4 ms·

The actual place where the 'whys' end is the axiomatic foundations of the model. The axioms for the categorical imperative are self-referential in the abstract

The actual place where the 'whys' end is the axiomatic foundations of the model. The axioms for the categorical imperative are self-referential in the abstract (universal rules are good because they are good), whereas the axioms for utilitarianism are rooted in maximising subjective human experience. One is fundamentally materialist, the other idealist. You are right in that you can't argue on those grounds because the two sides value different things, in the same way that religious versus material justifications for actions cannot be reconciled. That does not mean that they have equal merit.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
That these axioms are just statements held as true, with no actual motivation why. Because of that, it's really hard to argue in favor of one system of ethics over the other on any more solid ground than "this sounds true", or appealing to the consequences if it was true. "True" even starts to lose meaning in this context as these statements don't correspond to anything in the external world, they are entirely fabricated from ideas. They can be self-consistent, others can share the ideas, but that's about as good as things get.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  OK so now we're drifting from ethics into epistemology, ontology and the value of constructed models - as I said before, that's my bread and butter. You're arguing for a relativistic, practically nihilistic interpretation of models where it's all made up anyway so no one model can be better than another. I take an anti-realist position, that there's nothing about morality that is intrinsic to reality, but that we invent our models to guide our actions towards outcomes we desire. The outcome of the categorical imperative is rigid adherence to rules that have no bearing with reality, the outcome of utilitarianism is preference fulfilment for as many people as possible. These goals are not equal in value unless you think that twiddling your thumbs and solving world hunger are goals of equal value, in which case I'd say nihilism is an anti-philosophy primarily held by edgy teenagers and does nothing for anybody except provide an ego defence against criticism, like ironic detachment. I wouldn't recommend pursuing it as a guiding principle.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

That these axioms are just statements held as true, with no actual motivation why. Because of that, it's really hard to argue in favor of one system of ethics over the other on any more solid ground than "this sounds true", or appealing to the consequences if it was true. "True" even starts to lose meaning in this context as these statements don't correspond to anything in the external world, they are entirely fabricated from ideas. They can be self-consistent, others can share the ideas, but that's about as good as things get.

beaconstudios 5y ago
OK so now we're drifting from ethics into epistemology, ontology and the value of constructed models - as I said before, that's my bread and butter. You're arguing for a relativistic, practically nihilistic interpretation of models where it's all made up anyway so no one model can be better than another. I take an anti-realist position, that there's nothing about morality that is intrinsic to reality, but that we invent our models to guide our actions towards outcomes we desire. The outcome of the categorical imperative is rigid adherence to rules that have no bearing with reality, the outcome of utilitarianism is preference fulfilment for as many people as possible. These goals are not equal in value unless you think that twiddling your thumbs and solving world hunger are goals of equal value, in which case I'd say nihilism is an anti-philosophy primarily held by edgy teenagers and does nothing for anybody except provide an ego defence against criticism, like ironic detachment. I wouldn't recommend pursuing it as a guiding principle.