Simon Paynton

Following the verdict, the lawyer who headed the effort trumpeted his victory: “Freedom wins again,” he tweeted. But freedom to what? Freedom to suffer from preventable illnesses. Or to be hospitalized. Or to die. Or to transmit viruses to those who cannot be successfully vaccinated.

This is true.  It’s the freedom to drown in bullshit.  But freed…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

World of Woo: A study into ‘truth relativism’.

I think it’s really interesting.

People who believe the truth is subjective and individual are more likely to believe conspiracy theories, and to hold onto their conspiratorial beliefs even when faced with real-world evidence and facts that contradict their con…

[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:

As one might expect it is not required of a plaintiff to demonstrate the PARTICULAR harm resulting from the negligence, only that some harm of that nature might ensue.

In other words, that they were acting recklessly without due regard to the right thing to do.

Davis wrote:

No you cannot know what consequences are going to be. You can assume and/or predict but you cannot know. That is an essential motivation for taking deontological ethics seriously.

This is true.  All we have are: 1) the (joint) goal; 2) tried and trusted methods designed to achieve it.  So it is reasonable to rely on the methods, b…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

Narcissism is built on a moral system which asks things like How does this affect me? or Does doing this give my enemy an advantage?

I think narcissism is amoral – competitive – seeking “my” benefit – rather than moral – cooperative – seeking “our” benefit.

Davis wrote:

I think that all moral systems deal with actions and consequences.

We can’t know what consequences are going to be, so we can only act with goals in mind.  Moral principles, right actions, are designed to bring about these goals (i.e., mutual benefit).  So, they’re good in themselves.

If I am correct, then deontology and virtue ethics deal with the right (actions) while consequentialism deals with the good (desired consequences).  Both are important in my opinion, and they’re not separate.

What makes a good ethical system?  One that accurately reflects reality (nature), or one that can tell us what to do?  Or both?

The et…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Deontological theories of ethics such as Kant’s never satisfied me. After all, humans are beings in a Natural Universe with Cause and Effect and are living beings whose acts have consequences and who act upon potential gains and harms to their own life and flourishing and that of others. It is ridiculous to insist that h…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

we should be concerned about acting rationally and in accordance with duty to moral principles.

Think about it: It also presupposes a preexisting moral sense.

Kant’s rational moral principles are his Categorical Imperatives.  I think he presupposes desirable goals or goods.

But according to Kant, moral decisions are rational based on the principle of universalisation.  If this provides a world where the maxim is possible without the world breaking down in some way – it’s a good decision.

I think it’s intended that if universalisation leads to a contradiction, it’s a rational-morally false move.

However, I see what…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

While Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a powerful and influential ethical framework, some critics have pointed out potential challenges and situations where its application can lead to what may seem like absurd or counterintuitive conclusions.

It’s an example of something that is logical but not accurate.  It doesn’t ma…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

This is a good article explaining Kant’s Categorical Imperative for a beginner (like me).

When we are trying to decide what the morally right thing to do is, what should we take into account?  Is it the consequences of the action that matter the most?  Or, is it the intentions of the…

[Read more]