Rampant moral philosphy geekism

[kajarainbow]

An utilitarian argument not to use pure utilitarianism as the basis for ones decision:

Pure utilitarianism has a tendency of high error rate due to the standard problems with using the ends to justify the means (such as the cases where one is mistaken about the end result of the means), leading to lower net happiness or other criteria of good. Thus, it is more utilitarian to temper ones utilitarianism with other moral philosophies than to employ pure utilitarianism.

I enjoyed writing that little paradoxical bit. And writing this has made it evident that I'm not an utilitarian, at least not precisely.

Why do I sometimes feel like I do moral calculus where many others use moral basic arithmetics or at best moral algebra?

Comments

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the general consensus is that we should employ deference to tradition generally because the economy works and therefore the traditions we have represent the current highest level of utilitarian progress. Look up Hayek.

[kajarainbow.livejournal.com]

~grin~ Actually, now I suspect I use something a bit more advanced than moral algebra, but not as advanced as moral calculus. In all seriousness, though, I'll take a look. "Current highest level of utilitarian progress", huh? Or in other words, "don't fix what works already".

I'm still thinking about that very thing. Weighing the alternatives to see what they offer and where they're wanting.

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

Not "don't fix it" but do a utilitarian calculation from there and find that which needs fixing the most and then what must be done to fix it. In this way you need only deal with the pressing issue without being immoral. Sort of a meta-ethical system.

[kajarainbow.livejournal.com]

Ah! Prioritizing, in other words.

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. But utilitarianism is in a bit of a hole, like all philosophy.

Look up the "naturalistic fallacy," be mindful that it is not about appeals to nature (ie "such and such is 'unnatural'") but that the good can be derived from some natural property (like happiness or color, etc.).

[asrinmoore.livejournal.com]

The utility of that statement... failed me.

[kajarainbow.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to figure out how to figure out good ethics for years. Exploration of already existing thoughts on the matters interest me, even if they're rather... overwrought as normal for philosophy specialists.

:p

[pinkheartred.livejournal.com]

"Why do I sometimes feel like I do moral calculus where many others use moral basic arithmetics or at best moral algebra?"

re: 'cause you're arrogant.

haha sorry but it's kinda true. also, yea i guess a lot of people are pretty much in the middle of the bell curve morally.
i was just reading about those 3 levels of morality pre-conventional, conventional and post conventional. i should actually probably be studying that crap actually.... the exam's tomorrow. yuck.

Re: :p

[kajarainbow.livejournal.com]

I guess I am. Mind, different takes on morality are fine with me as long as they don't cause suffering. Unfortunately, a lot of moralities seem to do this (as seen on the news =p).

And it's not like I always live up to my own morality. Sigh.

Go Go Go GO!

[soulsurvival.livejournal.com]

"Rent" Showing Tuesday, December 13th at 7:25 pm in Branford, Connecticut
Come see a great movie and support a good cause!
The movie
RENT
is
Open-Captioned
Showing at 7:25 pm
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Regal Branford Stadium 12 in Branford, Connecticut
325 East Main Street
Branford, Connecticut 06405
(800)-326-3264
Come show your support for Open-Captioned films and the theaters that show them!
Open-Captioned films make equal access possible for Deaf and hard-of-hearing movie viewers!
There are a TON of us... come support our rights, and see a great movie, too!

you should totally go if you can. andy and i know all the freakin words to this movie.