Ryan, Romney and the Veil of Opulence

[Metacrock]

You know, my point above was that any attempt to strictly codify morality is subject to reductio ad absurdum. You can do it with consequentialism, you can do it with deontology, you can do it with the veil and the difference principle. Hell, you can twist the golden rule so it's about Randian self interest. There's the letter of the law, and there's the spirit of the law - which is to say, there's a "dao that cannot be told" regarding good - an abstract sense of what goodness is that all formalizations aim for but fall short of.

I thought maybe you were playing along and ironically suggesting how consequentialism could be made absurd in that way, so I bounced the ball back at you with an example of how duty and obligation could also be reduced that way - but now I have to wonder if that's not what you're doing - if you've simply missed the point.

why "missing the point." how about disproving the point? you always thin disagreement with you equals "missing the point." you miss the point.

the point: you are wrong!

[fleetmouse]

The weird thing is that if you disagree with me here you're being a moral anti-realist. You're saying that there's no such thing as "good" in itself, which our formulations aim at capturing / approximating.

[Metacrock]

The weird thing is that if you disagree with me here you're being a moral anti-realist. You're saying that there's no such thing as "good" in itself, which our formulations aim at capturing / approximating.

no. the realist thing reminds me of some attempt of atheist to compete with God. The issue is how do you determine intrinsic moral good when there is no basis in intrinsic anything with materialism. Materialist ethics has to be realities by its very nature. To try and make it objective and intensive is just trying to derive an ought form an is. Exercise in wishful thinking.

you have not yet grounded any axioms. By what method do you determine the intrinsic good. you are like presuppers they way they go "it's just is, that's all, I don't have to prove that it just is."

[fleetmouse]

But what if there are necessary truths about how we ought to behave? Never mind, we're discussing that in the other thread.

Anyways perhaps we should focus more on particular ethical formalizations. You like duty and obligation. Do you see the Milgram experiment and the aforementioned Holocaust (mein gott! I vas chust following der orders!) as problematic for duty and obligation?

[mdsimpson92]

But what if there are necessary truths about how we ought to behave? Never mind, we're discussing that in the other thread. Anyways perhaps we should focus more on particular ethical formalizations. You like duty and obligation. Do you see the Milgram experiment and the aforementioned Holocaust (mein gott! I vas chust following der orders!) as problematic for duty and obligation?

Perhaps, though if we're going by the kantian categorical imperative, then we would be able to kill other rational beings period. I could totally see a potential virtue ethics with that kind of level of destruction, though more leaning towards that of war rather than genocide.

[Metacrock]

But what if there are necessary truths about how we ought to behave? Never mind, we're discussing that in the other thread.

They are based upon the good, which is based upon love which is synonymous with God.

Anyways perhaps we should focus more on particular ethical formalizations. You like duty and obligation. Do you see the Milgram experiment and the aforementioned Holocaust (mein gott! I vas chust following der orders!) as problematic for duty and obligation?

No because they violated duty and obligations that were clearly part of western culture and German society and were clearly understood by all those Nazis who claimed to be Christians. People like Bonhoeffer and his sister clearly understood them, why else did they do the underground seminary?

[mdsimpson92]

No because they violated duty and obligations that were clearly part of western culture and German society and were clearly understood by all those Nazis who claimed to be Christians. People like Bonhoeffer and his sister clearly understood them, why else did they do the underground seminary?

Really? I thought it was because it treats people as a means rather than an end. Or does that apply only to Kant's version? Also, Meta, is there a situation where killing is justified in deontology?

In terms of virtue ethics, unfortunately, I could definitely see mass slaughter being justified. Especially in a warrior culture like the romans or the Mongols.

[Metacrock]

No because they violated duty and obligations that were clearly part of western culture and German society and were clearly understood by all those Nazis who claimed to be Christians. People like Bonhoeffer and his sister clearly understood them, why else did they do the underground seminary?

Really? I thought it was because it treats people as a means rather than an end. Or does that apply only to Kant's version? Also, Meta, is there a situation where killing is justified in deontology?

Well sure but that's just an upshot of ignoring duty and obligation. Some have argued that that is an aspect of teleological ethics.

as for your question is there a situation where killing is justified in deontolgical ethics." Of course, that's the argument all governments make when they go to war "it's your duty to defend your country." Sometimes it really is. I think about wwII when I think about just wars. I really see the holocaust as a prime if not extreme example of utilitarian thinking. sacrifice the Jews for the good of the whole Reich.

In terms of virtue ethics, unfortunately, I could definitely see mass slaughter being justified. Especially in a warrior culture like the romans or the Mongols.

I can see it being used that way. I can't see ever really supporting slaughter.

[mdsimpson92]

In terms of virtue ethics, unfortunately, I could definitely see mass slaughter being justified. Especially in a warrior culture like the romans or the Mongols.I can see it being used that way. I can't see ever really supporting slaughter.

A good mongol example from Genghis Khan himself (maybe)

The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.

[mdsimpson92]

By the way, I'm in China, so my posts will get a little less frequent.