Kuba Adamów

Yeah, it seems like we have “agency”; but is it real? Probably not, but the best answer is that we simply don’t know yet.

Agency is as real and meaningful as: decision, responsibility, culpability, power structures, invention, reward, retribution, entitlement, ownership, merit etc. Dismiss one…you should dismiss them all. If one is meani…[Read more]

Nah not going to watch a bullshit video with a bullshit title. Civilisation is not being destroyed. At worst, some things we consider important are being chipped away at. We are far from “destroyed”. The very language of the title of this video screams “watching this will rot your brain”.

The left nor the right is not destroying anything. A lack…[Read more]

It’s been a very productive exchange.  By putting my theory to the test, I’ve been able to improve it no end.

I know I disparage the other moral systems for not being able to provide consistent, coherent answers.  But they have done an excellent job of delineating the moral landscape, and asking the right questions.  Utilitarianism is fairly simple to implement if it is formulated correctly (i.e., forget “the greatest good for the greatest number”).  It…[Read more]

Rob, the person who does whatever the hell he wants when it suits his needs, still reverts to his own set of values when the following happens:

When someone insults him

When he reads about someone being the victim of a miscarriage of justice

When he agrees/disagrees with his scheduled surgery being postponed because someone more urgent has been…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
A guy robbing a store or buying a child-bride isn’t spending a lot of time “pontificating” moral principles.

True, but there’s a whole science behind it, which is interesting.  People spend their entire careers on it, getting nowhere.

Unseen wrote:
I have some doubts as to whether coherent, consistent, and practical moral philosophy is even possible.

So you admit that your “real” moral systems are not real.

It’s never going to be possible to provide nice neat answers to moral dilemmas.  Life just isn’t like that.  Morality isn’t like that.

Unseen wrote:
I’m not going to reread everything you wrote to make sure, but I don’t recall you ever using the term “justice.” Rawls defined justice as fairness, another term I don’t recall you ever using.

Well, your recall is mistaken, I said them both right there.

“Always do what promotes the welfare and/or happiness of the group. Or don’t.”

[Read more]

Davis wrote:
thinking through a little more on what sets it apart from others. I would focus less on “competing” with other moral systems, and disparaging other systems and instead coming up with a more convincing reason for others to take yours more seriously.

I’m not studying how to compete with and disparage the other moral systems.  I’m stud…[Read more]

Simon, I do have to say that you’ve certainly gained a much stronger understanding of common moral systems and the development of moral thought, but I think you still need to spend some time working out some of the concepts of your system, and thinking through a little more on what sets it apart from others. I would focus less on “competing” with…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Rawls’s philosophy is yours turned inside out and upside down. Whereas you emphasize the individual’s duty to society, he’s all about society’s duty to the individual.

You don’t talk about justice at all.

I talk about justice, but interpersonal justice.

you = me (basis of fairness and justice). Without the group, without we > me,…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Do you agree with Rawls’s “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override”?

I’m not sure what the welfare of society means.  If it means “what my society wants me to do” or “what is in the interests of a possibly corrupt society”, then that may be attemp…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
And yet, you seem to imply that joint goals are ipso facto good. If joint goals are better than individual goals, then ultimately the only goal worth putting our minds to is the one that benefits the entire human community, even if it dooms our own component community. Well, how do you convince me to bury my family, friends,…

[Read more]

But then, the questions of why people are cruel for emotional gain, and deceptive for material gain, are interesting in themselves.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04765-0