Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 2:18:45
In reply to Re: Moral facts » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 10:43:44
> Yes, I also believe there are 'moral facts.'
> But, like you said, determining them is tricky. So, in the meantime we're best to stick to "I believe xxx is a moral fact. Does anyone have an argument otherwise?"Yeah. Though I guess you can just say 'I believe' and leave the 'moral fact' bit out of it. Still having a little trouble with phrasings...
> My moral compass the only truly imoral thing is that which hurts some else.Though there can be counter-examples here (perhaps). If (for example) you were forced to choose between torturing one innocent child and torturing 10 innocent children then on some accounts the morally right thing to do (given the situation is as described) is to torture the one. So here... The morally right thing to do involves hurting someone else...
> But even there we have some grey areas. Should the word 'intentionally' be added?
People aren't typically thought to be morally accountable for accidental acts (unless they failed to take appropriate caution and arguably... stupidity is no defence either)
> What about 'unless that hurt would save others from more hurt?'
yeah :-) Though Kantians would say that you would be doing the wrong thing in torturing one and doing the wrong thing in torturing the 10 so basically you are damned if you do and damned if you don't
it is precisely that kind of case (the one or ten case) that some utilitarians have been led to change their thesis from:
'one should do that which leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people'
to
'one should do that which leads to the least amount of harm for the greatest number of people'.
i'm not too sure on this... but i think some conjoin both claims together...
then the problem for the utilitarian is:
- how to cash out happiness / utility (hedonistic pleasure, high vs low pleasures, preference etc)
-how to cash out 'greatest number' (does every individual count for one and do some people get two preference votes because they are really very unhappy for instance)
- how to work the stats (part of the last problem really...)then there are counter-examples to all utilitarian theories... the case of the lonesome stranger... utility is to frame the stranger so the townspeople don't riot (where many lives will be lost) yet framing an innocent stranger is clearly UNJUST (according to the Kantian) and hence utilitarian considerations aren't adequate for a comprehensive theory of morality...
> Does adding 'for fun' make it more wrong?
'more' wrong... hmm. i guess there is better of worse. better to break your promise than to torture someone for fun...
> Is it less wrong if you know (inside yourself) that you are hurting someone and you feel guilt, but you do it anyway?
yeah. i struggle with that re: whether it is better to be conscious that i believe it is wrong to eat animals yet continue or whether it would be worse to not be conscious that it is wrong (on the assumption that it is in fact) that is a hard one...
> So - even one simple statement has room for debate.plenty. one could write a thesis in fact...
poster:special_k
thread:621784
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/622747.html