4 ms·

Aren't the broad principles how we make the finer grained judgements in a fair and consistent manner though? Judges are at least supposed to use the outcomes of

Aren't the broad principles how we make the finer grained judgements in a fair and consistent manner though? Judges are at least supposed to use the outcomes of previous cases and the letter of the law to do this. The rest of us need something concrete too if we want to be consistent. I think that's worth arguing over.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
If something is arguable, it's not concrete. We have concrete moral systems. That's why we teach it to our kids. Don't lie. Be fair. Be strong. Avoid violence. Defend the weak. Try your hardest. Don't be lazy. Etc. None of these things are arguable in the abstract. When you're confronted with a case where you sacrifice one, it's always for the sake of another.
- genrilz 2y ago
  I think we are speaking past each other here. I'm talking in consequentialist terms and you are (I think, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) talking in virtue ethics terms. I'm assuming you aren't familiar with these terms and so am defining them. Forgive me if you already were familiar. Consequentialists think that the purpose of morality is to prevent "bad" consequences from happening. From a consequentialist perspective, one can very much argue about what makes a consequence "bad", and it makes a lot of sense to do so if we are trying to improve the human condition. Furthermore, I think consequentialists tend to care more about making their systems consistent, mainly so they are fair. As a side effect though, no principles have to be sacrificed when making a concrete decision, since none of them conflict. (That's what it means for a system to be consistent) Virtue ethicists think that the purpose of morality is to be a "good" person. I think you are correct that it's pretty hard to define what a "good" person is. There are also many different types of "good" people. Even if you had such a person with consistent principles, if you try and stuff everyones "good" principles into them, they would become inconsistent. It's hard for me to tell exactly what the point of being "good" is supposed to be if it is not connected to the consequences of one's actions, in which case one would just be a consequentialist, However, if the point was to improve the human condition, then I think it would take a lot of different types of "good" people, so it doesn't try and make sense to argue our way into choosing one of them. This isn't really an argument for a position as much as me trying to figure out where we disagree. Does that all sound correct to you?

cynicalpeace 2y ago

If something is arguable, it's not concrete. We have concrete moral systems. That's why we teach it to our kids. Don't lie. Be fair. Be strong. Avoid violence. Defend the weak. Try your hardest. Don't be lazy. Etc. None of these things are arguable in the abstract. When you're confronted with a case where you sacrifice one, it's always for the sake of another.

genrilz 2y ago
I think we are speaking past each other here. I'm talking in consequentialist terms and you are (I think, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) talking in virtue ethics terms. I'm assuming you aren't familiar with these terms and so am defining them. Forgive me if you already were familiar. Consequentialists think that the purpose of morality is to prevent "bad" consequences from happening. From a consequentialist perspective, one can very much argue about what makes a consequence "bad", and it makes a lot of sense to do so if we are trying to improve the human condition. Furthermore, I think consequentialists tend to care more about making their systems consistent, mainly so they are fair. As a side effect though, no principles have to be sacrificed when making a concrete decision, since none of them conflict. (That's what it means for a system to be consistent) Virtue ethicists think that the purpose of morality is to be a "good" person. I think you are correct that it's pretty hard to define what a "good" person is. There are also many different types of "good" people. Even if you had such a person with consistent principles, if you try and stuff everyones "good" principles into them, they would become inconsistent. It's hard for me to tell exactly what the point of being "good" is supposed to be if it is not connected to the consequences of one's actions, in which case one would just be a consequentialist, However, if the point was to improve the human condition, then I think it would take a lot of different types of "good" people, so it doesn't try and make sense to argue our way into choosing one of them. This isn't really an argument for a position as much as me trying to figure out where we disagree. Does that all sound correct to you?