![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIf you've been paying attention to memes recently, you'll see one that tries to classify people into utilitarians, hedonists, etc.
However, when you read desriptions of these philosophies, they're almost always paired with hypothetical examples where the philosophy doesn't apply, is contradictory, or contradicts what we innately feel is the right answer[1].
(1) I propose that instead of being a fault in the individual philosophy, this is because no described philosophy can in fact always agree with what we innately feel is the right answer[2]. They can be a good approximation to it though, as shown by most philosophies agreeing with each other most of the time[3].
I say accept that no fixed rule will suffice, and instead have a number of rules[4] which different people place different weights on. Then most of the philosophies mentioned are a statement of one rule, and attempted derivations of the other rules from it.
In most cases only one rule applies so most people agree, and any philsophy is fine. In awkward situations two rules conflict, and different people and different philosophies choose different ways.
(2) Secondly, I'd go further and say our innate feelings of what is right don't form a consistent or complete system. I'd like it if they did, but feel they don't for two reasons.
Firstly, I see no reason it should, as I don't have any reason to believe in a universal morality or a god who might dictate one. Of course, many of you will disagree with this.
Secondly, some of the *very* awkward and contrived hypothetical examples seem to have no good answer[5] even without trying to apply a philosophy, which suggests to me that some situations genuinely don't really have a best answer, so no system is complete and we have to work round that.
End note. In contrast to the last chapter, I expect this one to be controversial. Though knowing fate's sense of irony probably everyone will agree and not bother to post :)
[1] Eg. Utilitarianism: it might be for the greatest good to hang an innocent man as an example, which most people would object to. It's possible to get round this by including the chance of discovery and the ensuing disatisfaction, but it's not really possible to *quantitatively* compare goodnesses in that way.
[2] *Should* it agree? I'd say yes -- how else do you decide what philosophy to adopt? OTOH, some people would object: (1) The philosophy might illustrate consequences you hadn't forseen. Or (2) If you make 100 measurements of a physical quantity and 99 fit a simple equation, you say the 100th is wrong, and the same should apply to 100 hypothetical ethical questions. However for the moment, I'll assume they should agree.
[3] Which is also why we can all live together. Though the more cynical might reverse that statement and say we evolved/were created to to live socially, and any philosophy we come up with has to produce that as it's result.
[4] The initial list will be expounded tomorrow. Sneak preview: Hapiness is good; Sadness (normally pain) is bad; Killing is bad; Justice is good; Intentions matter; Results matter; I am more important than other people; My family and friends are more important than other people; People closer are more important than other people; Children are more important than other people; Good people are more important than bad people; Causing badness is worse than allowing badness. (NB: a true utilitarian might weight the first 100% and the rest 0%, but I think people like that are in enough of a minority that the general view is better.)
[5] For me, an example is "if a run away mine cart with ten people in is heading for a cliff, and the only way to stop it was to push a bystander under the wheels killing him, would you?" The rules "an active act is worse than a passive one" and "more deaths are worse than fewer deaths" conflict. Of course, you're probably ok with this but have a different problematic question, whether you've thought of it or not. Or do you disagree?
However, when you read desriptions of these philosophies, they're almost always paired with hypothetical examples where the philosophy doesn't apply, is contradictory, or contradicts what we innately feel is the right answer[1].
(1) I propose that instead of being a fault in the individual philosophy, this is because no described philosophy can in fact always agree with what we innately feel is the right answer[2]. They can be a good approximation to it though, as shown by most philosophies agreeing with each other most of the time[3].
I say accept that no fixed rule will suffice, and instead have a number of rules[4] which different people place different weights on. Then most of the philosophies mentioned are a statement of one rule, and attempted derivations of the other rules from it.
In most cases only one rule applies so most people agree, and any philsophy is fine. In awkward situations two rules conflict, and different people and different philosophies choose different ways.
(2) Secondly, I'd go further and say our innate feelings of what is right don't form a consistent or complete system. I'd like it if they did, but feel they don't for two reasons.
Firstly, I see no reason it should, as I don't have any reason to believe in a universal morality or a god who might dictate one. Of course, many of you will disagree with this.
Secondly, some of the *very* awkward and contrived hypothetical examples seem to have no good answer[5] even without trying to apply a philosophy, which suggests to me that some situations genuinely don't really have a best answer, so no system is complete and we have to work round that.
End note. In contrast to the last chapter, I expect this one to be controversial. Though knowing fate's sense of irony probably everyone will agree and not bother to post :)
[1] Eg. Utilitarianism: it might be for the greatest good to hang an innocent man as an example, which most people would object to. It's possible to get round this by including the chance of discovery and the ensuing disatisfaction, but it's not really possible to *quantitatively* compare goodnesses in that way.
[2] *Should* it agree? I'd say yes -- how else do you decide what philosophy to adopt? OTOH, some people would object: (1) The philosophy might illustrate consequences you hadn't forseen. Or (2) If you make 100 measurements of a physical quantity and 99 fit a simple equation, you say the 100th is wrong, and the same should apply to 100 hypothetical ethical questions. However for the moment, I'll assume they should agree.
[3] Which is also why we can all live together. Though the more cynical might reverse that statement and say we evolved/were created to to live socially, and any philosophy we come up with has to produce that as it's result.
[4] The initial list will be expounded tomorrow. Sneak preview: Hapiness is good; Sadness (normally pain) is bad; Killing is bad; Justice is good; Intentions matter; Results matter; I am more important than other people; My family and friends are more important than other people; People closer are more important than other people; Children are more important than other people; Good people are more important than bad people; Causing badness is worse than allowing badness. (NB: a true utilitarian might weight the first 100% and the rest 0%, but I think people like that are in enough of a minority that the general view is better.)
[5] For me, an example is "if a run away mine cart with ten people in is heading for a cliff, and the only way to stop it was to push a bystander under the wheels killing him, would you?" The rules "an active act is worse than a passive one" and "more deaths are worse than fewer deaths" conflict. Of course, you're probably ok with this but have a different problematic question, whether you've thought of it or not. Or do you disagree?
no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 01:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 01:38 pm (UTC)But I wasn't sure if you *did* think there was an active/passive distinction, or just thought I did.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 04:29 pm (UTC)if everyone thought like that, we'd still have a slave trade...
no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 04:40 pm (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/~spacefem/312972.html
There's the story of the man on the beach, throwing stranded starfish into the ocean, and someone asks him, "There are millions of these things on the beach. What difference does this make?" He threw another one in and said, "It makes a difference to that one."
can't really comment, very not-active here.