[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

File: 6 KB, 200x237, Max_stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:02:15 2012 No.2807680 [DELETED]

[Reply] [Original]

Where does /lit/ stand on deontological vs. consequentialist ethics? What are some flagship readings for either?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:07:15 2012 No.2807685 File: 85 KB, 300x269, 175249.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >ethics

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:13:18 2012 No.2807689

Analytical moral philosophy is dumb. They use ridiculous arguments and 'though experiments' in scenarios where obviously no one in real life decides the way they argue (and never will) and even if any two philosophers can agree on a logical argumentation in a specific case, their completely a-rational cultural bias will simply creep in in how they model a real-life scenario as an (abstract) moral conundrum. It's bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:13:18 2012 No.2807690 >>2807689 missing a t there in thought, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:18:17 2012 No.2807694 >>2807689 >moral philosophy is dumb FTFY

>>	Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:21:17 2012 No.2807695 >>2807689 Noted. Rather than what one ought to do in any given situation, though, what stance do you take on what makes an action right or wrong in the first place?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:24:18 2012 No.2807702 If you've read Stirner you don't need to ask this question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:26:18 2012 No.2807704 >>2807702 Elaborate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:27:18 2012 No.2807706 >>2807704 Muh spookz

Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:29:09 2012 No.2807707

>>2807702

I've read secondary commentaries on his works, so I believe I understand his position fairly well. I just downloaded The Ego and Its Own to read after I finish up a few more books ahead of it on my reading list. I've recently undergone a shift from a more Rothbardian deontological system of ethics to a more Stirnirian consequentialist one. I find Ethical Egoism, paired with evolution, to be a rather satisfying explanation of human "morality."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:29:09 2012 No.2807709 File: 490 KB, 449x401, laughing-whores.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2807695 >right or wrong

>>	Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:31:09 2012 No.2807710 >>2807709 Right, wrong, rational, irrational. Take whichever term you prefer. You know what I'm getting at.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:32:09 2012 No.2807711 File: 57 KB, 720x576, 1340650354272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2807710 >those false dichotomies

>>	Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:33:10 2012 No.2807713 >>2807711 I'd say that rational and irrational are rather dichotomous. Care to explain how they aren't?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:38:09 2012 No.2807716 >>2807713 not the guy you answered but, >implying "false" means they "are not" >still expecting things to be x or not-x you have a lot to read son.

>>	Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:39:09 2012 No.2807719 >>2807716 What is the extraneous third option?

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:49:14 2012 No.2807724

>>2807719
omg lol whats wrong with you? that is precisely the attitude im talking about! the thing aint about finding a magic formula that will solve everything.

if someone says it is not black nor white you still ask for a "extraneous" third color that will explain everything. the world is "grey(s)" and it is not necessary to classify it in black/white. it is certainly possible but not inevitable.

stop expecting a guide in order to act. classification appears (unconsciously) after the action has been done and not viceversa.

Nicolas Cage !!zG/artNQGzj Sat Jul 14 05:49:14 2012 No.2807725

>>2807689
This was really well organized paragraph. You had your thesis statement, your body, and then your conclusion where you just gave a shorter reiteration of your thesis statement. Of course, you're wrong, but who could care about that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 05:50:14 2012 No.2807727 >>2807710 Oh Anteater, another tripfriend on my 'special needs' list... Right and wrong conflated with rational and irrational, that is some juicy western Enlightenment bullshit.

Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:51:14 2012 No.2807728

>>2807724

I wasn't trying to bring this into a wider light. I was simply trying to address what he said. He presented logic and illogic as false dichotomies, meaning that they are either not dichotomous in the first place, or are not the only two options. If neither of these is the case, then logic and illogic do not present a false dichotomy.

Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:54:14 2012 No.2807731

>>2807727

>Right and wrong conflated with rational and irrational

I wasn't conflating them, simply presenting him with more options, as I was assuming from his post that he didn't like the offered "right or wrong." I don't know any other way to put it. I'm simply trying to ask him what he thinks makes murder "wrong" (or what-have-you), while something like charity may be considered "right" (or what-have-you), or even possibly, if he doesn't think that this is the case at all.

>>	Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 05:56:15 2012 No.2807733 >>2807728 Or, rather, he contended that I presented them as false dichotomies.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 06:29:20 2012 No.2807795

>>2807725
so, what exactly is wrong about my paragraph? The claim that moral philosophy ignores the psycho-social mechanisms of human decision-making? Or the claim that the attempt to rationalize moral decisions ends up simply displacing non-rational (cultural, psycho-social, instinctual) biases into the way the problem is mapped or modelled in rational discourse and other 'translation issues' which end up pre-determining the outcome of the rational reasoning to which they provide the terrain, essentially resulting in a manoeuvre that merely presents the rational component of a complex cognitive movement as the determining one when actually the relationship of causal primacy between rational and non-rational components of this operation is entirely unclear (I polemically suggested that it is the reverse of what moral philosophy pretends, but that is just a more sensible assumption, not something we 'know')?

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 06:34:20 2012 No.2807802

>>2807695
>>2807713
>>2807728
I think he means that the categories of right and wrong (and to a different - arguably lesser - extent rational and irrational) are subjective projections which claim to be instead universal, objective and not projected by the one making the judgement but rather intrinsic properties of the situation. This has certain parallels to what we call 'ideology', although that is a different kettle of fish, possibly.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 06:35:20 2012 No.2807804
File: 74 KB, 700x495, wuwei.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2807680
One day, while walking through the wilderness, a man encountered a vicious tiger. He ran for his life, and the tiger gave chase.

The man came to the edge of a cliff, and the tiger was almost upon him. Having no choice, he held on to a vine with both hands and climbed down.

Halfway down the cliff, the man looked up and saw the tiger at the top, baring its fangs. He looked down and saw another tiger at the bottom, waiting for his arrival and roaring at him. He was caught between the two.

Two rats, one white and one black, showed up on the vine above him. As if he didn't have enough to worry about, they started gnawing on the vine.

He knew that as the rats kept gnawing, they would reach a point when the vine would no longer be able to support his weight. It would break and he would fall. He tried to shoo the rats away, but they kept coming back.

At that moment, he noticed a strawberry growing on the face of the cliff, not far away from him. It looked plump and ripe. Holding onto the vine with one hand and reaching out with the other, he plucked it.

With a tiger above, another below, and two rats continuing to gnaw on his vine, the man tasted the strawberry and found it absolutely delicious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 06:48:28 2012 No.2807829 >>2807804 Holy crap, that is one pointless bullshit story!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 06:52:27 2012 No.2807834 /lit/ doesn't have any viewpoint on any philosophical problem besides "Anything coherent and rigorous is plebshit, long-live nonsense!" You should know that by now, OP.

Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 06:52:27 2012 No.2807835

>>2807802

Egoist thought, though, certainly recognizes this subjectivity in what constitutes a rational or irrational act, and one that is right or wrong. It is based on each individual and each circumstance rather than applied as a universal constant.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 06:59:27 2012 No.2807843

>>2807835
I study Stirner, quite intensively, and the impetus of his thought is that moral judgements prohibit the individual from achieving happiness. If you were to phrase Stirner's thought in the terms of moral philosophy, some parts of his philosophy are first-person utilitarian (the best, for yourself, period). The act in itself is neither right nor wrong. Some actions may turn out to not achieve what you wanted, but that is a different story.

>>	Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf Sat Jul 14 07:23:05 2012 No.2807858 >>2807843 That is what I am referring to as "right" or "wrong". A right action would maximize the satisfaction of your self interest, while a wrong action would minimize or hurt it.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:09:09 2012 No.2807900

I always thought that distinction was a bit besides the point. It's like asking whether you believe in monetary fines for breaking the law or jail time. It's just not how the majority of people think about ethcis on a day to day basis (apart from when they're writing a philosophy essay on deontological vs consequentialist ethics). For instance, if I'm going about my business one day and notice one of my friends lying to someone, I'll think it wrong of them to lie, not because of any consequences that might follow but just because lying is wrong. Or, if I'm going about my business one day and a bum asks me for some money, I'll be troubled about whether it's good to give him money depending on the consequences of this action - whether he'll go on to buy food or drugs. Tl;dr people reason in deontological and consequentialist ways at various times depending on the circumstances. Now analytic philosophers tend to have this belief that ethical systems that are more systematic than others are somehow better. So a purely deontological or purely consequentialist ethical system is better than one that seems to be a mix and match of the two. But I have never seen any argument for this. Not just a good argument but any argument whatsoever. Seems to me to be just another dogma...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:14:51 2012 No.2807904 >>2807900 The difference is more abstract than that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:22:55 2012 No.2807910 >>2807904 More abstract than what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:28:55 2012 No.2807913 >>2807910 There is no what. It is abstract from any what.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:31:55 2012 No.2807916 >>2807913 >It is abstract from any what Ok, so tell me what I said the different consisted in, in my post, that it is abstract from. Like I asked you to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:33:55 2012 No.2807923 >>2807916 They're not trying to describe the way people make ethical decisions, they're trying to get at what particular ethical decisions they should be making and why. You don't get it at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:36:57 2012 No.2807929 >>2807923 >they're trying to get at what particular ethical decisions they should be making and why Who is they? And whoever they are, of what relevance is it what they are trying to do?

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:45:56 2012 No.2807931

Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
When others cry savagely "down with the kings"
Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also."
Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free.
You become accustomed to slavery
Down with dogmatism, down with law.
-Engels

>>	Nicolas Cage !!zG/artNQGzj Sat Jul 14 10:41:20 2012 No.2808059 >>2807795 ITP: >What is Objectivism? >Who the fuck is Immanuel Kant? >How can things imply things? >How do you do that without getting it all over your hands?

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 ]