John F

Of course it is a cop-out. Mass human cruelty is an evolutionary by-product. Nazi Germany is just an excessive example of what was going on for millennia anyways. Once humans started having a surplus of anything, they built unjust and unspeakably cruel systems. More altruistic and caring societies are exceptions that define the rule. Western…[Read more]

All I can do at this point is roll my eyes and sigh and laugh. Good luck with that Simon…I guess.

Simon, if you were a mathematician dealing with a completely new, contentious theory with little published work, dissenting voices and nothing approaching consensus (let’s call it Theory X), then yeah, it would be ridiculous to say “theory x says…” anything. The best you could get away with is: “some people believe that theory x says…” or “in…[Read more]

Evolutionary ethics places truth-telling…

Ugh. Did you not read me calling you out on making broad claims about evolutionary ethics? It is a new branch with a very diverse set of views and nothing remotely approaching consensus, not to mention most of it just describes the evolution of human morality without even developing a moral system.…[Read more]

None of those possibilities is “to make the best possible outcome”; i.e., “I do something I feel to be wrong in order to make the best possible outcome”.

Did you not read B?

In evolutionary ethics, truth telling is helpful and even necessary within a cooperative context.  The general guiding rule would seem to be, tell the truth when it is helpf…

[Read more]

We do things we hold to be generally wrong in order to:

A) Ensure our self interests

B) Do something we believe is less harmful than the consequences

C) Believe it is a worthy exception

D) Cause we just feel like it and don’t have to explain ourselves to no one

E) Tell ourselves the rule doesn’t apply in that case

Though more usually:

F)…[Read more]

We do things we hold to be generally wrong in order to:

A) Ensure our self interests

B) Do something we believe is less harmful than the consequences

C) Believe it is a worthy exception

D) Cause we just feel like it and don’t have to explain ourselves to no one

E) Tell ourselves the rule doesn’t apply in that case

Though more usually:

F)…[Read more]

I don’t buy the idea that consequentialism – judging an action on its consequences, and deontology – judging an action morally, in its own right, “often do, come into conflict”.  Not all the time or every day for everyone.

Nope. We break our moral rules all the time. We judge others for doing things we “justify as okay” all the time. Good self-…[Read more]

Yayyy thanks Reg!  Happy new year mate 🙂

And happy new year to everyone, whether posters or ‘ghosts’ who read. Stay safe!!!

Strega

We know that religious moral system work well by looking at the evidence.

Indeed. Since secularism is a relatively “new” thing, and all moral systems have been heavily influence by religion since civilisation began some millenia ago…I fail to see how “work well” makes sense when it was the only system around. Obviously it didn’t work that we…[Read more]

My bibliography runs to 15 pages

That’s a whole lot of books you have read, none of which have sufficient material to cover even the basics. Very curious indeed.

Simon you are using the pronoun “we” as though you are a philosopher, a scholar or have sufficient knowledge of moral thought to make an impact or a difference. Sorry, but lacking rudimentary knowledge of basic concepts will automatically exclude you. The lack of a degree in a related field might also be a slight problem. This is why I am highly…[Read more]

I don’t understand the value of needing a comprehensive moral system for ordinary people to live by

Indeed

The basic tenets of a number of philosophical systems can be taught at a high school level.

Some even in elementary school. Shame they are not.

My point is that there is no “comprehensive moral system”, supplied by Western moral philosophy, that is sound enough for ordinary people to use to live by

And you’ve concluded that after familiarising yourself beyond skimming a Wikipedia article with none of them?

In evolutionary ethics, there are no contradictions, only some unresolved are…

[Read more]

Are you saying they’re incompatible with each other?

How could a moral judgement have substance outside of a moral system? Most of us live and breathe modern western morality whether we know it or not. Western modern morality is heavily influenced by the likes of Kant, Hume, Locke, Sartre, Popper and others. That doesn’t mean you must adhere to a…[Read more]

Yeah indeed Robert, it is rarely easy with moral systems to deal with complex problems. Apart from DEO tological ethics which is a very different approach, any system which makes it easy to solve such issues is not sufficiently robust to deal with them. Part of the general ignorance of society at large, is that they do not know that you indeed…[Read more]

Simon, you are deliberately using vague tes like “every day life” to make things seem more complicated and futile than they are. This is almost certainly due to your lack of grasp of basic concepts (along with your recent blatant mischaracterisation of Kant). I’m not going to give you type out lengthy explanations of basic concepts when you can…[Read more]

I’ve already provided counteless examples Simon. How do you deal with a situation where you have to lie to protect someone? Through deontological ethics it is a question of adhering to a rule despite the predicted and unknowable posible co sequences. For virtue ethics, your integrity and trust is at stake. For situational and utilitarian ethics…[Read more]