Interesting. Note that you said, "If your rules tell you that it's morally right to kill someone else to save several other people, then I'm not interested in them."
You've already passed some form of judgement upon the rules.
Do you wish to argue that your lack of interest in them is *not* because they are, in some sense, wrong?
If not, then you've already admitted that there's at least answers that are, to you, more right than others.
Umbarn, I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to prove here, save that you seem to be trying to say that you think I'm judging "the rules" (what exactly are "the rules" anyway? I'm talking about trying to figure out the morality of actions).
Note that
you said, "If the consequences to other people are not themselves part of the basis for your rules, well, then I'm not really interested in them" which sounds to me like the very same judgmental attitude you seem to be insinuating that you think I'm displaying.
Given that I'm not certain what "the rules" are - I'm going to presume that they're the consequentialist ethics you seem to be advocating - it's hard for me to say that they're "right" or "wrong." That said, I suppose if you consider choosing to adopt one particular system of moral philosophy, instead of another, to be a form of judgment, then I'm guilty of that, though I don't see why that's necessarily a bad thing.
Likewise, you seem to have overlooked my previous statement:
Alzrius said:
To be clear, I'm using "right or wrong" here as shorthand. "Right" is an answer that satisfies all moral issues, whereas "wrong" is an answer that leaves some moral principles abrogated.
Given that, let's move on.
Umbran said:
Sorry, but no. Alzirus has already said that there's a "most right" answer - the solution is not open for debate. Rules that give a different answer are "not interesting", and thus rejected from the discussion. Ethical systems less dependent upon a hierarchical set of rules have similarly (though less explicitly) been squished out of the conversation.
You do realize that I was talking specifically from a deontological viewpoint, don't you? If you want to say that the right thing to do is murder the fat man and save the other people as a consequence of that, at least insofar as consequentialism is concerned, then say that.
Likewise, you're misrepresenting me when you say that I said there was a "most right" answer. What I said was (emphasis mine):
Alzrius said:
That's not what I'd necessarily call the "right" answer, since you still fail to take a moral action in not saving the other people, but it's the least wrong answer (which is where, I suppose, gradations of morality come into play).
That's not even taking into account that my statement is from a purely deontological viewpoint.
If you found my saying that I "wasn't interested" in your "rules" upsetting, please bear in mind that I was saying that as a reaction to your own statement of "not interest," so I find it odd that you seem so upset about that now. Likewise, I don't see how you've been "rejected" or "squished out" of the conversation.
This has been a healthy, respectful exchange of ideas so far, let's try to keep it that way, okay? I'd hate to sick the mods on you.
bogmad said:
Replace the "status quo" with the action of "publishing materials that are harmful [or purported to be]" then.
I never intended yell "status quo" without it being linked to an action.
I'm not really interested in discussing the ins and outs of deontological ethics, so I think I may be done with this particular rabbit-hole.
Changing the semantics doesn't speak to the issue I raised, that being that the question already supposes a definitive moral failing to the action which I don't think was the case. Having said that, I wouldn't call this a "rabbit hole" - we're having a good exchange of ideas and opinions, and I'm enjoying it, and I hope you are too.