jakelafort

Saw these quite a while ago. They’re brilliant! And fun.

I’ve found myself having more fun recently, away from world events, and such. I’ve written some responses here in other topics, but just haven’t finished them yet. Think I’ve lost a few of them… meh. Lot’s of good stuff in the world to see, still, whenever anyone’s interested.

I’ve been…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
Like I said, moral systems aren’t true or false. They are helpful or they are not.

“Helpful” implies “true” or “realistic”.

Once again, the dictates of a moral system are advice, not facts, so the result isn’t a truth. There is no constraint on them necessitating they be realistic. Sometimes, there are thi…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
Simon’s system explains things (to his mind) so well that there are no problems that cause him to lose sleep at night. He couldn’t think of even one. That is very suspicious.

You’re right, I misunderstood your question. You were talking about actual real-life moral questions; I was talking about moral philo…

[Read more]

Out of interest, how would utilitarianism, or Kantianism, resolve moral dilemmas in ways that are not crude, simplistic, and unrealistic?

They aren’t crude, simplistic or unrealistic. Deontological moral systems are complex in moral rule building, that is the opposite of crude or simplistic. They are only unrealistic when pushed to the furthest…[Read more]

Both Kant’s universalisation, and Mill’s utilitarianism, are riddled with problems and inconsistencies.

They aren’t riddled with problems and inconsistencies. Deontological ethics are challenging, in application, when confronting difficult moral decisions (where a moral law conflicts strongly with your personal interests or comfort). All moral sys…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Out of interest, how would utilitarianism, or Kantianism, resolve moral dilemmas in ways that are not crude, simplistic, and unrealistic?

It doesn’t matter, since I admit that because they are real and not reductionist theories, they DO have problems. At best, they offer guidance, though how to apply that guidance can be…[Read more]

@ Reg

Philosophy is not a body of knowledge, though it is taught as if it is, because a university doesn’t know how else to build a course around it and assign credits. This isn’t to say that there’s no worth in studying “the giants.” Still, one can conceivably do valuable philosophy in total ignorance of them. In fact, a fresh start could yield…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
People may propose anything they like, but that doesn’t make it true.  It helps philosophical theories if they are true.

Moral systems aren’t true or false. They help us make difficult moral decisions or they don’t.

Both Kant’s universalisation, and Mill’s utilitarianism, are riddled with problems and incons…

[Read more]

unapologetic wrote:

the January 6 conspirators, the Manhattan Project, and The Beatles.

What? How can you lump The Beatles in with the other two? Just what are you implying about The Beatles?’

That their compatibility fell apart later on in their career and sometimes were at each other’s throats.

Simon Paynton wrote:
In the case of moral dilemmas, they’re difficult choices by definition.  The arguments for and against are evenly matched, and possibly high-stakes, on both sides.  So no moral system can resolve them satisfactorily.  The moral system I espouse, recognises that you have to go over each side of the argument, and then make the…

[Read more]

@Unseen – Philosophy isn’t like the traditional sciences where we can largely take an expert’s word that evolution is the best explanation for how the creatures of today got here….and……that only someone with at least a Master’s Degree in philosophy is likely to appreciate.

I agree. Completely.

One can learn the history of philosophy without ful…[Read more]

@ Simon

In more than one philosophical discussion here I’ve staked this ground: A solution to a philosophical problem that only philosophers can understand isn’t a solution.

Philosophy isn’t like the traditional sciences where we can largely take an expert’s word that evolution is the best explanation for how the creatures of today got here, or…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
I can recognise nagging problems, I just haven’t mentioned any.

Gee, I wonder why(?). OK, give us some examples of issues in your theory yet to be explained.

I can’t think of any. I’m sure there are some.

Not even one? That’s because there are none. And that ain’t good.

I wrote: Value theory isn’t about standar…

[Read more]

I was thinking of Hume too.

This system says, if you have joint goal G, then you should X.  That is the only way to be prescriptive – to say you ought to do something – that doesn’t violate the fact/value distinction.

@Simon – Are you attempting to get an ought from an is?