Why Is This A Problem???

[Bradskii]

Then your definition is just "It's good if I like it". Having "no negative implications for anyone else" is just another thing that you like.

'No negative implications' isn't included just because I like it. It's not a personal preference of mine. It's axiomatic.

If there is a negative outcome which is apparent to all then we should all be able to agree that the act was wrong. Notwithstanding that it's sometimes difficult to determine if an act is wrong in itself or perhaps has a positive outcome overall. That's something that the trolley problem was devised to illustrate.

Sometimes we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Moral Orel]

'No negative implications' isn't included just because I like it. It's not a personal preference of mine. It's axiomatic.

Do you like it when bad things happen to other people? I'll bet you don't because most of us don't. Do you like it when good things happen to other people? I'll bet you do, because most of us do. That's why it's a personal preference.

Positive things are "things I like". Negative things are "things I dislike". We established that in another thread. Why should we experience things we like and why shouldn't we experience things we dislike (generally)? We can logically explore that question, so your conclusion that it's how it should be is not axiomatic.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you like it when bad things happen to other people? I'll bet you don't because most of us don't. Do you like it when good things happen to other people? I'll bet you do, because most of us do. That's why it's a personal preference.

That's not necessarily true. And there's even a word to describe enjoyment of someone else's misfortune: shadenfreude. But in any case, even if it was a personal preference (and it isn't), that would not necessarily be the reason why it was included. It was included because it's part of the definition. If there are no negative implications then what on earth could an argument that an act is wrong look like? How does one begin to suggest that someone did wrong if they did no harm?

In the vast majority of cases there is no difficulty in determining a negative effect. That is, something that is wrong. The burglar has more money, but I've lost what is rightly mine. Negative effect. The act of stealing was wrong. The unmarried couple go to bed together and get married the following day. No negative effect. That they slept together is not wrong. Pull the lever and kill one to save five? Well, as we've seen, there are different views on whether the act was wrong or not.

Grab a beer, discuss it and maybe agree to disagree. Because these moral problems are not cast in concrete. Which is part of the point. Quite often, whether they are right or wrong will be a personal decision. Is hunting ok? Should we eat animals? Should we experiment on them? Should you spend money on a new laptop or save a few starving children?

There are lots of grey areas. But if we have some ground rules (as I laid out previously) then at least we have a shot of reaching an agreement.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's not necessarily true.

It is true. That's why I said "most".

But if we have some ground rules (as I laid out previously) then at least we have a shot of reaching an agreement.

Is there any purely rational reason to accept your ground rules of "positive outcome = right" and "negative outcome = wrong" or are we simply agreeing to these ground rules because we like positive outcomes and dislike negative outcomes?

 

[Bradskii]

Is there any purely rational reason to accept your ground rules of "positive outcome = right" and "negative outcome = wrong" or are we simply agreeing to these ground rules because we like positive outcomes and dislike negative outcomes?

I would have thought that that reason in itself would have been sufficient. Do we need to dig deeper? Can we say that a positive outcome is one that is beneficial, favourable and/or advantageous?

Or are you going to need to ask why something that is beneficial, favourable and/or advantageous is a good thing as opposed to one that is not beneficial, unfavourable and a disadvantage?

 

[Moral Orel]

I would have thought that that reason in itself would have been sufficient. Do we need to dig deeper? Can we say that a positive outcome is one that is beneficial, favourable and/or advantageous?

Or are you going to need to ask why something that is beneficial, favourable and/or advantageous is a good thing as opposed to one that is not beneficial, unfavourable and a disadvantage?

Your semantic argument is getting nowhere in answer the question. Call those things "good" if you want, that doesn't matter. Why should we get things that benefit us? Why should we get things that are favorable? Why should we get things that are advantageous?

I get that you want those things. I want those things too. It's because we like them. The question, again, is "why should we get things we like?". I don't want things that are not beneficial, or unfavorable, or disadvantageous either, because like you, I dislike them. Why shouldn't we get things we don't like?

You have to justify your "should" or everything is just how we feel about what we prefer. Can you rationally justify your "should" or do we take it on faith?

This is the line between subjective and objective morality. It is not a matter of people disagreeing on how to achieve positive outcomes.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't want things that are not beneficial, or unfavorable, or disadvantageous either, because like you, I dislike them. Why shouldn't we get things we don't like?

Who said we should get results that we prefer? I haven't. I've just explained that acts that have positive result are ones that we can describe as beneficial or advantageous and that we prefer those acts to ones that have negative results.

So I'm going to describe an act that has a positive result as 'good'. And one that has a negative result as 'bad'. You are free to use whatever description you like and decide yourself whether you 'should' be the recipient of a bad act. Maybe you deserved it. Who knows...

 

[Moral Orel]

Who said we should get results that we prefer? I haven't.

You said it's "right" to create positive outcomes and it's "wrong" to create negative outcomes. That's where your "should" comes in.

 

[Bradskii]

You said it's "right" to create positive outcomes and it's "wrong" to create negative outcomes. That's where your "should" comes in.

Not in my world. Not in the sense you mean it. You brought up the imperative. I haven't.

 

[durangodawood]

You said it's "right" to create positive outcomes and it's "wrong" to create negative outcomes. That's where your "should" comes in.

Those are power-words, with social implications, that we attach to moral facts. They are necessary to build into us internal guardrails on our behavior. Not everyone can recreate for themselves the wisdom of the ages, especially not the young or inexperienced.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You used the word, you can define it however you like.

The atom bomb functions extremely well at obliterating life. Does that make it "good"?

The atom bomb is also artificial; so I guess I could qualify my earlier statement to say that 'the Good' can be seen as various expressions of practical functionality of a natural kind which most folks can recognize in the world ... (?)

For instance, 'the Good' can be seen in the early morning sunrise since, well, we can all see the world around us a bit better (if our eyes are functional [which is another natural good in and of itself]). Of course, if one is a thief and the sun rises, then that's probably frustrating to him 'cuz the jig may be up for him sooner than later.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How about 'a preferential outcome with no negative implications for anyone else'.

... that sounds good, but then we'd have to get entangled over the whole thing about "preferences of tastes" and any outcomes we'd 'like to see' in the overall axiological project. And who wants that? No, I think it's better if we can look for the minimally practical as a starting point in our common interlocutions about Ethics and 'The Good.'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. If the good is not functional, not practical, it can hardly be good. If it doesn't work, it's broke. Morality is about fit and function. If everybody dies (5 people) because nobody should have died, it's broke.

I sometimes wonder how John 18:14 fits into all of this. Ever wonder that, too, PH? (I know you have...)

 

[Bradskii]

... that sounds good, but then we'd have to get entangled over the whole thing about "preferences of tastes" and any outcomes we'd 'like to see' in the overall axiological project.

Who said anything about tastes? This isn't like a choice between Sambuca and Jagermeister. But we must individually determine what is the preferential outcome. How else can it be done? There aren't rules or moral laws that cover every eventuality. But we can determine some guidelines and interpret each situation on it's merits.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who said anything about tastes? This isn't like a choice between Sambuca and Jagermeister. But we must individually determine what is the preferential outcome. How else can it be done? There aren't rules or moral laws that cover every eventuality. But we can determine some guidelines and interpret each situation on it's merits.

In my Subjective (Kierkegaardian style) meandering into and among human attempts at Objectivity in Ethics, I'd rather [Lol! ... funny that!] define 'the Good' as that which we recognize on a natural level, whether we like it or not.

 

[Bradskii]

In my Subjective (Kierkegaardian style) meandering into and among human attempts at Objectivity in Ethics, I'd rather [Lol! ... funny that!] define 'the Good' as that which we recognize on a natural level, whether we like it or not.

That we recognise? What if my conclusion is different to yours?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That we recognise? What if my conclusion is different to yours?

In such a case ............. I'd have to suspect that you subscribe to a form of Hedonism ???

 

[public hermit]

I sometimes wonder how John 18:14 fits into all of this. Ever wonder that, too, PH? (I know you have...)

That's a great passage for this discussion. It looks like he and God had the same idea: one dies for the sake of saving all.

 

[Moral Orel]

In my Subjective (Kierkegaardian style) meandering into and among human attempts at Objectivity in Ethics, I'd rather [Lol! ... funny that!] define 'the Good' as that which we recognize on a natural level, whether we like it or not.

Can you give me an example of something you recognize as good on a natural level that you dislike?

 

[partinobodycular]

Can you give me an example of something you recognize as good on a natural level that you dislike?

Perhaps lions killing gazelles. On a natural level I recognize that it's good, but on a personal level I can't help but dislike it.