4 ms·
Doesn't this assume that morality has mostly to do with consequences (effects/outcomes/...)? That's a reasonable idea, but it's relatively modern. Semitic rel
by jmoss20 6y ago
Doesn't this assume that morality has mostly to do with consequences (effects/outcomes/...)? That's a reasonable idea, but it's relatively modern. Semitic religions seem more concerned with (or at least, also very concerned with) intention, no matter what actions and downstream consequences those may or may not bring about.
- Kednicma 6y agoIt's true that pragmatism, as a philosophical orientation, is young; it's a 20th-century invention of the USA. Nonetheless it is only young because earlier philosophy gave so much special consideration to humans; as soon as we want to consider non-human agents, then pragmatism is far simpler than god-given ensoulment when it comes to figuring out why humans do what they do. Also, by no measure should we simply pick up and embrace philosophy from 900-500 BCE without carefully examining it, and that includes all of the Abramic religions. We know how much of the old stories were not just mythic, but deliberately distorted in order to exaggerate the importance of various kingdoms in the Levant and justify military campaigns. Finally, if we only concentrate on intent, then we eventually arrive at thoughtcrime. But thoughtcrime is undetectable; we cannot build a society out of forbidding thoughcrime, and we can't even build a morality beyond "don't think the bad thoughts". From this angle, pragmatism is a clear and obvious upgrade which removes psychological baggage.