Simon Paynton

Davis wrote:

Jesus bloody donkey crackers. What happened to you Simon? Where did you go wrong?

Apparently, studying philosophy, and philosophers, makes people dogmatic and closed-minded towards doing new philosophy.  People are allowed to do new philosophy.  It’s interesting.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

people do act in selfish ways … the Problem of Evil

Evil or moral badness is defined as people acting selfishly at the needless expense of others.  If they needed to be selfish, it wouldn’t be seen as bad.

We could say that evil is the worst of this: when someone deliberately hurts others for the enjoyment of it.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

The word “needlessly” is not necessary because people do act in selfish ways. By that I mean they act to achieve their own interests first. They do not act to “ideal standards” to achieve “optimum outcomes”.

There’s nothing wrong in putting one’s own interests first.  In fact, evolutionary ethics is based on inc…[Read more]

@davis – so the answer is “just because”.  I’ve identified a weakness that you yourself have agreed with.  I’m sure a moral philosophy professor would not be so dogmatic.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

In the mundane routine of everyday life most people carry out tasks to serve their own personal interest or the interests of people they share their lives with. Those people in turn reciprocate with acts of their own. I admit at times their actions may reach some zenith of excellence but never when they realise it is…

[Read more]

@davis – explain why it’s not silly, pointless and dogmatic: “just because”.  Give some actual reasons based on real life or facts of some kind.

In my opinion, this is an example of where conventional moral philosophy is unhinged from everyday life.  If the study of morality is a science of everyday life – something’s wrong if someone can’t g…[Read more]

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).

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.

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.

@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]

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?

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]

Surely there’s a problem if they are claimed to be mutually exclusive, when in fact, they must be complementary.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

This woman died recently from Covid after intentionally contracting the virus.

That’s a truely bizarre story.

@unseen – it’s entirely up for debate, since the term is not well defined and still poorly understood.  There are many different current definitions.

Also, the way we behave towards ourselves can be seen as moral or immoral – as far as it affects others.  For example, a drug addict lets the side down because they create a mess for others to deal with.