Samantha

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]

_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]

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

Unseen wrote:
Philosophy isn’t a fact-based science.

It kind of is.  Philosophy means love of knowledge, not love of bullshit.

There is a difference between what something is worth and what makes something worthy or worthwhile. A person’s and even a community’s goals are not necessarily worthwhile. A person may place a lot of worth on making…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
So, you are now arguing that there is some sort of moral “reality,” with facts and where assertions are subject to practical testing.

Well, a philosophy can either be accurate, or it can be bullshit.  Which is better?

The Good, it seems to me, is inescapably what someone has convinced him/herself is The Good and that some other equa…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
What is the point of solving a problem with “no practical implications”? LOL

Simon Paynton wrote:

Yes, that has practical implications. That’s a good thing. It indicates that my philosophy is close to reality.

Deontology

Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical.  …

Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce results that many people find un…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Give an example of a philosophical moral question with no practical implications that your system “solves.”

https://academic.oup.com/book/3167/chapter-abstract/144058658

Parfit, like Sidgwick, believes that there are objective normative reasons. Yet Sidgwick found himself unable, in The Methods of Ethics, to put ethics on a rat…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
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.

You could say it’s a system of asking questions.  In order to answer the questions, we need information.

Unseen wrote:
Who does the answer satisfy? Mmm… Probably Simon Paynton. Your system is descriptive at best. How does it answer a conundrum some of us are facing: Should I register as a Republican for the upcoming primary in hopes of helping to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, even though I won’t vote for anyone the GOP puts forth for the 202…

[Read more]

Davis wrote:
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 extreme.

I think it’s possible that the moral system I have worked out, functions as a version of deontology in its normative scheme.  Evolutionary deontology.  It r…[Read more]