4 ms·

What's the difference between a moral imperative and an extremely strong preference, I wonder? For example, I like peanut butter a lot, and I think torture is w

What's the difference between a moral imperative and an extremely strong preference, I wonder? For example, I like peanut butter a lot, and I think torture is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. The first is a preference; the second is a moral imperative. If asked to defend either proposition, I can say only, "I am convinced that this is true." There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism. One difference I notice is that preferences extend just to myself, while moral claims extend beyond me, i.e. I think it's fine if you don't like peanut butter, but what I think is moral I think applies to everyone (modulo my uncertainty about it). Perhaps that gets at what irks some people about the article-- the builder's implying not just that his way is good, but that your way is bad. (In this case, he makes his case in a pleasant enough tone, but I think it's fair to say that he condemns the modern system of housing and land management.)

netsp 17y ago
That's an interesting line of thought. I also share the opinion that preference, aesthetic or otherwise, is intimately related to ethics. "There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism." That's quite an assertion. It borders on Nihilism. You imply that there is no different between preference & what we see as morals. I don't think you're free and clear though. There are all sorts of ways to draw a distinction between the two. From a utilitarian perspective, you could argue that torturing causes pain & is therefore bad. From a rights/liberty perspective, you could argue that it violates some ones rights or liberties. Form the Kantian/Deontological or many other perspectives, you'd see that you would not want torture to be widespread or that it is inherently wrong. Basically, almost to the extent that morality can be said to exist, torture can be said to be wrong. Peanut butter eating can be said to be right. Hobbit houses are quite clearly in the peanut butter category. In a more practical sense, you just answer the question about whether you should coerce or encourage others to eat peanut butter, stop torturing or build hobbit houses for any reason other then that they will enjoy it.

netsp 17y ago

That's an interesting line of thought. I also share the opinion that preference, aesthetic or otherwise, is intimately related to ethics. "There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism." That's quite an assertion. It borders on Nihilism. You imply that there is no different between preference & what we see as morals. I don't think you're free and clear though. There are all sorts of ways to draw a distinction between the two. From a utilitarian perspective, you could argue that torturing causes pain & is therefore bad. From a rights/liberty perspective, you could argue that it violates some ones rights or liberties. Form the Kantian/Deontological or many other perspectives, you'd see that you would not want torture to be widespread or that it is inherently wrong. Basically, almost to the extent that morality can be said to exist, torture can be said to be wrong. Peanut butter eating can be said to be right. Hobbit houses are quite clearly in the peanut butter category. In a more practical sense, you just answer the question about whether you should coerce or encourage others to eat peanut butter, stop torturing or build hobbit houses for any reason other then that they will enjoy it.