A case study:
The objective end is different from the end in view or intention (or subjective end).
But hopefully now you see the importance of not playing fast and loose with semantic distinctions. Distinctions in meaning matter, Oreo, especially if you’re trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone, rather than just venting how you feel.
HUH? The intention or subjective end (not the object) is entirely subordinate to the object (or objective end).
Is this your way of trying to say you don’t want to be held accountable for your metaphysical views? Your metaphysical views don’t have to be dogmatic to be metaphysical views. Regardless, your view that moral evaluations are subjectively grounded, and have no other meaning in reality, is a (dogmatic) metaphysical view - the fact that it is haphazardly believed in relation to your other views of reality does not tell in favor of the coherence or rationality of your beliefs. Right???
Whatever dude, I’m way uniquer than you and we both know it.Yes, and being one of the Catholics, who make up one-sixth of the world’s population, isn’t being mainstream at all!
You’re unique, just like everybody else.
So apparently a guy like Hare didn’t really need to bother talking about preferences? Did you know he thought Kant could have been a utilitarian?
Did you know Hare thought Kant could have been a utilitarian? (Wait, I just asked that question.)
I meant that emotivism claims that the only meaning of moral claims (i.e., the objective content of moral claims) is the subject’s expression of approval of some act or ethical belief. That applies to all subjects, everywhere, in every culture. It’s a very strong claim, with some very uncomfortable implications.
Don’t you mean they hold no (cognitively-based) intersubjective plausibility whatsoever? Persuasion is irrelevant. Objectivity does not mean intersubjectivity. (Didn’t I make this point already?) The subject’s moral evaluations are non-cognitively but objectively justified by his own subjective feelings of approval or disapproval. This doesn’t mean his view is binding on anyone else; it means that no one else’s view is binding on him. I.e., the buck stops here, at the individual.
So what does ‘meaning’ mean? Ever heard the phrase “meaning is use”?
Thanks. Some people don’t believe me, but I do try to understand what the Church says even though I disagree.I am very impressed that you have gone to so much trouble to examine the principles of the moral teaching of the Church. It does you credit!
I think we’re on the same page here (or at least close to the same page). But do you think it would be fair for a doctor who is forced to make this decision to be considered blameworthy for causing the lesser of two evils? Would he be required to repent? I suppose the main question is: Can someone be forced to sin by the circumstances?
I’m still confused. I don’t know what you mean by “good.” Do you mean “good” as in an item, or “good” as in an ethical good? What if someone deliberately acts against this metaphysical structure? What is the object then?
I agree entirely. Any ethical system that requires a person to do evil and does not consider the act better than the other options contradicts its own purpose. Goodness and badness have to be incorporated into the system so that they are expressed in degrees. Otherwise, these “lose-lose” situations will occur.
Indeed. This principle does sound very different from the principles the Church normally suggests.
I see. Does the Church ever enumerate the impulses that have arisen from original sin, or is there any method one can use to determine whether an impulse was caused by original sin?
But that’s not what we’re talking about. In this scenario, the mother will die if the fetus is not aborted, so the options are 1) relieve yourself of the responsibility to protect her and her child as your clients, thus leaving the obligation to another doctor who will have to make the same decision, or 2) kill the fetus so that the mother can live. Any way you look at it, the decision to allow both to die (or pass the responsibility onto another) or kill one to save the other is forced on you. What do you choose? How is either course of action not sinful?
How do we determine that an act is “wrong in itself?” Wouldn’t accusing me of being a stupid liar be wrong because of the consequences of hurting my feelings, vilifying me, and causing us to digress from an important topic? I would say that the moral value of actions lies in their consequences. I don’t think actions are evil because they defy some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo (which would still be a consequence of the action, and not a quality of the action itself). Sorry buddy, but I think consequentialism is the only way to go.
Well, I guess my contention that morals are not some abstract laws that somehow shape our universe is a dogmatic metaphysical belief in the same way that the belief that my mind isn’t being controlled by some demonic deity is a dogmatic metaphysical belief. I think and possess my own consciousness, and so it seems logically impossible that someone else could be experiencing this same sensation of control over what I call “my mind.” Similarly, I speak my mind regarding ethics, and I can tell where those opinions come from: my emotions. Something dissatisfies me, and so I say it’s wrong. It’s one of the simplest psychological truths there is.
You’re more eccentric than most, it seems, but other than that, I haven’t heard any unique reasoning demonstrated by you. As far as the other aspects of your character go, well, I really don’t know you and you don’t know me. There’s no sense in bickering like teenage girls over whose more unique (and doing so through the internet, no less!).
Who is Hare, and why did he think Kant could have passed as a utilitarian?
If that’s what you meant, I agree. Yes, it does seem a bit disconcerting, but once you realize that it would be impossible for a “should” claim to refer to an objective force in the universe, then it’s the only option. If ethics were objective, we couldn’t violate them any more than we could violate other laws, such as the gravitational laws.
Not at all. In fact, ethics are usually regarded as objective precisely because of their intersubjectivity. For instance, people may think it is factual that murder (the legal definition) is wrong because this sentiment is almost unanimous amongst humans and is rarely questioned (because of the emotive power of murder).
For the existential nihilist like hatsoff does truth even have value?hatsoff:
If nothing has intrinsic value, then truth does not have intrinsic value.
If truth does not have intrinsic value, then it is by no means to be preferred to untruth.
If the statement “nothing has intrinsic value” is true, then the statement “something has intrinsic value” is false.
If the statement “nothing has intrinsic value” is true, then it is by no means to be preferred to the statement “something has intrinsic value”.
In other words, apart from value, the idea that we should believe truth instead of untruth is incoherent. But perhaps you’re willing to live with that consequence?
Yes, it would be wrong because of the consequences, but it would still be wrong if there were no consequences, say if I only was harboring such thoughts in my heart, then died. Do you not see that? It would be an act of injustice, an offense against truth and love. Do you really not have these concepts? It may be that you simply have a corrupt mind. If you have missed out on some basic formation of moral character, you will be unable to see what others see. This is called blindness. If a blind person insists to a person who can see that their is no such thing as light or color, there’s not much the seeing person can do. Some people just don’t have consciences. Neuroscientists have identified certain neurons as mirror neurons which are necessary for normal emotional and moral development. Some people have moral defects arising from neural defects. Others for other reasons. I don’t know how to explain your case, but if you don’t see that injustice is wrong apart from consequences, I’m afraid there is simply something wrong with you.
You guess, huh? What makes them the same?
No sense at all in bickering - I WAS JOKING!
I thought he was a leading proponent of preference utilitarianism. You’ve never heard of him? Kant could have been a utilitarian because his first formulation of the categorical imperative can be interpreted as coinciding with what preference utilitarianism recommends. “Act only according to that maxim which you can will to be universal law.” Anyway, my point is just that calling yourself utilitarian doesn’t entail anything about your particular moral judgments. This being the case, boasting of the coherence of your views is an entirely trivial boast (not that I believe it anyway).
Well thank you for your immense graciousness. My reductio was valid after all. You even admit it seems a bit disconcerting. (I dare say!)
Not at all?? Did you read what I wrote?
Did you notice the words “cognitively-based”?
See what? Yes, a person is thinking (or feeling) in a way that I don’t appreciate. So what? Realistically, what can I do about it? Is it any of my business?
I feel the very same way about you.
They’re both negative metaphysical assertions that appear to be self-explanatory. Some people are too lazy to do the introspection to come to those conclusions, I guess.
If he is, then it seems that Singer is far more famous. Singer’s pretty much regarded as the go-to guy for preference utilitarianism (though I don’t agree with all of his conclusions).
How in the world does that formulation align itself with preference utilitarianism? This world is full of fools who, despite their observations, insist that everyone should feel a certain way (have you read your last post?) because they don’t care about the preferences of others. These apathetic persons would abuse the first formulation so much that Kant would roll over in his grave! His belief in some sort of immutable, abstract structure that could justify any action if you would only feel that you could “will something to be universal” is laughable. People prefer different things, and we are natural, so trying to compare our desires to something uniform and supernatural is insane.
Calling yourself utilitarian, if you are being honest, means that your moral judgments are (except in times when you have abandoned your code) contingent on the greatest happiness principle, and that that is the sole absolute standard you’ve set for yourself. That’s the only rule we follow, unless you count those hypocritical rule utilitarians.
What can you do about it?? You can recognize that its wrong (as you apparently do, although you missed this little point, which was the only point I was making)! Wrong regardless of consequences! And of course it’s none of your business, and you can’t do anything about it - I’m dead!!!
But this, of course, is where Catholicism steps in. Ah yes, Catholicism…the undisputed champion of the “I deserve, you deserve” philosophies. Catholicism: the ideology wherein it is acceptable for someone to be eternally tortured, without hope of redemption, all for thinking in a certain way, regardless of what they’ve actually done*. Justice indeed!
My statement was an “if…then” statement. It wasn’t a stupid blank assertion of how I feel about you. As for your ignorant rant about Catholicism, if you want to discuss a different topic, I think it would be better if you started a new thread. Before you do though, stop, breathe deeply, and resolve to be way more rational and open-minded.I feel the very same way about you.
Or too lazy to do the introspection to see the truth of the categorical imperative, right? You call this an argument? Have you heard of Wittgenstein? Do you know what “beetle in a box” refers to?
Hare was Singer’s teacher and most important mentor.
Your “we” is ridiculously naive. As if “you” utilitarians agree about everything. What a joke! You don’t even know who R.M. Hare is! He was a leading moral philosopher of the 20th century who sits squarely in “your” camp. If you have any interest in understanding ethics rather than spouting naive rhetoric about what you and “yours” believe, maybe you should do a little more reading.
The only rule you follow. Yeah, like the only rule I follow is “do the right thing.” Good rule. Very easy to follow. No need for anything more specific than that. One rule does the job. And also, Kant was insane.
So now the categorical imperative is not only preferable to other moral principles, it’s true? Do tell. What does it take for an ethical principle to be true?
I thought I read the name somewhere, but that’s beside the point. I don’t need to know what utilitarians think in order to understand utilitarianism as it is defined. An ideology is not defined by those who claim to adhere to it (unless we count the relevant dictums of its creator, of course).
Utilitarianism, being a very practical commonsense philosophy, has many adherents. More adherents, I would say, than the number of people who’ve actually heard the term “utilitarian.” As such, if I wanted to observe the behaviors of my fellows, I need not look very far, and I certainly wouldn’t have to pick up a philosophy book to read the works of utilitarians. In fact, most consequentialists are either utilitarian or are egoists with utilitarian tendencies. All you really have to do is avoid the works of the deontologists, and you’re there (that, of course, is easier said than done).
Aren’t all of Kant’s rules derived from one principle (the Categorical Imperative), like those of utilitarians?The only rule you follow. Yeah, like the only rule I follow is “do the right thing.” Good rule. Very easy to follow. No need for anything more specific than that. One rule does the job. And also, Kant was insane.
I question whether this is true. Consider: how many people encourage their spouse to cheat on them? (An action which seems to be implied by utilitarianism…)
