3 ms·
Consequentialists often point out that whether things like laziness are moral failings or are physiological problems with no moral bearing, it still makes sense
by centimeter 6y ago
Consequentialists often point out that whether things like laziness are moral failings or are physiological problems with no moral bearing, it still makes sense to treat them as a moral failing, because it’s usually more likely to result in incentives and social pressures that lead to the moral failing/physiological problem being fixed, mitigated, or worked around.
There was an SSC article that had some good discussion on this at some point, but thanks to NYT I can no longer link it.
- realharo 6y ago>it still makes sense to treat them as a moral failing, because it’s usually more likely to result in incentives and social pressures that lead to the moral failing/physiological problem being fixed, mitigated, or worked around When compared to doing nothing and tolerating them, I can definitely see that. But I still think there have to be more effective approaches than either (even if we don't know what some of them are yet).
- kqr 6y agoYou might be able to go through archive.is which contains a large part of SSC. I find the argument weird because we tend not to handle moral failings very constructively.