/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15828497]

Which ethical theory is most right? I can't really decide. All I know is that ethical egoism seems like it's for edge lords teens.

[Anonymous No.15828504]

>>15828497
Deontology and Virtue Ethics are fundamentally the same thing. Do things because they are the right thing to do.

[Anonymous No.15828506]

>>15828497
Deontology. What you should do you must do. The issue is finding out what you must do.

[Anonymous No.15828509]

>>15828504
I'm afraid virtue ethics can spinoff onto what's virtuous for the individual. If it doesn't then I 100% agree

[Anonymous No.15828515]

Absolutes are stupid, everything is situational and intersubjective in relation to social centers. For topwits it's about the long term, it's about your vision and your values evolving long past your lifetime.

[Anonymous No.15828533]

>>15828497

[Anonymous No.15828539]

>>15828515

[Anonymous No.15828540]

>>15828497
Universal law is for slaves. Context is for kings.

[Anonymous No.15828554]

>>15828497
>>15828497
ethical egoism makes sense, though. It’s only edgy when you think it’s a good thing to murder, steal, etc. while these things actually are worse as they disrupt your peace of mind, let alone the external punishment that may come. There is no more intuitive moral axiom than that we should do what leads to the most preferable experience. In other words, to do what we prefer. Why? Because we prefer to do it. No more justification is needed than this. There is no rational basis for morality. With reason alone, there’s no reason to do anything.

By the way, virtue ethics is another form of consequentialism, and deontology has no validity unless its duties are worth following (they lead to good consequences).

[Anonymous No.15828590]

>>15828497
lol everyone is an egoist. Ask yourself why you should not kill yourself. You'll probably say because I don't want to. You should believe In God though if you can. It's the next logical step for an egoist.

[Anonymous No.15828673]

No ethics.

[Anonymous No.15828677]

Consequentialism. If you'll take in account that some actions may be beneficial immediately, but harmful in a long run, you will incorporate all the good stuff from the deontology and virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.15828719]

>>15828554
What's the difference between virtue ethics and deontology?

[Anonymous No.15828773]

>>15828719
VE emphasizes personal qualities like justice, honesty, temperance, etc. while deontology emphasizes following laws. But again, both of these are inherently consequentialist, as it’s implied that the consequences of doing virtuous actions or following moral laws are worth chasing. Otherwise the laws and virtuous principles are totally arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.15828782]

>>15828554
Our preferences aren't fixed though, and satisfying our desires/preferences doesn't necessarily maximize our happiness. As Aristotle would point out, someone who's virtuous will prefer to behave, say, generously or courageously, and they will enjoy being that way, and this is cultivated by repeated action which breeds habit. Morality should have something to say about what preferences we ought to have, not just tell us to indulge in our current ones.

[Anonymous No.15828798]

>>15828677
This doesn't solve even basic problems like utility monsters, and if you're actions incorporate "all the good stuff" from deontology... you're just practicing deontology. Besides which, acting on some mathematical equation of utility is depressing

[Anonymous No.15828814]

>>15828677
>>15828798
So basically disregard all and just follow ethics is best

[Anonymous No.15828826]

>>15828782
>and satisfying our desires/preferences doesn't necessarily maximize our happiness
happiness/pleasure/well-being are all contained by the concept of preference. Your most preferable life might not be the happiest, or maybe it will, but if you would rather live that life than other lives (which is preference) then you should live that life.
> Morality should have something to say about what preferences we ought to have, not just tell us to indulge in our current ones.
You’re talking about moral principles. Notice that I mentioned the axiom of morality, the foundation. We can derive principles later. For example, being honest is more preferable, as you don’t need to carry around the constant shame and fear of being caught in your lies. But that doesn’t necessarily mean we should never tell a lie, because the context and the consequences matter. Some lies are more mentally troublesome than others. Sometimes it may be better to lie. So we can’t pretend to know what’s always moral or not, we live by general rules and have faith in their effectiveness, occasionally breaking them when we see fit.

[Anonymous No.15828918]

>>15828798
If stuff from deontology leads to some better outcome in, then it's just consequentialism, and if it leads to the definite bad outcome, then it's bad stuff and you should not incorporate it.
>Besides which, acting on some mathematical equation of utility is depressing
It's just too hard, so sometimes following the rule of thumb is better.

[Anonymous No.15828924]

>>15828826
>happiness/pleasure/well-being are all contained by the concept of preference. Your most preferable life might not be the happiest, or maybe it will, but if you would rather live that life than other lives (which is preference) then you should live that life.
Preference seems distinct to those concepts though. Someone with an addiction will have a preference for satisfying that addiction, but the satisfying of their addiction is not necessarily what will make them most happy/have the most wellbeing/have the most pleasure. And if they could rid of themselves of that preference, they would be glad to if they understood the consequences of constantly acting on it. We could also distinguish a life that maximizes pleasure from a life that maximizes wellbeing, which I would presume includes less subjective metrics like the health of the individual. And just like the life we most prefer at the most may not be best for us, we might not always be aligned with these other metrics. If life is merely about pleasure, then everyone would agree to be placed in Nozick's experience machine, despite many people rejecting the thought experiment's proposition.

[Anonymous No.15828930]

>>15828924
most prefer at the moment*

[Anonymous No.15828933]

The other two are retarded/moot. Character is needed to make a dutiful person or one who cares about consequences and can think through them. Not to mention that have no basis on their own, while deriving from character they follow naturally (you don't tell someone to act morally, they are just moral, you'd have to tell them to act immorally).

[Anonymous No.15828951]

>>15828924
a drug-addicted life is not preferable to healthier lifestyles. There’s a distinction between what your desires lead you to do, and what actions will lead to the most preferable life overall.

[Anonymous No.15828982]

>>15828951
It is certainly preferable for the addict. In lots of cases they'd rather keep using than getting clean (which often involves a very distressing process)

[Anonymous No.15829069]

>>15828951
I'm curious. What procedure would you recommend for an addict to figure out which life is /truly/ preferable if his current desires and inclinations are clouding his better judgment? Perhaps that will clarify what you mean by a preferable life.

[Anonymous No.15829091]

>>15828918
What an embarrassing misunderstanding of deontology. Go read Grounding again, if you have even have.

[Anonymous No.15829517]

non-cognitivism

[Anonymous No.15830046]

>>15829069
this already happens. The addict experiences misery that he did not experience as a non-addict. He sees how other people are living their healthier lifestyles, appearing happier. He knows he could be happier.

[Anonymous No.15830085]

What if all our duties are immanent rather than transcendent? Doesn't deontology then become consequentionalism?

[Anonymous No.15830120]

>>15828504
They have completely different approaches to "rightness" in the face of dilemmas