6 ms·

So the TLS's answer to the categorical imperative is "be as good as you can be I guess. . ." That has the same problems that they find in utilitarianism, only

by vivekd 10y ago

So the TLS's answer to the categorical imperative is "be as good as you can be I guess. . ." That has the same problems that they find in utilitarianism, only even more so. It is even more vague and even less calculable than they claim utalitarianism is. How good is a person capable of being? How do we find out how good an individual is capable of being? Are psychopaths given special allowances? What about people with very little self control? If ethics is dependent on knowledge does that mean Aztec human sacrifices were a morally great deed when performed by the Aztecs under a misconception that the souls were going to heaven? What about Hitler's genocide under the misconceived belief that he was creating a better and more peaceful Europe?

bleachedsleet 10y ago
But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? External supernatural force? We are then met with the old questions of "which one" along with the problem of interpretation (do we take Levitical restrictions on beard trimming literally, for example). It seems like knowledge is the only thing we can use to form good ethical structures...perhaps with enough data our ethics will become better.
- lettergram 10y ago
  > But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? Thats actually why I argue objectivism as being aligning better with what's possible within the field of ethics. The whole idea is you can only morally do what you want, without intentially removing others freedom, unless they pose a direct threat to your freedom. As a rule of thumb, this actually works exceptionally well. Murder for example is wrong (morally), by that code of conduct. Traffic laws would be moral because it keeps others from removing your freedom by either not letting you access the road or accidentally killing you by being reckless. It also handles the Hitler argument, whereas some utilitarians my argue what Hitler did was moral. The whole point of this philosophy is to maximize personal happiness, while minimizing conflict. Data has little to do with it, because respecting one another is the whole point. When you start discussing ethics in terms of "sociatial good" it starts requiring one to know the future. For this reason, I'd argue objectivism, when applied, provides the more useful form of ethics, where one only has to worry about their own happiness, while not intruding (too much), on others.
  - bleachedsleet 10y ago
    Yes, but objectivism suffers from decay on its own fringes as well. An objectivist can both be personally against gay marriage, for example, while publicly decrying any law against it because that would "infringe upon freedom." In that case it becomes more of a good law making structure rather than a valid ethical system since the individual's morality is compromised at the expense of society's ethics.
  - _yosefk 10y ago
    One problem is defining what "intruding on others' happiness too much" means - it's not obvious how to derive from this principle the hours when making loud noises within city limits is OK, or what about necrophilia in public, or pollution, etc. Almost anything I do might make someone very unhappy and I'm not sure what philosophical principle can be used to distinguish cases where I should stop doing it from cases where I should be able to reply "toughski shitski." Another problem is whether it's OK to require a thirsty person in a desert to give up all their assets in exchange for water, and whether it's OK for the thirsty person to knock you out and take the water in response; most people would side with the thirsty guy for what I think are very good reasons in terms of the practical implications while objectivists would not.
    - lettergram 10y ago
      To your first point, making someone unhappy isn't unethical. Making loud noise pretty much at all, is infringing on people's freedom. No one will bicker if you can't avoid the sound like starting a car, but if you play a loud TV it's unethical. Necrophilia is totally fine by this ethical standard, as it disgusting you is not infringing on your freedom (to say sleep, as the noise example). Pollution is a tough one, but trying to minimize it would be more ethical as it infringes on less people, etc. To your other problem, I fully understand the practical implications. Knocking the guy out and stealing his water is pretty unethical. However, coming to equitable terms is fairly easy. More humans can think one step ahead and just gouging the guy for all his posetions means he won't help you in the future. Long term, that is bad for you, thus you'll likely not charge too outrageous
- imagist 10y ago
  I'm not sure what basis you have for the implicit claim that we don't exist in "loose animalistic structures".
tehansen 10y ago
"How do we find out how good an individual is capable of being?" Maybe each Individual is capable of being just as good as they are capable to be bad. Would that even the score and make the problem disappear?
- globuous 10y ago
  Wait, but then the question of "what is good?" arises... What makes someone a "good human being"? And how does this tie in with "having a good life"? Then rises the question of "how do I not get fucked over in life?" as well. So it gets confusing. Where to even beging, is good universal? Do the criteria that make "a good being" good constant, or does it mutate over time? I there a single, or even multiple non-contradicting, right answer to this question? What is good?.
mcguire 10y ago
No, the authors seem to suggest, "be as good as the average person can be": "He excludes from the scope of ethical obligation not just the literally impossible, but also anything that is merely beyond the abilities of the normal person. Ethics cannot tell us to do what would require the impartiality of saints or the foresight of seers." Superman is not ethically required to save the world from the giant meteor because the average man could not. I, as a professional programmer, am not required to make ethical choices when writing software because the average person cannot write code at all.
- true_religion 10y ago
  Your notion would also extend to saying "Superman is not ethnically required to not punch hole through that building killing everyone inside, it because the average person cannot punch that hard". It's is as if the claim is someone shouldn't avoid doing harm that their above average abilities offer them? The authors seems to be saying something dissimilar to that: people should't not be require to do more than average person, even if they have the capability to do so. Programmers shouldn't be required to perform code for charity for their friends and family. Doctors shouldn't be required to save lifes.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- imagist 10y ago
  Wow, neither of you actually finished the article. Both of you are claiming the author believes viewpoints that the author presented in order to show problems with them. Ultimately, the TLS didn't even claim a viewpoint. They merely presented a variety of opinions and critiqued them.

by vivekd 10y ago

bleachedsleet 10y ago

But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? External supernatural force? We are then met with the old questions of "which one" along with the problem of interpretation (do we take Levitical restrictions on beard trimming literally, for example). It seems like knowledge is the only thing we can use to form good ethical structures...perhaps with enough data our ethics will become better.

lettergram 10y ago
> But if not knowledge then upon what is it based? Instinct? If so, then society would crumble into loose animalistic structures. Law? Then, to appeal to Hitler once more, would you still shelter a Jew against the ethics of the law? Thats actually why I argue objectivism as being aligning better with what's possible within the field of ethics. The whole idea is you can only morally do what you want, without intentially removing others freedom, unless they pose a direct threat to your freedom. As a rule of thumb, this actually works exceptionally well. Murder for example is wrong (morally), by that code of conduct. Traffic laws would be moral because it keeps others from removing your freedom by either not letting you access the road or accidentally killing you by being reckless. It also handles the Hitler argument, whereas some utilitarians my argue what Hitler did was moral. The whole point of this philosophy is to maximize personal happiness, while minimizing conflict. Data has little to do with it, because respecting one another is the whole point. When you start discussing ethics in terms of "sociatial good" it starts requiring one to know the future. For this reason, I'd argue objectivism, when applied, provides the more useful form of ethics, where one only has to worry about their own happiness, while not intruding (too much), on others.
- bleachedsleet 10y ago
  Yes, but objectivism suffers from decay on its own fringes as well. An objectivist can both be personally against gay marriage, for example, while publicly decrying any law against it because that would "infringe upon freedom." In that case it becomes more of a good law making structure rather than a valid ethical system since the individual's morality is compromised at the expense of society's ethics.
- _yosefk 10y ago
  One problem is defining what "intruding on others' happiness too much" means - it's not obvious how to derive from this principle the hours when making loud noises within city limits is OK, or what about necrophilia in public, or pollution, etc. Almost anything I do might make someone very unhappy and I'm not sure what philosophical principle can be used to distinguish cases where I should stop doing it from cases where I should be able to reply "toughski shitski." Another problem is whether it's OK to require a thirsty person in a desert to give up all their assets in exchange for water, and whether it's OK for the thirsty person to knock you out and take the water in response; most people would side with the thirsty guy for what I think are very good reasons in terms of the practical implications while objectivists would not.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    To your first point, making someone unhappy isn't unethical. Making loud noise pretty much at all, is infringing on people's freedom. No one will bicker if you can't avoid the sound like starting a car, but if you play a loud TV it's unethical. Necrophilia is totally fine by this ethical standard, as it disgusting you is not infringing on your freedom (to say sleep, as the noise example). Pollution is a tough one, but trying to minimize it would be more ethical as it infringes on less people, etc. To your other problem, I fully understand the practical implications. Knocking the guy out and stealing his water is pretty unethical. However, coming to equitable terms is fairly easy. More humans can think one step ahead and just gouging the guy for all his posetions means he won't help you in the future. Long term, that is bad for you, thus you'll likely not charge too outrageous
imagist 10y ago
I'm not sure what basis you have for the implicit claim that we don't exist in "loose animalistic structures".

tehansen 10y ago

"How do we find out how good an individual is capable of being?" Maybe each Individual is capable of being just as good as they are capable to be bad. Would that even the score and make the problem disappear?

globuous 10y ago
Wait, but then the question of "what is good?" arises... What makes someone a "good human being"? And how does this tie in with "having a good life"? Then rises the question of "how do I not get fucked over in life?" as well. So it gets confusing. Where to even beging, is good universal? Do the criteria that make "a good being" good constant, or does it mutate over time? I there a single, or even multiple non-contradicting, right answer to this question? What is good?.

mcguire 10y ago

No, the authors seem to suggest, "be as good as the average person can be": "He excludes from the scope of ethical obligation not just the literally impossible, but also anything that is merely beyond the abilities of the normal person. Ethics cannot tell us to do what would require the impartiality of saints or the foresight of seers." Superman is not ethically required to save the world from the giant meteor because the average man could not. I, as a professional programmer, am not required to make ethical choices when writing software because the average person cannot write code at all.

true_religion 10y ago
Your notion would also extend to saying "Superman is not ethnically required to not punch hole through that building killing everyone inside, it because the average person cannot punch that hard". It's is as if the claim is someone shouldn't avoid doing harm that their above average abilities offer them? The authors seems to be saying something dissimilar to that: people should't not be require to do more than average person, even if they have the capability to do so. Programmers shouldn't be required to perform code for charity for their friends and family. Doctors shouldn't be required to save lifes.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
imagist 10y ago
Wow, neither of you actually finished the article. Both of you are claiming the author believes viewpoints that the author presented in order to show problems with them. Ultimately, the TLS didn't even claim a viewpoint. They merely presented a variety of opinions and critiqued them.