Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:51 pm I have already said, twice, that I acknowledge murder is legally wrong, but I don't think it automatically follows that being legally wrong also means being morally wrong.
Nobody says that it "automatically follows".

I asked you whether you accept or reject the premise: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another is morally wrong.

The moral wrongness is not premised on its illegality. I'm asking you if the illegal act is ALSO immoral.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9453
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:04 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm It can only be true that murder is (morally) wrong, or not (morally) wrong, in someone's personal opinion.
Towards the pursuit of truth any truth seems sufficient.
Where did you get that piece of meaningless drivel from?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:04 pm
Harbal wrote: That isn't a bad thing when the principles are only commonly accepted by you. :?
Why than you for crediting me with the law of excluded middle.
At the risk of being called a grammar Nazi; what the hell is that? :?

What I am actually crediting you with is excluded intelligence.
Nowhere in the definition of argument does it say that the premises have to be "substantiated" (whatever the fuck that means). It sufficient that the premises are true.

Nowhere in the definition of an "argument" does it prescribe that the conclusion needs to differ from the premises either.

You are moving the goal posts.
:D

Words fail me.
it most certainly constitutes an argument - it satisfies the definition. But if you insist otherwise please point out which requirement for being considered an "argument" is being violated; or is not being satisfied.
Okay, if you don't mind making yourself look like a complete idiot, I certainly don't mind either.
Well, for starters - I happen to think that you are an idiot because you are intellectually dishonest.

You are rejecting a premise you agree with.
No, I'm not.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:04 pm
Harbal wrote: Philosophy isn't objectively immoral, but it should be objective.
Should? You mean like a prescriptive social norm? A bit like... you shouldn't murder?
No, that isn't what I mean.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:09 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:04 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm It can only be true that murder is (morally) wrong, or not (morally) wrong, in someone's personal opinion.
Towards the pursuit of truth any truth seems sufficient.
Where did you get that piece of meaningless drivel from?
What a meaningless objection. I shall dismiss it.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:09 pm At the risk of being called a grammar Nazi; what the hell is that? :?
Seems education "back in your day" was way worse than education "back in" my day...
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:09 pm Words fail me.
Yes, well. The more I practice the use of words - the less they fail me.

Try it.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:09 pm Okay, if you don't mind making yourself look like a complete idiot, I certainly don't mind either.
Dude, you rejected the wrongness of murder. I'll take the silver medal for complete idiocy but the gold is all yours.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:09 pm No, I'm not.
Well, it could be the dementia setting in... You are way past your shelf life after all.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:09 pm No, that isn't what I mean.
Yeah.. If you don't know what you mean and words often fail you. Sprinkle mild dementia and it'll be pretty difficult to tell other people what you mean.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Peter Holmes »

Fact: under many/most/all legal systems, murder is illegal.
So, is murder morally wrong?
Counterfactual: under many/most/all legal systems, murder is not illegal.
So, would murder then not be morally wrong?

So, here are two questions: is murder illegal?; is murder morally wrong?

Now, let's see if each question has a factual answer with a truth-value.

Well, fuck me. The second question, about the morality of murder/abortion/capital punishment/eating animals doesn't have a factual truth-value.

And only a fucking moron, like Skepdick, pretends that it does. Moral egotism: there are moral facts, and I know what they are. Fucking morons unite!

And, btw, there are some situations in which, in many people's opinion, murder would be morally right.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:18 pm Fact: under many/most/all legal systems, murder is illegal.
So, is murder morally wrong?
Counterfactual: under many/most/all legal systems, murder is not illegal.
So, would murder then not be morally wrong?
Strawman.

For the fucking idiot struggling with English comprehension.
murder noun 1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
wrong adjective 1. not correct or true; incorrect.
2. unjust, dishonest, or immoral.

P1. The unlawful premediated killing of one human being by another is immoral (or "Murder is wrong" for short)
P2. The unlawful premediated killing of one human being by another is immoral (or "Murder is wrong" for short)
C. The unlawful premediated killing of one human being by another is immoral (or "Murder is wrong" for short)

Given the way that we use those English words, do you accept or reject the soundmess of this argument?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9453
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:54 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:51 pm I have already said, twice, that I acknowledge murder is legally wrong, but I don't think it automatically follows that being legally wrong also means being morally wrong.
Nobody says that it "automatically follows".

I asked you whether you accept or reject the premise: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another is morally wrong.

The moral wrongness is not premised on its illegality. I'm asking you if the illegal act is ALSO immoral.
I find it to be immoral when measured against my own moral values, but someone else may well find it not immoral when measured against theirs. So, although I accept that the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another is morally wrong as far as I am concerned, I do not accept that it is an objective, universal truth that it is wrong.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:28 pm I find it to be immoral when measured against my own moral values, but someone else may well find it not immoral when measured against theirs. So, although I accept that the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another is morally wrong as far as I am concerned, I do not accept that it is an objective, universal truth that it is wrong.
It's like you are struggling with basic English.

Did I ask you if the premise was universally true? No.
I just asked you if it's true.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9453
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:16 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:09 pm
At the risk of being called a grammar Nazi; what the hell is that? :?
Seems education "back in your day" was way worse than education "back in" my day...
I wouldn't have got away with putting, "Why than you for crediting me with the law of excluded middle", in front of my teacher. :shock:
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9453
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:29 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:28 pm I find it to be immoral when measured against my own moral values, but someone else may well find it not immoral when measured against theirs. So, although I accept that the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another is morally wrong as far as I am concerned, I do not accept that it is an objective, universal truth that it is wrong.
It's like you are struggling with basic English.

Did I ask you if the premise was universally true? No.
I just asked you if it's true.
You get what I give you; take it or leave it, bitch. :x

8)
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Peter Holmes »

'I insist that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' has a truth-value. I'm not asking you if it's universally true. I'm asking if you think it's true or false.'

Fuck off, you moral-fascist moron.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:38 pm 'I insist that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' has a truth-value. I'm not asking you if it's universally true. I'm asking if you think it's true or false.'

Fuck off, you moral-fascist moron.
Which part of giving you the choice to freely reject the wrongness of murder makes me a fascist exactly?

Peter "Dumb Morally Bankrupt Cunt" Holmes strikes again.
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Leontiskos »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:10 pm
Leontiskos wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:32 pm It seems to me that a problem with modern moral philosophy is that there is an undue assumption that each system fits neatly within the single genus of "prescriptive, universally rationally-accessible moral propositions." Whereas in the old days it was well-known that the Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics were playing at different games, nowadays we tend to assume that not only are the Kantians, Consequentialists, and Virtue Ethicists playing at the same game, but so were the Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics.
So far as I can tell (and I'm no expert on the ancients) the oldey timey Greeks were primarily looking at the ideal good life eudaimonia and flourishing thing, with correct moral judgment being a side issue to that? I'm sure that's over simplifying, but bear with me while I layer on additional confusion and error....
I am no expert either, but I'd say that your judgment holds of the ancient Greek masses (demos), and to a lesser extent Aristotle, who often attempted to defend the common view. As for the schools, your judgment may hold somewhat loosely of the Epicureans and the Cynics who were interested in a close variant of the common idea of eudamonia, but less so of the Stoics and Skeptics, the former being more interested in morality and the latter being more radical. But that judgment applies most readily to contemporary virtue ethics, which often projects itself back onto Aristotle.

I am some variety of Aristotelian, and I find Dr. Peter L. P. Simpson especially helpful in situating Aristotle with respect to modern positions. He has a paper related to this topic, "Contemporary Virtue Ethics and Aristotle" (<free draft version>).
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:10 pmSomewhere along the line (I really want to blame the Christians for this one) the whole deal with universals that was Plato's thing got twisted up and when Platonic Forms went out of fashion.

So I'm kind of wondering aloud here because I genuinely never thought about the subject history before, but obviously the Greeks had scepticism by the bucket load, and they had Pyrrhonian moral skepticism which took aim at the fundamental justification for any moral knownledge claim. But I really only know of Plato for the other side of that precise debate about foundations rather than directions.

So I guess I just sort of assumed, with little justification, that the philosophers who did away with Plato's approach to universals sort of inherited an obligation to find new ways to answer the questions that he was trying to answer by reference to Forms. So one of those would be how we can know what is good.
Yes, I think Plato's progeny felt obligated to maintain a groundwork for moral knowledge in the face of opposition, and that this especially passed over into Christianity. In Plotinus' adaptation you get something which shifted from dialectic towards a more self-contained religious or mystical system, and in many ways Christianity swallowed this whole. Perhaps the Platonic dialectic lives on in Aristotelianism and in Christianity, especially once Christianity got bound up in politics and Empire. The Stoics and jurists like Cicero obviously play into that as well, for the justification of morality and the justification of law are twins.

I don't mean to go on, but the interesting thing to me is that the later 'Platonic' tradition ends up softening Socrates' emphasis on the centrality of moral knowledge. Aristotle introduces passion as a moral category; Christianity relativizes moral knowledge by way of faith and grace; and the jurists' concentration on the brute force of the law often eclipses moral knowledge and virtue. Then the Enlightenment attempts to reverse this trend in all three areas, and now we have a strange and harsh dichotomy between the moral realist and the moral relativist. Their common premise is the Socratic idea that moral knowledge should be strong (quasi-apodictic) and universally accessible; the contemporary moral realist attempts to rise to the difficulties of this task whereas the contemporary moral relativist considers it a fool's errand. In both cases there is <the focus on>, "prescriptive, universally rationally-accessible moral propositions."
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:10 pmI assume he has a mathematical background and uses mathematical modelling for systems other than morality...
I very much agree.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:10 pm
Leontiskos wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:32 pm If I am right in viewing Clinton as something of a naive consequentialist--someone who has not read much in ethics or metaethics--then he probably follows others like himself in holding to a set of propositions similar to the following:
  1. Pleasure and pain are the sole motivations of human action, and if push comes to shove we can simply define 'pleasure' as positive motivation and 'pain' as negative motivation.
  2. All other putative motivations are therefore reducible to pleasure and pain.
  3. Morality is primarily about human psychology and human motivation; it is not primarily about 'oughtness'.
  4. Even if difficulties attend utilitarianism, none are insuperable simply because utilitarianism is the only true option. For example, a concrete calculus may feel absurd, but yet there is no less absurd option available.
To hearken back to that original point, it seems to me that what utilitarians like Clinton are doing is not what we conceive traditional ethics to be doing, and this is because their view involves a significant blurring of the line between a descriptive theory of psychological motivation and a prescriptive theory of human action. The idea is apparently that it is a fact of human existence that everyone seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and the only question is, "What is the best means to this predetermined end?" For such a utilitarian the question, "Ought we seek pleasure?", is purely academic, much like the question, "Do humans have noses?"
I see your point though, it certianly seems to be the case that whenever somebody makes a science of moral choice they tend to either grant themselves a permit to ignore the basis in reason for their axioms or else just accept vicious circularity as the cost of doing business.
Right, and the Socratic emphasis on universally accessible moral knowledge leaves moral realists with few alternatives. Now that I have read more of Clint's posts, I think the propositions I gave are fairly accurate. For example, <he says>, "I think I know what everyone reading this really wants, whether they know it or not, and I think it's inevitable that you all want that, and if you think you don't...I'd say that's because you don't understand reality well enough to really know what you do want."

...The circularity is heavier in the case of the utilitarian because they are a strong moral cognitivist. There is also a circularity present in Aristotle, which he freely admits to, but it doesn't bother me as much given the way it is grounded in Aristotle's account of the passions. In the paper cited above, Simpson writes, "The circle in Aristotle’s theory may be a problem for everyone else. It is not a problem for the gentlemen."
Post Reply