[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
On the other hand, if you quoted or made clear who you were talking to or what exactly you were referencing, you'd make far more sense.
As it is, you come off as someone who, tired, is jumping from A to D without passing through C.[/quote]
That's a very illogical assumption when I refer to something very specific which has never been mentioned in your posts. Failing Ctrl+F, there's always Google and Wikipedia.
[quote]In units? No. In relative terms? Sure.[/quote]
-Utils=Units, mate.
-Relative terms? How. Utilitarianism is about achieving total utility towards all members of humanity. It's anthropocentric anyway, therefore flawed, and bases itself on a system of utility. If you put any kind of relativity into this, all moral hell breaks loose.
If I do Action A, you will bring over your morality calculator and measure it's consequences. While realizing that an absolute sum of utility can NEVER be measured, you'll just try to "eyeball it". So, you'll realize that my action has a negative short-term effect for this generation of humans, but a positive long-term effect for the next. Because you have accepted that total utilitarianism is a pretty terrible and utopic idea, you'll say that "I am
almost sure that the long-term effects outweigh the short-term ones, so you are a good person, Phaedon, even after you murdered that guy in cold blood." Here's the catch: What about the third generation of humans that will have to face the consequences of my action? Maybe it will be negative for them. And what about the fourth, fifth and sixth one? Maybe it ends up being positive for them.
Thing is, if you claim that there is a measurable greater good:
a) You should go ahead and solve all moral dillemas by yourself,
Realize that in fact there isn't one, because what you are calculating is essentially part of the greater good. You are literally returning to the general idea of consequentialism or even pragmatic ethics.
[quote]But we can predict the consequences closer, and more relevant, to us. We can also hold people to reasonable standards (which can be held), as opposed to unreasonable standards (which can not).
There's nothing in consequence-based morality that requires you to have perfect knowledge of the entire world.[/quote]
That's not utilitarianist and consequentialist at all, that's the darn problem.
I don't care about the effects that my action will have to you and today's humanity, it can affect all history from now on.
"There's nothing in consequence-based morality that requires you to have perfect knowledge of the entire world." Yes, there is. I ask for you to tell me if the action is good or bad for the greater good, and you are telling me "Hey, it's probably a good thing for today's or tomorrow's society". If you want to adapt to reasonable standards, you'll stop telling me that what I do is good or bad based on its consequences. Why? Because you tell me that "the consequences are probably bad", when I can say, no, they are not. Prove me wrong. Or you know, just prove yourself right.
Our actions change history permanently and if you are going to calculate their short term effects (despite the inherrent flaws of doing so), you are being a hypocrite, since you don't care about the consequences, overall, at all.
[quote]That doesn't show that considering yourself as part of a group you belong to would be wrong. Imperfect, yes,
but imperfections are a fact.[/quote]
This is a debate, not a poetry contest.
[quote]A large part of the 'hard' sciences is modeling, and modeling always accepts imprecisions and errors inherent with the simplifications. Take the number 'pi', for example. No one has ever defined what it is... nor do we care. The concept of pi is useful, practical, and real. With it we can do what mathmatecians for thousands of years could not.
(Same with the number zero. Wonderful example of a non-existent reality.)[/quote]
Here's the problem. No mathematician is trying to found an exact result, and every physicist accepts that almost everything in this universe is 100% relative.
You say that you support a specific philosophy, when in fact you are just debating
against it. You are openly admitting that you are not trying to maximize overall happiness, just local one. By doing so, you are accepting that happiness is actually that the happiness of one person can be measured, even relatively throughout time, and that's just another major flaw. What you actually support is not even a thing. It's more like a logical flaw, approaching pragmatic ethics more than anything else.
[quote]Except they don't have to 'knowingly' be doing it. We also punish people who enable harmful actions without knowing,
when we believe it was well within their power to realize.[/quote]
That's exactly what "knowing" and "knowingly" means.
[quote]'Reckless endangerment', or the concept of regulation. Regulation[/quote]
Okay. Do you believe that anyone who just got issued a DUI isn't guilty of it? As long as they were in the position to think of what they could do, they are perfectly guilty for endangering the lives of others. Driving under the influence is not too different than aiming a gun at someone. Hyperbole? Yes. Invalid? No.
[quote]
But you know, manslaughter is the same thing as homicide, right? The consequences are the same, no?[/quote]No, actually. A number of countries differentiate murder by degrees. First-degree murder, second-degree murder, third-degree murder. Then there's negligent manslaughter versus constructive manslaughter,
[quote]
And underage criminals are treated just like adult ones.[/quote]No they aren't. Not in many, many countries at least.
[quote]
Mentally ill criminal are treated just like sane ones.[/quote]No they aren't. This is why we have insanity pleas, or the concept of Mens Rea. The concept of hate crimes also comes into relevance with the motivation.[/quote]
I can't help but ask, how come did you miss the evident sarcasm? And why are you defending
my position?
Manslaughter-Homicide
Same effects, different intents, different punishment.
Crime while sane- Crime under influence of pretty much anything - Crime while insane
Same effects, different or not fully realized intents, different punishment.
Underage Crime - Adult Crime
Same effects, Not fully realized intents in one of the cases, different punishment.
The τέλος is definitely the same. The way the criminal is treated? Hmm. Something to think about.
[quote]But no court in can investigate any crime to an infinite degree, which was the extreme you were approaching. Nor can any court investigate all crimes.[/quote]
No. A court MUST investigate all crimes. That's the point of a trial.
Infinite degree? Virtue ethics don't demand full execution, and realize that every human is flawed to a degree. Courts try to be objective but still realize that they are subjective to some extent.
[quote]Courts that do things such as class-action lawsuits: a number of crimes are collectively gathered for an investigation. Then we have justice systems which can not handle all appeals for investigation, and so resort to plea bargains in lieu of intense investigations. We have statues of limitations and jurisidction limitations as well.[/quote]
Have you ever seen someone convicted for all charges unless every single one is proved? I haven't. Also, read the above.
[quote]The results are what drive thei impulses, so how could you agree with one and deny it's consequence.[/quote]
How can I? Oh, it's very simple. When someone throws a basketball at me accidentally, I don't start chasing them around. Why? Because they "didn't mean it". If you treat this action the same way as with someone throwing a basketball in your face with the intent to hurt you, then you must have big issues with forgiving people.
[quote]Says who? Besides you, I mean.[/quote]
Utilitarianism[/b] is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary.
Greatest happiness princible by Bentham:
http://www.econlib.o...am/bnthPML.htmlHappiness is not only something that can't be measured throughout time, but it is something that can't be measured in general, end of story.
[quote]A system which appeals to the best objectivity possible is distinctly different from one which promises the impossible. [/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]To make the perfect the enemy of good is a ridiculous exageration.[/quote]
Except that that is not what I am saying. At all. It's not good at all if you don't give a cr*p for whatever happens after a few years. That's downright terrible and insensitive.
[quote]I might as well claim that, since you are a morally imperfect being, your moral arguments are thus disproven and invalid.[/quote]
Yeah, you do that. Follow a standard logical pattern in order to do so, rather than stuffing impressive statements into a couple of sentences, while you are at it. Humans aren't perfect beings, that doesn't mean that the ideas that they hold but not always execute are flawed or invalid.
[quote]The nature and emphasis of subjectivity is shifted, however. In general it is shifted to what is more commonly agreed upon: that something hurts someone, or something helps someone.[/quote]Goodie. Now we can finally agree that what you have been defending all along was pragmatic normative ethics, rather than consequentialism.
[quote]And yet I'm not applying everywhere. I'm applying it here, where it belongs.[/quote]
No, you are not. An ethic code is supposed to be followed as much as possible in all of your actions.
[quote]It would be the economists who decided whether a war ends a recession or not. Not the moralists. You're appealing to the wrong authority... and making a poor showing at it, since your implication that if the war did end the recession, utilitarians would have to reward the instigators ignores the non-monetary costs of the war.[/quote]
Economists would do little more than agree or disagree whether the war was overall good for the economy or not.
Psychologists would argue to how much the economy affects ones well-being, and philosophers would jump there and claim that the "monetary and psychological costs of the war are less important than the monetary and psychological gains of the war".
Modifié par Phaedon, 13 novembre 2011 - 10:57 .
Retour en haut
