Philosopher's Guild: Everyone is Welcome to Gather and Discuss

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I think Virtue Theory's worth a look too.

To put everything in perspective, there are three analytic forms of objective secular ethics:

Deontological Ethics (Kant), focused on rights and duties.
Utilitarianism/Consequentialism (Mill/Sidgwick), focused on maximizing happiness, or at least minimizing suffering.
Virtue Ethics (Aristotle), focused on living as a "good man".

This of course leaves off religious ethicists such as Kierkegaard, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Buber, and Aquinas. There are also secular ethics among the Continental philosophers as well (Arendt, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard again). There are also ethical nihilists and expressivists like Nietzsche, Stirner, and Ayer. All are worth study as well, but generally the two or three mentioned is the established starting point.

I know this is unpopular but @ Nietzsche. After commenting on some posts in here Im going to prepare a thorough criticism of his work. He has so many fan boys now...it drives me crazy.

 

[badhat]

I really hate "internet Nietszche".

I do think he's a good response to Kierkegaard in terms of rounding out early existentialism and what it could be capable of, and more generally grounding Hegel, cause he's completely opaque as an author, and even if Nietszche got Hegel wrong, I think his works are useful as a toehold.

 

[DEAD7]

Note: I have a problem with most moral theories because I don't think any effectively capture how problematic self-interests are in regard to doing what we perceive is the "right" thing. Psychological egoism is too simplistic and I disagree that one can never perform a truly altruistic act (I do agree it's very rare). Aristotle addresses it somewhat with the notion of "weakness of will," in his ethics, but it's not well fleshed out in my opinion.

Do you believe morality is objective?

 

[gho3st]

Skepticism(Humes)? Cartesianism(Descartes)?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Skepticism(Humes)? Cartesianism(Descartes)?

2 of my favorites. I didnt add them yet.. I wanted to let some discussion develop first before I overload it with info. Descartes, IMO, was brilliant but as his work developed in an effort to then prove God's existence after providing so many cogent points to place doubt against it, he contradicts himself or tiptoes through the loopholes he created just to appease the religious authority. Part of me doesnt even believe that he meant what he was writing as he went on and did it to save his own head.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

FWIW..I think I lean towards Consequentialism..

I actually think virtue ethics/Nicomachean ethics are the most interesting moral arguments (I'd throw Ross's primae facie duties along with Bentham's utilitarianism in there as well). However, I'm also a big Aristotle fan (just think he's the most ingenious philosopher other than Kant), so take that comment with a grain of salt, perhaps.

In general, I think people are actually a moral admixture of deontological views meshed with act-utilitarianism. In our broad collective ideal of "morality," we have very rigged sense of right and wrong (e.g., killing is wrong). Moreover, if you were to press most people on this matter they may not express sentiments that deliberately state, "Killing violates the autonomy of others," or "killing uses others as a means to an end," or "killing fails the categorical imperative," which would make Kant's toes curl; but, they'd be likely to say something akin to a pared down, "Killing is just wrong," which is in-line with Kant's view of obligation and motivation. So, on one hand we have our very broad and idealistic sense of what we believe to be right and wrong, and then on the other hand we have the reality of the world -- which we encounter as extremely fluid. The world, for better or worse, doesn't always allow us to keep our ideals static. I may very well believe killing is wrong. Yet, when an armed intruder breaks into my home, I'm sandwiched between two moral ideals (i.e., killing is wrong, protecting my family) and I have to give one precedence in this circumstance. I quickly decide what to give precedence vis-à-vis utilitarian tenets. One might not calculate the felicity, utils, etc. But, we know off hand what we "think" would bring about the most pleasure (i.e. killing the intruder and protecting our family and interests).

Note: I have a problem with most moral theories because I don't think any effectively capture how problematic self-interests are in regard to doing what we perceive is the "right" thing. Psychological egoism is too simplistic and I disagree that one can never perform a truly altruistic act (I do agree it's very rare). Aristotle addresses it somewhat with the notion of "weakness of will," in his ethics, but it's not well fleshed out in my opinion.

Great post.

1. I think either deontology or utilitarianism can explain that scenario fine without a blend per se. Utilitarian view can be.."less people will die if I kill the intruder (assuming the intruder was going to kill one or more in the house)...and perhaps stop the intruder from committing other murders in the future (thus the greater good). That would be justified in almost any school of Utilitarian thought. From a deontological point of view..it can also be justified if something like "killing is wrong unless when in grave danger as self defense"..just depends on exactly what the moral stance is. That principle could be normalized universally.
2. To me, it wouldnt be the maximizing the amount of pleasure but minimizing the amount of pain. The consequences would lead to less pain, presumably. The amount of pain would really only be theoretical in the sense that I may be traumatized mentally if I killed someone long-term, or if it turns out I knew the person and they werent in the right state of mind...or perhaps if they werent even armed with a deadly weapon and just put on the appearance that they were to increase their success in robbery. There may be some grief there because of the latter after the fact because I may end up thinking I could have knocked him out or somehow restrained him without killing him. Either way, it'd be a no brainer that seeing the family get slaughtered and perhaps surviving it would be far worse in terms of pain and also benefits no one really..other than maybe the intruder if they end up getting away scot-free and never arrested.
   
3. Defining the "right thing" is the hardest part. I think there are moral theories that do effectively capture self-interests in that regard but they have to be incredibly broad and pragmatic..and those generally get nit-picked to death by obsessives. The thing is that the "right thing" can change all the time and most need to also respect individuality...thats why I err on the side of minimizing "the wrong thing" instead of maximizing "the right thing" to some degree..if that makes any sense.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Do you believe morality is objective?

I dont.

 

[Type Username Here]

Determinism and free will.

Where do you guys stand?

 

[bnm8907]

I really started to get heavy into stoicism lately. I feel it has a lot of practical concepts that can be used today and stand the test of time.

I have to come back and read the other posts later.

Great thread

 

[OsO]

do what thou will

but dont harm others

simple

 

[OsO]

Determinism and free will.

Where do you guys stand?

Free will is the absolute reality.

Determinism/fate/destiny is also real, but it's more so a probability game whose percentages fluctuate moment to moment based on, you guessed it, the CHOICES made by the individual. Hence everything begins and ends with the choices one makes.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Free will is the absolute reality.

Determinism/fate/destiny is also real, but it's more so a probability game whose percentages fluctuate moment to moment based on, you guessed it, the CHOICES made by the individual. Hence everything begins and ends with the choices one makes.

Imma need you to explain this more before I comment.

Are u talking compatibilism or just a personal belief?

On Compatibilism: Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery." lol

 

[Type Username Here]

Free will is the absolute reality.

Determinism/fate/destiny is also real, but it's more so a probability game whose percentages fluctuate moment to moment based on, you guessed it, the CHOICES made by the individual. Hence everything begins and ends with the choices one makes.

Interesting.

What choice does gravity make? Or an atom? Or a molecule? Or a star? How did you choose to be born on Earth? Or to your parents? How did the earth choose to have water or carry life? How did the concept of two choose to be?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Interesting.

What choice does gravity make? Or an atom? Or a molecule? Or a star? How did you choose to be born on Earth? Or to your parents? How did the earth choose to have water or carry life? How did the concept of two choose to be?

Good points. I think that, sometimes, proponents of free will are too focused on humanity and their own consciousness rather than truly looking at the universality of it. Can see the arguments both ways, however, I dont think universal free will makes sense. Itd have to be limited to certain levels of conscious thought vs inanimate objects to be a logically sound proof.

Im still interested to see @LeyeT 's further explain his stance though..I think I get it but I want more clarification.

 

[OsO]

Imma need you to explain this more before I comment.

Are u talking compatibilism or just a personal belief?

On Compatibilism: Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery." lol

if you're asking do I think both concepts are compatible, yes.

Interesting.

What choice does gravity make? Or an atom? Or a molecule? Or a star? How did you choose to be born on Earth? Or to your parents? How did the earth choose to have water or carry life? How did the concept of two choose to be?

point taken.

let me rephrase.

free will is our absolute reality in terms of human consciousness.