Simon Paynton wrote:
I think the task is to come up with alternatives to utilitarianism, consequentialism etc., which are an intuitive way in but don’t actually really go anywhere in the real world. A good alternative is morality as collaboration – both what happens within the collaboration, and its goal, are subjects for morality.

What is nee…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
…We need emotions and consequences to govern us morally. Rationality can guide us up some weird paths……

I would suggest the converse of that is true.

All three together is ideal.

...We need emotions and consequences to govern us morally. Rationality can guide us up some weird paths……

I would suggest the converse of that is true.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The Categorical Imperative could be considered a foundational principle of morality. It is grounded in the belief that moral actions must be guided by rationality and universalizable principles, rather than emotions or consequences. I don’t really see what it wrong with that.

That sounds good, but there’s a lot w…[Read more]

The Categorical Imperative could be considered a foundational principle of morality. It is grounded in the belief that moral actions must be guided by rationality and universalizable principles, rather than emotions or consequences. I don’t really see what it wrong with that. It emphasizes the inherent dignity of every individual. Moral actions a…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Group Selection: Groups with cooperative, moral members tend to survive and thrive better, promoting the evolution of moral behavior.

Ethical Frameworks: Philosophical doctrines like Kant’s categorical imperative or utilitarianism guide moral actions through reasoned principles.

These are flat-out wrong.  Beyond th…[Read more]