Augie

 If it is insisted that two complementary systems are mutually exclusive – this is just silly and pointless dogmatism.

And there I thought you were actually capable of conceding anything. My terrible mistake.

Davis wrote:
There are advantages and disadvantages to all moral systems. None of them are inherently correct. None of them possibly could be as morality isn’t written into the fabric of the universe.

By “correct”, I mean “factually accurate”.  If it is insisted that two complementary systems are mutually exclusive – this is just silly and po…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
What are “ideal standards” and who sets them and on what authority?

Ideal standards are virtuous performance of one’s work in carrying out the task.  For example, in fixing a car, in best practice one would do everything necessary to make sure it is done properly: don’t lose any pieces, make sure everything is tigh…[Read more]

If there were two sets of circumstances, with everything the same, and something needed fixing – if one person did their job well (living up to ideal standards) then the results are very likely to be better than if the other person did their job poorly (not living up to ideal standards).

To take that to its logical conclusion; if everyone e…[Read more]

If there were two sets of circumstances, with everything the same, and something needed fixing

I guess this is as close as you are capable to conceding something. There are advantages and disadvantages to all moral systems. None of them are inherently correct. None of them possibly could be as morality isn’t written into the fabric of the…[Read more]

If there were two sets of circumstances, with everything the same, and something needed fixing – if one person did their job well (living up to ideal standards) then the results are very likely to be better than if the other person did their job poorly (not living up to ideal standards).

@ Simon – All other things being equal, higher quality cooperation would be expected to lead to higher quality results.

In real world practical application or in theory? Could you further expand on that statement please. What “other things”?

If the two aren’t mixed, then there’s something wrong with them, because in actual real life, the phenomena they seek to describe, are mixed.

I’d rather study real life than -isms.  This is precisely my point: moral philosophy is mired in ignorance of its own making.

It’s pretty boring to be more into defending -isms than doing real philosophy.

I’m not defending anything Simon, I’m calling out your ignorant claim that “the two could be mixed” or whatever. These systems were established generations before we were born. I am not in charge of them nor would me hoping they would change have any effect. Own up to y…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
Until you educate yourself on this, discussion over.

It’s pretty boring to be more into defending -isms than doing real philosophy.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
You could end up with the best of all possible worlds with that optimistic ideal.

All other things being equal, higher quality cooperation would be expected to lead to higher quality results.

@Simon – “if we cooperate ideally, we can expect good practical, social and moral consequences.  To cooperate ideally requires a conscientious and prosocial attitude”.

To me that line sounds very much like what Pangloss may have said in Candide and would have being delightful to Leibniz. You could end up with the best of all possible worlds…[Read more]

It’s not up for debate, that your theories might have something wrong about them?

What deontological ethics are and what utilitarian ethics are…are not my own personal theories. They are well established and their approaches to moral problems cannot be combined any more than oil and water can. If you weren’t so monumentally intellectually lazy a…[Read more]

@davis – so you can’t answer my question?  It’s not up for debate, that your theories might have something wrong about them?

I would have thought it is much more interesting to think about how intentions, actions and consequences are connected, than to keep insisting that they are not, for no good reason, other than the inadequacy of the…[Read more]

Don’t you want your theories to be correct?  Or do you just want to maintain your special theories, right or wrong?

Simon, educate yourself a little. I am not arguing with someone that the sky is not blue but green. Pick up some books and read.

Davis wrote:
1. Unambiguously the case, yes the two are exclusive…to say otherwise is to argue that something that is boiling is actually frozen.

Don’t you want your theories to be correct?  Or do you just want to maintain your special theories, right or wrong?

The problem is that people (apparently, for some reason) insist on the two being separate and exclusive.  If intentions, attitudes etc. lead to actions, and actions lead to consequences – they’re not separate, but connected by a thread of prosocial or antisocial intention.

Simon, I am not arguing with you something that is:

1. Unambiguously the…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
Utilitarianism and deontological ethics cannot be bridged or merged or compromised. They are two totally different systems. Taking away the absolutism of deontological ethics would make it an entirely new system, as with taking away the flexibility of utilitarianism. It would not be utilitarianism anymore, but something new. It is…

[Read more]

To go back to the original post:  the introduction of a negative causal factor, allowing staff to refuse vaccines, in order to stop them leaving the workforce, could lead to a sub-optimal outcome and may need remedial action in the future if unvaccinated staff spread covid to vulnerable patients.  So, it’s a flaw in the outcome, not to say a p…[Read more]

Davis, for a minute there I thought you were one of my neighbors, LOL. I used to get along with rednecks. Mostly harmless, not typically well educated but fun to hang around with. Salt of the earth. It is a shame how so many have been manipulated by frauds. And now they have learned to project their very faults on liberals to the power of 3.