person had full knowledge that it would. But on whether you're someone who takes into account "foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences" in judging someone's moral behavior? Not really.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#WhiConActVsExpCon
>Other responses claim that moral rightness [in action] depends on foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences, rather than actual ones.
>Consequentialist moral theories that focus on actual or objectively probable consequences are often described as objective consequentialism (Railton 1984). In contrast, consequentialist moral theories that focus on intended or foreseen consequences are usually described as subjective consequentialism. Consequentialist moral theories that focus on reasonably foreseeable consequences are then not subjective insofar as they do not depend on anything inside the actual subject's mind, but they are subjective insofar as they do depend on which consequences this particular subject would foresee if he or she were better informed or more rational.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 18:10:11 2018 No.11509447

You are all fools. The only thing that can be called "ethics" is the sum of individual opinions of the members of the society on the matters of morality, politics, religion, list not exhaustive. If you'd want to study and discuss the subject that is close to what you call ethics and is at least somehow connected to the objective reality you would study sociology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 18:11:22 2018 No.11509450 >>11509447 wow edgy, fuck off aj ayer

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 18:30:23 2018 No.11509544

>>11509450
"Edgy" doesn't mean "wrong" tho. There IS a way to study ethics without degrading it to the number 3000 yo theories completely isolated from reality. What you're doing makes ok tier teatime discussions but you're missing the fucking original point of ethics as the way of creating principles according to which individuals organise their life. Ethics ought to be practical and relevant to the present-day society, otherwise it's meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 19:09:34 2018 No.11509714 File: 6 KB, 217x250, 1444003501631s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11509544

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 19:19:00 2018 No.11509759

>>11509447
>You are all fools. The only thing that can be called "ethics" is the sum of individual opinions of the members of the society on the matters of morality, politics, religion, list not exhaustive.
Is this to say that we should take a pluralistic approach in which every viewpoint should be seen as having an equal slice of validity? Or do you perhaps mean something closer to people taking a democratic vote on various issues of moral behavior? Either way, these both seem like ethical frameworks themselves and each pose practical problems.
>If you'd want to study and discuss the subject that is close to what you call ethics and is at least somehow connected to the objective reality you would study sociology.
I've no doubt that various disciplines of science have interesting information to bring into ethical consideration. Perhaps give us an example of a moral problem that sociology definitely solves, so that everyone can stop wasting their time. Tell us whether, say, single payer health care should be implemented in the U.S. or whether there are times when killing is morally right when not done in self defense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 20:26:29 2018 No.11510026 >>11509759 Interested in hearing how the edgelord responds to this.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 20:38:32 2018 No.11510080

>>11509333
>distinguish themselves from consequentialism
Did you mean "from utilitarianism"?
Yes, someone could say they are a "subjective, agent-relative consequentialist". But I'm just going to interpret that as "lazy egoist." Maybe proximate consequentialism is an acceptable divergence that is actually applicable to my objections. I haven't thought about it much though, and it seems nobody else is really talking about it either.

>>11508210
See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism as from >>11509333
Although, as you can see it is a bit hard to keep the two straight.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 21:10:30 2018 No.11510201

>>11510080
Spell out the line in the sand meriting me having said one or the other? I meant what I said.
Never brought in agent-relative ideas but I do agree that calling that consequentialism does start getting sketchy.
But concepts like foreseeableness in evaluating an act are still strong in line with it all. It's just taking epistemology into account.
This idea that consequentialism is about being a super computer that perfectly predicts the future and unless you can do that and act perfectly on that then you're immoral is silly and is a position no one has ever held.
It's rather uninteresting to continue arguing about what we individually think the definition of a thing should be though so I'm willing to move away from this point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 23:00:59 2018 No.11510479 Recommending Finnis as I just saw him mentioned in another related thread.

Anonymous Tue Jul 24 02:11:57 2018 No.11511007

>>11510201
>It's just taking epistemology into account.
And removing the consequent! Your ethics is no longer based on consequences but on intentions or rationality. I'm pretty sure some guy from Konigsberg already made up a name for that.

I'm not saying the idea of consequentialism is to be a supercomputer. I'm saying the consequence (wah-wah) of the idea is you must be a supercomputer to be ethical. It's not a good thing, it's a flaw of the idea which makes it unworkable. You aren't supposed to hold this view, you are supposed to rebuke it. And your argument that subjective consequentialism is "still strong in line with it all", is all rather ipse dixit. How do you justify your consequences without actually having them?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 24 03:22:41 2018 No.11511154 I say we vote on the list or come up with some sort of reading order and then start tackling actual works of ethics so we can all discuss the same texts at the same time.

Anonymous Tue Jul 24 03:48:24 2018 No.11511215

>>11509759
>First point
Of course not. The point is valid if the society considers it valid, so yes, it's kind of like democratic approach. However, without any kind of /voting/ procedure, because this appears naturally when people, during their everyday lives, support, ignore act against ideas expressed in one viewpoint or another, most of the time without even realising it. Ethical norms are enforced by society using social pressure. Which means, when the breach of certain ethical norm (e.g. homosexuals kissing in public) occurs, there are a number of people who are close and able to respond to the breach. They have various courses of action, but to simplify, they can either reinforce the ethical norm which only permits expression of heterosexual romantic feelings in public, or decline to act in support of this ethical norm. Their actions will most influence those who see it personally, but indirectly it will influence the whole attitude to the problem in the society. Given the large number of such occasions, this is the way how individual viewpoints transform into ethical norms accepted by social group or society as a whole.

Name problems, I am willing to discuss them. I am not against the concept of ethics, more than I think your approach to it is meaningless and impractical.

>Second point
Considering single payer healthcare and killing problem. Just let the people decide, and let the sociologists collect and present opinions and viewpoints of individuals. You can't create an ideal, self-consistent ethics without it being DIRECTLY connected to what our society thinks. The validity of certain ideals changes over time, moral wrongfulness of non-SD killing varies as well and is based on morals and other ethical viewpoints accepted or recognised by society. You can not SOLVE moral problem outright the way you solve mathematical one, once and for all, you will always have to adapt to reality. Even the most rigid ethical systems do it (e.g. catholic church in europe), as the existance of an ethical system which is not recognised in society is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 24 10:36:03 2018 No.11512314 File: 27 KB, 492x437, hmm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Who was in the wrong here?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 24 12:32:54 2018 No.11512827 >>11512314 The culture of judgement free zones.

Anonymous Tue Jul 24 13:04:18 2018 No.11512931

>>11512314
Thoughts are not reals. He made a breach of ethical norms accepted by certain people (visitors or employees) of Planet Fitness, and they've decided to act on it by calling the police. If no one would call the police the naked man would be right, but in this situation he was in the wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 24 15:29:09 2018 No.11513484 File: 37 KB, 537x360, 1443299541282.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11512931

Anonymous Tue Jul 24 16:42:53 2018 No.11513825

>>11511007
>I'm saying the consequence (wah-wah) of the idea is you must be a supercomputer to be ethical.
Again, not a position anyone has held. You're more or less defining your opposition then tearing down at your definition of it. But congrats, you defeated an idea no one held or holds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 24 17:02:53 2018 No.11513920 >>11513825 Do you understand how arguments work? If I say Berkeley idealism necessarily leads to solipsism, your response of "well ok, but no one believes in solipsism" isn't at all convincing.

Anonymous Tue Jul 24 17:13:57 2018 No.11513962

>>11513920
*not your opponent
but it is convincing. For example, if you have a some Berkeley idealists who hold this viewpoint for some time, but not one of them believes in solipsism, that literally means that Berkeley idealism doesn't actually LEAD to solipsism. They just have some similarities.

Anonymous Tue Jul 24 17:36:34 2018 No.11514099

>>11513920
Look, any attempt of me explaining how there are variants that don't fall under your notion has been met with "but that isn't consequentialism."
All I'm saying is, maybe people are smarter than you think and would have noticed if their philosophy had such a glaring hole as you think.
I can't bring any enthusiasm into this conversation of what one guy thinks a word should mean. Sorry my dude.

Anonymous Tue Jul 24 19:13:54 2018 No.11514559

>>11513962
Or it means they believe in things without thinking them through. By necessary, I mean it logically follows, not "they will become". (Plus my example is, they agree my argument is sound, then try to deny it anyway. A reasonable analogy of the current situation.)

>>11514099
Did I miss something? When have you defended your variant? I said subjective consequentialism doesn't count, you said it does. We both agree it doesn't count actual consequences. It seems the next step is you prove how ignoring the consequences is still consequentialism. Unless such a proof is just another superhuman calculation you are comfortable ignoring. In which case, excuse me, I guess I thought I might be conversing with a lover of wisdom.
And this new appeal to authority 'glaring hole response' does nothing for the objective consequentialists theories, eg. Utilitarians, who not only aren't completely discredited, but quite popular.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 24 19:55:55 2018 No.11514747 >>11496137 >Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 24 22:43:11 2018 No.11515296 >>11514747 Based and redpilled.

Anonymous Wed Jul 25 02:28:14 2018 No.11515995

>>11514559
> By necessary, I mean it logically follows, not "they will become".
I know, I'm not dumb. But you're not God almighty, your logic is not perfect. If other people, who clearly posseses the ability to think logically, do not come to the same conclusion as you, that probabably means that you're wrong and it doesn't actually logically follows, because if it was the case, other people would come to the same conclusion as you. They could be wrong as well of course, this works both ways, but in our example there are numerous Berkeley idealists, so they statistically have less chance to get the idea wrong and make wrongful logical conclusions.

Anonymous Wed Jul 25 03:09:11 2018 No.11516067

>>11515995
Look, I'll just agree to your point, because it doesn't matter.
The analogy is "The idealists agree their ideas lead to solipsism, then say 'whatever man no one believes in solipsism. Idealism must still be totally fine.'" The idealists, or the other anon, aren't saying my objection is wrong. They are agreeing the argument was sound (for objective consequentialists at least), but it doesn't apply because no one would believe in the result.
What kind of argument is that? Was it sound or not?! It is hard to even paraphrase because it is so bizarre.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 25 12:06:00 2018 No.11517522 bump

Anonymous Wed Jul 25 15:53:01 2018 No.11518525

Anyone considered looking at consequentialism itself as its own sort of set of virtues? The problem arising is that it values something like intellect as virtuous, which cannot be the case as it is not contingent on a decision. I know obviously consequentialists do not see it this way so it is not really an argument but maybe a reason they are not seeing eye-to-eye with us virtue ethicists?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 25 18:44:29 2018 No.11519314 >>11518525 Yes. I've considered it. Please expand though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 25 22:29:41 2018 No.11520220 >>11518525 >Us virtue ethicist Speak for yourself, bucko.

Anonymous Wed Jul 25 23:08:01 2018 No.11520354

>>11520220
I was speaking for myself and any other virtue ethicists. Thought that was pretty clear.

>>11519314
The idea I was struggling with is that, as a virtue ethicist, I often view consequentialism as its own set of virtues. As such, the set would have to be something involving the ability to predict the future, but because virtue is inherently behavioral and not attributive this does not work. The problem is not that their arguments do not fit our ideas, but rather that we try too hard to fit them. People have argued that consequentialism does not work because of the virtue of prediction that but be necessary under it, while they do not realize that in order to first make this assessment they must have already accepted virtue ethics, as they are viewing it as a virtue system. This, I believe, is why this argument is seen as incredibly strong by many within the virtue ethics community but not among the consequentialists. Instead then of asking if the behavior justifies the system, we must look at what the system advocates for, in this case the outcome. Thus, a stronger case against it must be able to argue that the outcome is not wholly the reason for an act being good. And it should somewhat reasonable be able to ignore the specific actions called for by the outcome if the outcome is justifiable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 26 02:34:36 2018 No.11521058 >>11510479 Gorsuch's book and writings look worthy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 26 11:06:07 2018 No.11522299 keep getting ads for therapy in this thread. hooray for targeted advertising I guess?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 26 11:28:03 2018 No.11522363 >>11451361 Not a journal article but anyone who hasn't and is looking at getting intro ethics NEEDS to read this chapter of utilitarianism https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mill-john-stuart/1863/utility/ch02.htm

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 26 14:18:28 2018 No.11522935 >>11522299 Same here. I guess anyone interested in ethics needs therapy?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 26 15:10:22 2018 No.11523122 >>11509759 please answer to >>11511215

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 26 20:53:34 2018 No.11524516 bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 27 00:01:55 2018 No.11525165 >>11522363 Its on the list already, otherwise I would take not of it.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature