3 ms·

> no place for morality in any modern legal framework There's definitely a place for morality, but perhaps a better way to put it is that there should be no pl

by hx87 10y ago

> no place for morality in any modern legal framework There's definitely a place for morality, but perhaps a better way to put it is that there should be no place for any non-utilitarian morality in any legal framework.

LoSboccacc 10y ago
what you're thinking is ethic
jcfrei 10y ago
Can you give an example for a moral and useful statute that is outside of a common ethical framework?
hnal943 10y ago
But that's still a moral statement - one that privileges utilitarianism above other philosophies.
omalleyt 10y ago
These thoughts scare me. Utilitarianism is far from perfect. For instance, would we as a society designate 5% of women as lacking right to their own body and allow any man to have them when he wishes? If the pleasure the men gained is greater than the suffering of the women, utilitarians say yes. And even if you say "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater," is that REALLY the reason that the action I stated above is wrong? Or is it...that women have a moral right to their body that is not subject to the whims of what is best for society
- navait 10y ago
  What you are referring to are "Utility Monster" arguments. I've yet to see a version of the Utility Monster that would actually happen in the real world. The better ones involve a computer that rules the world and is given a metric that seems good, but leads to bad consequences when it is maximized at the expense of everything else. But we aren't ruled by such a computer - we're still ruled by people. > "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater" IMO, this is obviously true. Why wouldn't it be the real reason?
- hx87 10y ago
  > And even if you say "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater," is that REALLY the reason that the action I stated above is wrong? Yes, that really is the reason it is wrong. Men aren't utility monsters, the existence (even hypothetically) of utility monsters is doubtful, and it is harmful to optimize a system of morality for situations that have an infinitismal probability of being realized.
CM30 10y ago
No, not really. Utilitarianism has its place, but it always has a lot of flaws that make it very poorly suited as something to basic any legal framework of it. Like the fact certain types can be used to basically justify anything the majority likes, regardless of whether it's really fair on anyone else. You could argue banning various social and religious views is acceptable as a utilitarian, so long as the majority of the population would be happier with them banned.
knodi123 10y ago
utilitarian legal frameworks would allow torturing a suspected terrorist to find out if he actually knows the codes to disarm the ticking time bomb. is that something you actually support, or am I misinterpreting?

by hx87 10y ago

LoSboccacc 10y ago

what you're thinking is ethic

jcfrei 10y ago

Can you give an example for a moral and useful statute that is outside of a common ethical framework?

hnal943 10y ago

But that's still a moral statement - one that privileges utilitarianism above other philosophies.

omalleyt 10y ago

These thoughts scare me. Utilitarianism is far from perfect. For instance, would we as a society designate 5% of women as lacking right to their own body and allow any man to have them when he wishes? If the pleasure the men gained is greater than the suffering of the women, utilitarians say yes. And even if you say "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater," is that REALLY the reason that the action I stated above is wrong? Or is it...that women have a moral right to their body that is not subject to the whims of what is best for society

navait 10y ago
What you are referring to are "Utility Monster" arguments. I've yet to see a version of the Utility Monster that would actually happen in the real world. The better ones involve a computer that rules the world and is given a metric that seems good, but leads to bad consequences when it is maximized at the expense of everything else. But we aren't ruled by such a computer - we're still ruled by people. > "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater" IMO, this is obviously true. Why wouldn't it be the real reason?
hx87 10y ago
> And even if you say "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater," is that REALLY the reason that the action I stated above is wrong? Yes, that really is the reason it is wrong. Men aren't utility monsters, the existence (even hypothetically) of utility monsters is doubtful, and it is harmful to optimize a system of morality for situations that have an infinitismal probability of being realized.

CM30 10y ago

No, not really. Utilitarianism has its place, but it always has a lot of flaws that make it very poorly suited as something to basic any legal framework of it. Like the fact certain types can be used to basically justify anything the majority likes, regardless of whether it's really fair on anyone else. You could argue banning various social and religious views is acceptable as a utilitarian, so long as the majority of the population would be happier with them banned.

knodi123 10y ago

utilitarian legal frameworks would allow torturing a suspected terrorist to find out if he actually knows the codes to disarm the ticking time bomb. is that something you actually support, or am I misinterpreting?