tom sarbeck

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]

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]

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]

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.

Thanks, Reg!

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]

Once you allow the government to impose speed limits, it is a slippery slope to the government eventually implanting chips in every citizen’s brain. Speed limits are anti-freedom, anti-American and probably break several constitutional amendments. No speed limits means more freedom which means more prosperity which means true liberty and what the…[Read more]

No. I entirely disagree that neither consequences nor intentions are the ultimate explaining power in ethics. Different systems deal with them differently and if you claim one is the all-explainer, then you are simply favouring one moral system over another rather than describing the variety of moral systems in philosophy.

Virtue ethics would not…[Read more]

Those are all morally neutral activities apart from intention

Are they?

You could see it like that, in a wider sense.  I was talking about interacting with people personally, or interacting with one’s group.

Uh huh.

brushing one’s teeth, watching TV on one’s own

So, watching television, using up energy which, if in a city is powered by coal, contributing to climate change isn’t a concern? Watching a program that was sponsored by a company that engages in child slavery practices in Asia isn’t of concern? Watching television instead of volunteering doesn’t com…[Read more]

Simon could you give a few examples of behaviour that is moral behaviour, and a few example of behaviour that is something other than moral behaviour?

But moral behaviour

What is moral behaviour?

…as behaviour

Huh? Let me read that again.

But moral behaviour, as behaviour

Huh?

Simon, the more you talk about this, the less I believe you have a basic grasp of it. I don’t know what motivates you to make conclusions on things you have a vague “skimmed” knowledge of, but it is odd to say the least. Intentions leads to actions leads to co sequences is nothing profound. Of course this is the case. Different people make…[Read more]

Thanks Reg, and an extra thanks for the poem!!

No, we analyze such situations in terms of the intent, not their success or failure, when it comes to an ethical analysis.

Indeed. It is absurd to base a moral judgement on chance. If a surgery is successful 90% of the time, then is it the case that in 9 operations the doctor made the right decision to operate and the 1 time the patient didn’t…[Read more]