4 ms·
> any moral system which can lead to these conclusions is not a complete moral system But "these conclusions" are unobjectionable, because they include the pre
by sooheon 6y ago
> any moral system which can lead to these conclusions is not a complete moral system
But "these conclusions" are unobjectionable, because they include the premise "things are net better". Because "net better" is imprecisely defined, I can substitute as strong a condition as desired up to and including impossible conditions. Which means they can subsume non-utilitarian moralities (I believe non-utilitarians are just utilitarians with binary step functions for certain utilities).
- NateEag 6y agoI believe that "things are net better" is a profoundly wrong way to decide if something is moral, no matter how you define "things are net better." Again, see "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas." I hope I would walk away, even at the price of slow starvation. I believe I would, but it is hard to know what you will actually do in a truly awful situation before it arrives.
- sooheon 6y ago> I hope I would walk away, even at the price of slow starvation. Because to you, Omelas is not net better. Which is perfectly understandable. But what basis do you have for rejecting Omelas, other than that you believe it to be worse?
- NateEag 6y agoMy belief that there is an external standard of right and wrong that has little to do with utility, and that I know what that standard says about torturing people for your own gain. It's not about utility, it's that it's wrong to hate and harm a few people. The "good" of the many does not have one iota of influence over the wrongness of that action. To quote the book that defines so much of my moral code, "What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but loses his soul?" Side note: describing my worldview with language from yours does not mean yours subsumes mine.