Allan, you are proposing to get the world to conform to a particular dogma. No idealism will cross the barriers of language and culture.
The ways of Society perpetuate the ways of Society, we have to do something 'out of the box' :-) peace & Love On Jul 8, 1:34 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > I have been looking and thinking about utilitarianism a great deal lately, > and I tend to thing that the negative utilitarianism (NU) is the third way > of morality and the way forward. NU simple states doing the least harm to > the greatest amount of people. > > This is reasonable because often people when they are looking for happiness > put on blinders and do not see the world around them, catering only to their > desires. That is irregardless of the effect on the rest of the world. The VS > economy is a good of unitarianism gone a muck. When you are looking to cause > the least harm you have to look around you to see the world as it is, not > a dream land fantasy show. At the same time it allows people to gather > worldly possessions together as long as they are not causing harm to others > doing it, > > The morality of the world has to change, we need to examine how our actions > and desires harm the world and the people in the world. > Allan > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:52 PM, frantheman <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > I neglected to mention Utilitarianism, the maxim that the foundation > > for moral activity is the maximisation of happiness or, as it is often > > put, "the greatest good for the greatest number" - exemplified by such > > thinkers as Jeremy Betham, John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer. > > Personally, I would tend to locate Utilitarianism in the third > > approach to morality I defined; rational acting subject theories. > > > Francis > > On 7 Jul., 18:30, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Let me try to broaden the scope of the discussion a bit. As I see it, > > > there are three (or four, if you include direct divine revelation - > > > but this is beyond the area of purely rational discourse) basic > > > approaches to finding a foundation for moral conduct: > > > > 1. Natural law theories: This is the position taken by Alan, and I > > > think our dialogue here has sufficiently elaborated the pros and cons > > > of this method. > > > > 2. Virtue based theories: An approach with a long tradition, from > > > Plato to Iris Murdoch (in western philosophy). Most virtue-based > > > theories ultimately go back to an examination and contemplation of the > > > meaning of "the good." If I understand him correctly, ornamental mind > > > tends in this direction, so I will leave further elaboration to him! > > > > 3. Rational acting subject theories: The greatest (in my view) of > > > these is that set out by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant sees the > > > foundation of all morality in the Categorical Imperative - defined in > > > Wikipedia as "an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its > > > authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end > > > in itself." > > > Kant, in "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" sets out the CI > > > in three maxims, which follow from each other: > > > > 1. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time > > > will that it should become a universal law." > > > 2. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own > > > person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an > > > end and never merely as a means to an end." > > > 3. "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through > > > his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of > > > ends." > > > > The beauty of this approach is that it frees us from a compulsion to > > > examine individual acts and puts the focus on the responsible, freely > > > acting agent. Freedom and responsibility - I know of no better > > > foundation for moral conduct. > > > > Francis > > > > On 7 Jul., 18:07, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Alan, there are a number of issues in your post which I would like to > > > > take up: > > > > > On 7 Jul., 04:17, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote:> Sure, OM. > > But the key point - which Fran illustrates in that failure > > > > > to unequivocally condemn chattel slavery -- is if abortion is not > > > > > intrinsically immoral, nothing is. > > > > > This is a pretty sweeping statement, for which you offer no > > > > justification whatsoever. Even on the basis of natural law theory, it > > > > can be - and is - argued that abortion is permissible in certain > > > > circumstances. The usual example discussed is that of ectopic (extra- > > > > uterine) pregnancies, usually in the Fallopian tube. In cases where > > > > spontaneous abortion has not taken place (around half) medical > > > > intervention (either surgery or MTX -abortifacient drug treatment) is > > > > necessary, otherwise both mother and embryo die. The traditional > > > > Catholic teaching allows for abortion in this case, describing the > > > > situation as "indirect abortion" and using an argumentative device > > > > called the "argument of the double effect." According to this > > > > teaching, doctors may remove the fallopian tube as a therapeutic > > > > procedure to save the woman's life. A consequential effect of this is > > > > the destruction of the fetus, but, as the intention of the operator > > > > was not to kill the fetus but to save the woman, this is justifiable. > > > > I have always had problems with this line of argument, but the point I > > > > really want to make here is that the primary school of natural law/ > > > > intrinsic immoral actions (traditional Catholic ethics) has to resort > > > > to the concept of intention here, in order to justify a particular > > > > action in a particular situation. If abortion is an intrinsically > > > > immoral act, in your words, "always and everywhere wrong, for > > > > anybody", then it is also wrong in the case of an ectopic pregnancy - > > > > even if the consequence of not acting is the death of both mother and > > > > fetus. > > > > > > For a person who already believes nothing is intrinsically immoral, > > of > > > > > course believes abortion is not intrinsically immoral. And this has > > > > > consequences for reasoned debate, because here's another example of > > an > > > > > intrinsically immoral act: lying. > > > > > The question as the whether lying is an intrinsically immoral act is > > > > something moral philosophers have debated for as long as there has > > > > been moral philosophy. What about lying to save innocent lives from > > > > certain destruction (the easiest example is the SS patrol asking the > > > > houseowner, "Are there Jews hidden in your house?")? What we have here > > > > is what we frequently have in the area of difficult moral decisions - > > > > a conflict between different moral norms. And such norms, as I defined > > > > them in my original post, cannot be absolute. In paarticular > > > > situations, norms can help by giving us guidelines, but in the end, > > > > the moral decision remains with the agent - and this is the source of > > > > an analysis of the (im)morality of a particular action in a particular > > > > situation, by a particular agent. > > > > > > Now if a person really disagrees, that renders communication > > > > > impossible, for a person who believed it, might well be lying in an > > > > > internet forum. So to deny that there are intrinsic evils makes > > > > > rational discourse impossible. But the purpose of minds eye forum is > > > > > reasoned discourse. So surely we all agree: lying is intrinsically > > > > > immoral. The person who says he thinks lying is sometimes justified > > > > > could be lying about that, so out of charity, should be ignored. > > > > > > But if If lying is one example of an intrinsically immoral act, > > > > > perhaps there are others. I put forth chattel slavery as one. For if > > > > > lying is always and everywhere wrong, how could what seems an even > > > > > greater greater evil of chattel slavery not be intrinsically evil? > > > > > And if chattel slavery which treats him as a property not person is > > > > > never justified, then how could deliberately taking the life of an > > > > > innocent person ever be justified? > > > > > It strikes me that you are trying to use the form of the scholastic > > > > disputatio in this post. This however requires that the original > > > > premises are sound and that each step of the argument follows > > > > logically and clearly from the previous one. The statement that to > > > > disagree that lying is intrinsically evil makes rational discourse > > > > impossible is simply not true. You seem to be trying to base this on > > > > the argument that someone who denies the intrinsic immorality of lying > > > > cannot be trusted not to lie in a dialogue. This is a conflation of > > > > moral principles (which individuals may or may not have and, more > > > > importantly, even if they have them, may or may not adhere to) and > > > > rationality. In the end, rational discourse is based on the agreement > > > > of the parties concerned to interact truthfully, and is a matter of > > > > trust. Furthermore, in rational discourse, the only aspects about > > > > which one can knowingly lie are issues of fact, and the liar must > > > > always reckon with the possibility that the lie will be exposed - so > > > > that the strength of one's argument, in most cases, depends on the > > > > truth of the facts used to support it. > > > > > > And this is the starter premise on the abortion question: it is > > always > > > > > and everywhere wrong, for anybody, to take the life of an innocent > > > > > person. OK so far? > > > > > This statement, while noble and idealistic, rules out practically all > > > > forms of modern warfare. Even one bomb dropped which kills one > > > > innocent child is, according to this statement, morally impermissible. > > > > In which case, to give just one example, we would all be saluting > > > > "Sieg heil!" today. > > > > > Francis > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
