I have officially changed my position on the liberal arts in universities

[Kuciwalker]

The amusing thing about this thread is that the definition of the question of morality I was using is the one the philosophy 101 professor had up at the start of our first lecture...

[Kuciwalker]

I specifically avoided bringing filosofy into it because your predictable response would be "lol filosofy", but I daresay I know more than you about moral philosophy as an academic subject...

[Asher]

The amusing thing about this thread is that the definition of the question of morality I was using is the one the philosophy 101 professor had up at the start of our first lecture...

There's a reason he was teaching the 101 course at a school not known for its liberal arts.

I specifically avoided bringing filosofy into it because your predictable response would be "lol filosofy", but I daresay I know more than you about moral philosophy as an academic subject...

Impossible, given your statements about how you think people should be valued in terms of dollars and basic misunderstanding of the concept of morality not as a concept of good and evil/right and wrong, but a concept of economic practicality.

[Kuciwalker]

Define good and evil, then, and then explain why I should care about your taxonomy. It's quite obvious why I should care about the answer to the question "what ought I to do"; it's not clear why I would prefer to examine the question "what would it be nice for me to do, if I can, maybe".

[Al B. Sure!]

There's a reason he was teaching the 101 course at a school not known for its liberal arts.


Impossible, given your statements about how you think people should be valued in terms of dollars and basic misunderstanding of the concept of morality not as a concept of good and evil/right and wrong, but a concept of economic practicality.

Philosophers from Nietzsche to John Dewey would say you're wrong, Asher.

[Asher]

Philosophers from Nietzsche to John Dewey would say you're wrong, Asher.

And I would say they're wrong. Not everyone can be a douchebag, but some people just excel at it.

There's a philosopher for every whackjob ideology. Some are even famous or revered.

[Asher]

Define good and evil, then, and then explain why I should care about your taxonomy.

You shouldn't care. God knows why you keep replying with your inanities.

As for defining good and evil, why do you continue to ask questions you know to be unanswerable? Do you do it because you're a pompous ass who thinks he's setting a trap for a simpleton, or do you do it because you genuinely do not understand it's not an answerable question?

Everyone has different morals, there are no absolutes. There is no strict definition of good and evil. Stop wasting my time.

[Asher]

I consider it immoral to murder people.
Most Christians consider it immoral for people to have gay sex.

We all have different moralities. I like to think mine are the best morals, but everyone thinks that about their morals.

[Kuciwalker]

Everyone has different morals, there are no absolutes. There is no strict definition of good and evil. Stop wasting my time.

If you believe this, why did you ever even start arguing about what is moral?

[Kuciwalker]

As for defining good and evil, why do you continue to ask questions you know to be unanswerable?

Dude, you're the one asserting 1) that morality is the question of separating good and evil and then 2) going on to argue about the answer.

[Al B. Sure!]

Asher, any ethical calculus rooted in consequentialism (which has dominated ethical thinking since Jeremy Bentham) would necessarily have to consider the practicalities of a chosen alternative. You seem to have a deontological conception of ethics which is fine but you have to understand that any value judgments you make about the correctness of an action are purely subjective and arbitrary. At least a teleological ethical system can 'measure' something, usually happiness, and determine an action to be correct if it generated more 'well-being' than non-chosen alternatives.

Of course, this is by it's nature a hindsight system and the idea of happiness having intrinsic value and being something to be aspired to is arbitrary as well. Also problematic is the fact that humans are dealing with uncertain futures and are resource-constrained which prevents an accurate appraisal of the consequences of any particular ethical action. So Kuci's crap is fundamentally flawed as well.

Here's a question for you, Asher: Would you say that there are actions that are categorically wrong?


EDIT: I guess my post isn't really relevant anymore

[Asher]

If you believe this, why did you ever even start arguing about what is moral?

Are you seriously asking why people express their opinions in debates?

[Asher]

Dude, you're the one asserting 1) that morality is the question of separating good and evil and then 2) going on to argue about the answer.

Yes, but I'm not asking you to define good and evil. I'm not asking unanswerable questions. I'm expressing my opinion on the issue. What do you not get here?

[Asher]

Asher, any ethical calculus rooted in consequentialism (which has dominated ethical thinking since Jeremy Bentham) would necessarily have to consider the practicalities of a chosen alternative. You seem to have a deontological conception of ethics which is fine but you have to understand that any value judgments you make about the correctness of an action are purely subjective and arbitrary. At least a teleological ethical system can 'measure' something, usually happiness, and determine an action to be correct if it generated more 'well-being' than non-chosen alternatives.

Of course, this is by it's nature a hindsight system and the idea of happiness having intrinsic value and being something to be aspired to is arbitrary as well. Also problematic is the fact that humans are dealing with uncertain futures and are resource-constrained which prevents an accurate appraisal of the consequences of any particular ethical action.

Here's a question for you, Asher: Would you say that there are actions that are categorically wrong?


EDIT: I guess my post isn't really relevant anymore

Good, because my eyes were rolling too much to finish reading it and I wasn't going to reply.

I'm not impressed by your words. Your post is pushing me back onto the side of hating liberal arts in universities. You've explained a rather obvious, simple concept with needlessly complex, domain-specific vocabulary.

[Al B. Sure!]

You missed something:

Of course, this is by it's nature a hindsight system and the idea of happiness having intrinsic value and being something to be aspired to is arbitrary as well. Also problematic is the fact that humans are dealing with uncertain futures and are resource-constrained which prevents an accurate appraisal of the consequences of any particular ethical action. So Kuci's crap is fundamentally flawed as well.