4 ms·
> Either way: when your logic has established that you can obtain moral superiority by literally buying indulgences, it has officially proven too much, and if y
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
> Either way: when your logic has established that you can obtain moral superiority by literally buying indulgences, it has officially proven too much, and if you can't recognize that, something has gone terribly wrong in your thinking.
I see it as a natural outcome of consequentialism. Your ability to do good things is tied to your circumstances, which are not the same for everyone. Are you saying that you're certain that consequentialism is an invalid way to asess morality?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kasey_junk 4y agoThe issue with the morality of indulgence isn’t that it recognizes that different circumstances allow for different outcomes, it’s that it allows for immoral behavior so long as the calculus works out. Evade your taxes, no problem if you gave more away to charities than you owed! Do a little light billion dollars fraud? So long as you saved the trillions of future humanity from an evil AI it’s fine. Sacrifice your children to the fires of Kronos? Well if you hadn’t the Romans would have killed us all. You can argue that literally anything is moral that way.
- rhn_mk1 4y agoYou say "allows for immoral behaviour", but no system of ethics allows for immoral behaviour by definition. What you're presenting are, for a consequentialist, the choices between two evils: - do I pay taxes or give away to charities? - do I do fraud or let evil AI go on a rampage? - do I sacrifice my children or let the Romans kill us? You can't argue for things that have no positive consequence: the child sacrifice sounds dumb to us because we see the alternatives as independent. If you only consider either/or choices, the number of things you can justify as a consequentialist becomes limited.