unapologetic

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.

It’s in the moral domain if it’s social (in my opinion).  If you spill a drink on someone else’s carpet, but it’s unintentional – you can’t be blamed for an honest mistake.  But your lack of intention is still in the moral domain, because it’s social.

You’re right, intentions are an important part of morality, that we judge people on.  We bl…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Morality is all about intentionality.

I don’t know.  Morality is a vast and sprawling domain of interest.  But I see your point maybe: intentions and actions are what we have control over.

You can interact honestly, deceptively, or sinisterly.

Those social activities I mentioned all involve moral principles (of conversational e…[Read more]

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

Davis wrote:
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?

Moral behaviour: talking to someone (conversational ethics), buying something in a shop (reciprocity).

Non-moral behaviour: brushing one’s teeth, watching TV on one’s own.

I think…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
Huh?

Moral behaviour is a form of behaviour.

Unseen wrote:
Come to think of it, most of the great architecture has been made or sponsored by narcissists, despots, madmen, or psychopaths.

Apparently, European cathedrals were invented by a 12th century bishop who wanted a fitting tribute for his awesome personality.

Now that the people who were exploited to build these palaces are all long…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
So, morality varies over time. There is, then, no firm everlasting basis for time. It changes with perceptions. Seems to be a consequent of what you are saying.

I wouldn’t say so in this case.  If someone came along today, and acted like a cruel despot, it would still be seen as just as wrong.

Rightness and wrongness is not a…[Read more]

@jakelafort said:

If we only examine results without assessing intention then it is the same crime to have been bullied and tormented, finally fight back and unintentionally kill the bully with a left cross that causes an aneurysm as it is to hire a hitman to murder your business adversary.

This would seem to be a very reasonable position.  If…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
moral behavior is all about intention, not actions or consequences.

But moral behaviour, as behaviour, covers both intentions and actions.

King Ludwig of Bavaria was a man who abused his subjects and indulged himself through their taxes. He loved to build palaces and castles strictly for his own enjoyment, one of which is the…

[Read more]