Enforcement of laws to prevent enforcement of "evil" ideas is perfectly legitimate (principle of self-defense), so I'm pretty sure the logic of my observation works out.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am "Enforcement" of oughts is not evil, e.g. criminal laws in preventing evil cannot be evil.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am What is critical is whether the evil act is committed or not. The enforcement is secondary because it is very common for people to commit evil acts spontaneously or premeditating murders on their own.
Yes, this sounds like there was a misunderstanding -- "enforcing an evil idea" is synonymous with "committing an evil act", in my argument. So it doesn't matter if it happens spontaneously or not. There's no reason why an idea has to be premeditated. The point is that there is a conscious thought in a persons brain, such as "I must kill this guy!". If there is no such idea (say, if I'm hypnotized or something, hypothetically), then the act is not "evil" by definition, because when intent is not attributable, moral judgement is impossible.
I already explained many times that this is a pipe dream -- you're thinking in terms of "if everyone were to agree on x, then x would be (objectively) true", and conveniently ignore the fact that situations are possible (and in fact, exceedingly common) where interests can't possibly align, and where one group of people would greatly benefit from the suffering of another group.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am As stated we must have a taxonomy and exhaustive list of 'what are evil acts' without ambiguity.
For example, take the current Ukraine conflict. Sure, if every party involved was completely rational and trust-worthy, then there would be no conflict to begin with and this entire mess could have been avoided. But the parties involved are neither completely rational nor trust-worthy, because this is the reality we live in.
I fully understand and agree with you that we should strive towards improving conditions to prevent such conflicts in the future, but that is exactly what we've been attempting already -- it just didn't work out super well. For example, Germany and many other European countries were giving off very "soft" vibes, particularly after the annexation of Crimea. This emboldened Russia to take a risk, as they calculated the repercussions to be tolerable and the potential gains worthwhile enough. Had Europe had a stronger, more unified reaction to the invasion of Crimea, chances are Russia would have decided against invading Ukraine.
Now, I already know you're about to say that this was the failing of other FSK's (i.e. politics and international relations), but that's exactly my point: whenever we focus on real-world issues, the moral FSK becomes unusable. Sure, having an ideal vision isn't bad, but if it provides us with no instructions on how to get there then it's pointless.
That's why I believe my previous analysis of your position was completely accurate: either the moral FSK provides us with information pertaining to real-world problems and thus must be applicable to every possible situation in a concrete manner, or it has no value whatsoever, beyond a super-vague vision of "the betterment of mankind" that most people already agree with (the disagreement is about how to get there).
I think I already explained why this is a redundant argument, since we already universally agree that accidents should be minimized. So you're not really adding anything new or useful here.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am For example, in a Trolley Problem with a failure of brakes that end up with a decision of having to kill one or five,
the optimal solution would be to act with moral optimality based on one's present moral competence [kill 1 or 5 is OK ] and then what is critical is to ensure that is no possibility of brakes failures [root causes] in the future.
But let me explain it again with reference to this specific context: the idea behind the trolley problem is that it was intentionally designed for a specific purpose. For example, perhaps we won't be using trains in the future, at all, because some other technology will make them obsolete. Then the trolley problem will become meaningless. But then we'll just think of a different circumstance to demonstrate the same moral dilemma. In other words, the moral problem itself is timeless and universal, and constitutes its own discipline, which includes the analysis of moral responsibility and moral judgement (also known as Morality). This is something that is completely ignored by the moral FSK in your paradigm.
So there are two problems:
1) you replace a perfectly valid, established, existing discipline with a vaguely defined new one
2) the new field only offers a rough goal (which pretty much everyone already agrees with), but no fundamentally new tangible techniques or ideas on how to work towards it
With this in mind, I think a more accurate term for the FSK you propose might be "human well-being FSK". The more I think about it, the less sense I see in conflating morality with human well-being.
Now this sounds controversial -- previously, you have stated that we shouldn't enforce moral ideals, and individuals must voluntarily and naturally develop to control their impulses in order to prevent "evil" acts from occurring. But now you are saying that abortions should be banned.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am As in the case of the abortion issue, humanity must strive to ensure each individual[s] have the competence to modulate one's sexual lust [with greater pleasure] [in the future, not now] in cases of unplanned pregnancies instead of fucking like animals on impulse with no heed of future outcomes.
Abortion should be banned because humans are inherently fallible and nature is unpredictable but humanity must strive to reduce irresponsible and uncontrollable lusts.
So is this due to the phenomenon I described above, called self-defense? Would you say that an abortion constitutes an act of aggression (against the fetus) which permits enforcement against it?
Regardless of your reasoning for why it should be outlawed, now we have a problem, because there is no agreement regarding this issue by experts, and there's not likely to be any, ever. In fact, most scientists and doctors agree that abortions should be legal and viable (but the earlier they are performed, the "better").
It seems to me that your position is therefore in direct opposition to your own originally proposed approach. How do you justify it, exactly?
And: if abortions should be banned because they're (allegedly) caused by out-of-control impulses, should everything that involves improperly regulated impulses be banned? Is banning in itself a good and effective solution? Should we prohibit alcohol and tobacco again?
Most importantly: how do we decide any of this? For example, there is strong expert consensus that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and destructive. But there is also plenty of evidence that prohibition is not terribly effective and leads to significant negative side-effects. So how does the "morality FSK" help us in any way in this whole mess?