Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9191466" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I never said you didn't. I was responding to what you presented, acknowledged that you said it was simplified and that I agreed it was simplified. Would you rather me have posted without that acknowledgement, making it unclear what I was referencing?I wanted to quote your smaller post, and point out the fundamental issue? Yeah, I get you were just illustrating the two positions. You do also acknowledge that more than two positions exist, correct?Disagree. Because the fundamental ethical rules stop mattering the moment we enter into reality. Perhaps we can call it "practical ethics" if it makes you feel better about it, but you are making my entire point here. These ethical dilemnas start with the premise that you cannot avoid the dilemna, and that the dilemna is binary. However, a fundamental use of ethics and morality is to aid in decision making, and decisions are not unavoidable, binary dilemnas. The example you gave highlighted a potential problem with the discussions we tend to have around ethics. We tend to lock ourselves into these binary expressions, with only one recourse. However, in practical terms of practical applications, things never look like binary presented. IF you don't acknowledge that, you end up with the old PS2 morality games. Do you feed the starving people and starve yourself or murder them? Those aren't your only choices, and presenting that as a real dilemna causes issues that I feel are important to acknowledge when looking to discuss complex morality.Right. Next time I won't agree with you and make it very clear we are discussing simplified versions of complex philosophies. Since that seems to have offended you so much you made a point of mentioning it twice, like I could have no reason to make sure I stated that I understood these were simplified versions other than to attack you.So no one who disagrees with Consequentialists can ever be taken seriously in a discussion of ethics? Wow. Thought this was two schools of thought, not one school and the correct way of viewing and discussing things. I mean, it isn't like those last two sentences you quoted were in the same paragraph, meaning I started by saying that I think both of them miss points, then pointing out the thing that I feel Consequentialists miss. Then followed that with something I think the Deontologists miss. I mean, that would be like... having a serious discussion of my issues with those philosophies? No one who does that can ever be taken seriously!Honestly, if you didn't want to discuss the schools of thought, why even bring them up?Right, so... I disagree with both positions? The Act Utilitarian is including an unintentional action, literally stated to be unknown to the person, as a catalyst creating a moral good, and included your own pleasure as a moral good. Taking this to a logical extreme, you could argue that killing a child is morally justified, because unbenknowst to you, that child would have grown up to kill three people, and so you have saved more lives than you took. I find that obviously problematic and too easy to exploit. Meanwhile, the deontologist has declared the intent sans action to be immoral. This is literally declaring that thought crimes are real, and that it is possible that even thinking something immoral makes you an immoral person. However, once again, I find that obviously problematic. You must distinguish between thought and action, because if you do not, then once again taken to an extreme, there becomes no reason NOT to follow through on an immoral thought, because you have already committed an immoral action by thinking an immoral thought. And NEITHER of the positions you outline offers the actual alternative and moral question. Neither addresses how the situation changes if you know about the allergen. And neither then posit if you are immoral for mind controlling to guarantee the person's life versus informing them of the danger. Neither addresses if acting to save the life makes the action different than acting to get the cake for yourself. All of which is where I posit the better moral questions and frameworks are located, compared to if your results matter more than your intentions. So, as unserious and silly as I am, I once more put forth that I think both positions, which we both agree are highly simplified versions of their respective schools of thought, are flawed and miss out on important details.Congrats. You have taken us right back to my own position. Weird. It is almost like you didn't pay attention to the nuance of my posts and what my actual, stated positions have been. Yes, it is hard to make blanket statements about ethics. Never said otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification