[ 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

View post   
File: 45 KB, 350x473, beckett.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3760280 No.3760280 [Reply] [Original]

Why is there no set framework able to rationalise every moral decision?
Why does no such tool exist?
How do we even determine what is morally right or wrong? Is it just baseless personal theories?

>> No.3760306

>>3760280

Kant's moral theory.

/thread

>> No.3760311

>>3760306
But that's coldly logical bullshit that certainly isn't applicable in every situation. It's our moral duty to reproduce? Not if there's 7 Billion people all vying for limited resources. Kant's a hack

>> No.3760339

>>3760311
If you don't think the categorical imperative is applicable to every situation then it's 2deep5u

>> No.3760344

>>3760339
Impressive argument you've got there, you've really convinced me!
Please explain how Kant's ideas are applicable in every case, because it's clearly not. Homosexuality is immoral? Bachelorhood is immoral?

>> No.3760418

bump for discussion of ethics and morals

>> No.3760494

>>3760344
I'm not going to insult you by asking if you've read Kant's Groundwork, because I know you haven't, so please do. I know it's a difficult read, but it's shorter than The Great Gatsby, and it'll help you understand why Kantians are always suppressing laughter around you.

>> No.3760515

>>3760280
I'm an armchair philosopher but isn't morality basically just a measure of suffering?

When faced with a moral dilemma take the path that causes the least suffering to the smallest number of people.

Is there already a special name for this brand of ethics?

>> No.3760527

>>3760515

Utilitarian ethics, a branch of consequentialist ethics.

A tip: When talking about philosophy, if your point consists of "Isn't X basically just ...?", the answer is no. It is always no.

>> No.3760528

>>3760515
Yes. Consequentialism. Or negative utilitarianism, in particular.

>> No.3760535

>>3760280
>Is it just baseless personal theories?
Yes. But if you want to reduce anxiety a habit of non-interference certainly won't do any harm.

>> No.3760544

>>3760527
>>3760528
thanks might read about it