Saturday, February 08, 2020
Nonconsequentialist moral theories
I think there is some connection to consequences in many nonconsequentialist ethical theories. For example, people who look to God's commandments typically think that God is pretty smart, and that the reason God commands what he does it that the consequences will be the best in the long (eternal) run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Do the Right Thing.
Spike Lee was a nonconsequentialist. I agree with Spike Lee.
But I agree that both ethical theories do indeed consider consequences.
Christians should seek to live and promote the good and refrain from evil even though they may think there is some temporary strategic value in allowing or promoting an evil.
"Christians should seek to live and promote the good and refrain from evil even though they may think there is some temporary strategic value in allowing or promoting an evil."
WONDERFUL! So listen to yourself, and stop promoting the objectively evil current president simply because you might get some "temporary strategic value" from the appointment of judges or some other such thing.
"You are not far from the Kingdom of God." (Mark 12:34)
So the theory is that a Christian cannot vote for the lesser of two evils in order to try and prevent the greater of two evils from achieving office?
In that case, we have all failed.
If you seriously think that Trump is the "lesser" of any two evils, then you urgently need to recalibrate your moral compass.
Legion,
So the theory is that a Christian cannot vote for the lesser of two evils in order to try and prevent the greater of two evils from achieving office?
I know you're not a Catholic, but I'll give you the Catholic angle on this.
Most likely both candidates for President will have a list of policies that you either agree with or disagree with.
Some of those policies are merely prudential (the best way to achieve a good end). Prudential judgements are not moral judgements since they are just about strategy to achieve good ends. Everyone should make up their own mind about the best way to acheive good ends and so, regarding prudential matters, neither candidate is holding an evil position.
However some policies are inherently evil. Abortion for instance.
In that case if both candidates hold the same position on an inherent evil, it is OK to consider secondary or less grave positions. In the last election, if you were a Catholic and you voted for Hillary you sinned. If Trump was also for abortion, you would not have sinned.
If you seriously think that Trump is the "lesser" of any two evils, then you urgently need to recalibrate your moral compass.
I absolutely disagree. And I trust my moral compass. The Democratic Party is a blight on humanity, and opposing them is the moral good in almost every circumstance. I don't care how "good" a person the politician is if their ignorant policies promote evil.
Democrats' only saving grace is providing a check on keeping Republicans from having total power, since the Republican Party is a stain on humanity. Just not a blight.
In the last election, if you were a Catholic and you voted for Hillary you sinned.
And abortion is just one of many evils the Democratic Party enthusiastically embraces.
To elaborate more on my opinion on Democrats, they are occasionally right in identifying a problem, but their proposed solutions for fixing it are awful.
For example, Democrats are correct that racism is a problem, but I firmly believe that their "solutions" and handling of the matter are not only unhelpful, but make the problem worse. Constantly calling people racist? Makes the problem worse. Constantly criticizing white people? Makes it worse. Treating all "people of color" as a monolithic group instead of individuals? Not helpful. Trying to twist issues that aren't about race into being a racial issue? Bad. Also bad are calls to regulate "hate speech".
When the solutions lead to more harm than the actual problem, the self-proclaimed problem solver is either very ignorant or very evil.
Legion of Logic: I agree that the Democratic Party is bad, and that their solutions are not always perfect, but I view it as less bad than the Republican Party, which has fallen into hypocrisy and is now following somebody who is, to be quite frank, incompetent as both a businessman and a president, without questioning him. At least the Democrats are *trying* to solve problems, instead of ignoring them.
In any event: dismissing people based on their party, without considering their actual platforms, is foolish; have you seen the one Republican still challenging Trump in the current election? His policies are, for all intents and purposes, the same proposed by some of the Democrat candidates. But is he more acceptable, just because he's a Republican? Judge candidates by the policies they - not their fellow Democrats, not their fellow Republicans - propose, and the way they live their lives, not what they label themselves as, because they will call themselves whatever they think will win votes.
In a way, I'm actually more invested in the 2024 election than the current one; as far as this one goes, either the Democrats will succeed in removing Trump (who is, in my opinion, a more *immediate* problem than the parties); or Trump will win, in which case, he *must* leave office in 2024, and will have to deal with being a "lame duck" president for the next four years. In either case, if the election doesn't spark violence (which it might, the way tensions between the two parties are), I hope by then more people will have recognised the danger posed by the party system, which has been building inevitably toward this situation for decades, and which is, I think, a greater evil than any one candidate.
In any event: dismissing people based on their party, without considering their actual platforms, is foolish
I agree. In 2016 Jim Webb was one of my top three candidates, along with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, and I would have voted for Webb over Trump.
When I refer to "Democrats", I'm usually meaning it synonymous with the official platform of the DNC, what the majority of them advocate, etc. There are of course some Democrats who are better than most Republicans.
bmiller said...
However some policies are inherently evil. Abortion for instance.
Temporary slavery is also an evil. When faced with different evils, both of which are mortal sins, it's foolish to say voting for only one of those sides is a sin.
Legion of Logic said...
For example, Democrats are correct that racism is a problem, but I firmly believe that their "solutions" and handling of the matter are not only unhelpful, but make the problem worse. Constantly calling people racist? Makes the problem worse. Constantly criticizing white people? Makes it worse. Treating all "people of color" as a monolithic group instead of individuals? Not helpful. Trying to twist issues that aren't about race into being a racial issue? Bad. Also bad are calls to regulate "hate speech".
Historically, calling out racism has led to change.
However, I am curious what you think better solutions would look like. How would you go about combating racism?
When I refer to "Democrats", I'm usually meaning it synonymous with the official platform of the DNC, what the majority of them advocate, etc. There are of course some Democrats who are better than most Republicans.
Fair enough; and I'll admit that the more liberal Democrats do tend to go farther than I do on some issues - although we'll likely disagree on which issues which Democrats go too far on, or the validity of some of their solutions. And where Trump is concerned, it seems like every candidate is convinced he's the Antichrist. Now, he's not good at his job, or a particularly nice person, for that matter, but he's not actually malicious - just a spectacular narcissist surrounded by yes-men and with no filter between him and his Twitter account. All this talk about the horrors that will occur if Trump wins or if Bernie wins or if Hillary, despite not actually running this year, wins, is just a distraction from the actual issues, if you ask me. The biggest problem I have is that Trump is so divisive, and so unwilling to tolerate dissent, that over the course of four years he's encouraged the polarisation of the two big parties at a faster rate than we've seen before (it's not, despite some claims, a problem he's created - this has been going on for decades, but now it's becoming a major obstacle to good governance). This sort of polarisation never ends well, and I hardly see Trump trying to fix it - or even stop making it worse - in the next four years.
Sorry I did not see these replies until today.
One Brow: Historically, calling out racism has led to change.
I agree, but I see little evidence that Democrats care to differentiate between actual racism and politically expedient claims of racism. Nor do I think many uber-woke progressives can even tell them apart. Calling a non-racist a racist is not going to help race relations at all.
However, I am curious what you think better solutions would look like. How would you go about combating racism?
I like the MLK dream as the blueprint for eliminating racism. Much like eye color, skin color should not even remotely be a factor in how we judge others or relate to them.
I'm reading a fantasy book series by Brandon Sanderson, The Stormlight Archive. In this world, having blue eyes is a status symbol. Only the nobility have them, and anyone not of the nobility who is born with them (or achieves them through less biological means) will instantly become of high status. Needless to say, in this world eye color is a central part of a person's identity. They judge each other by eye color. The skin colors in this world are irrelevant.
I couldn't tell you the eye color of almost anyone I know outside of my direct family, because our society couldn't care less. That is how we should be regarding skin color. Using such labels literally divides people, which automatically creates an "other" to get resentful over for whatever reason.
Jeremy,
Pretty much agree with everything you said. Divisive politics got Trump elected, and he's only making it worse.
"Calling a non-racist a racist is not going to help race relations at all."
Does this mean that you will repudiate your accusation of Bloomberg having "blatantly racist" ideas?
Some other opinions.
Does this mean that you will repudiate your accusation of Bloomberg having "blatantly racist" ideas?
Racial profiling is a racist idea that Bloomberg strongly supported and utilized up until the convenient moment he began running for president. So no, I will not deny that a racist is racist.
But let's give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt and analyze the situation.
He strongly supported and utilized racially-targeted stop-and-frisk tactics because he said the vast majority of murders and shootings were committed by a narrow demographic. The recognition of the problem and the identification of the perpetrators isn't racist - it's simply recognizing data.
The problem is that stop-and-frisk violated the rights of millions of innocent young people simply because of their skin color. White thugs were not the targets. The policy blatantly targeted blacks and Hispanics, not concerned with innocence or guilt, and Bloomberg was a strong champion of it until he started his campaign for president, which is pathetic in its transparent dishonesty. You target innocent people due to their race, you're a racist, no matter the justification.
Mike Bloomberg is a racist. So if racism is a problem for someone, I suggest they don't vote for Mike Bloomberg.
In addition to his fake apology directly prior to his campaign beginning, Bloomberg also claimed he reduced the use of those racist tactics that he inherited from Guiliani.
That's more dishonesty. CNN reported back in 2016 that Bloomberg ramped up its use far past what Guiliani did, and only cut it back after it was declared unconstitutional for depriving young minorities of their rights. Lawsuits and protests cut back his usage, not any sort of conviction on his part. And we know this because as recently as 2018 he is on record as defending the policy.
We also know that crime rates were dropping before the racist policy was implemented and they continued dropping after the halting of its widespread usage. It dropped in cities that never used those racist tactics.
So. Mike Bloomberg took the government's enforcement arm and intentionally targeted them at people due to their skin color, and was not concerned that the majority stopped were innocent. That's about as racist as it gets.
And to throw more on, he also has a problem with misogynistic behavior.
Not to mention some more juicy tidbits from Salon.
You vote for Bloomberg, you are supporting a corrupt, arrogant, racist, sexist billionaire. Not the sort of moral stand an opponent of Trump ought to make, I think.
And even more. There is simply no way to support Bloomberg as a moral stance. Strictly for political gain, just like Trump supporters.
Naw he sounds fine. I understand why the DNC changed the rules to let him in.
Does he support late term abortion? If so, there's no problem.
Correction (once again)
Does he support infanticide? If so, there's no problem.
Legion of Logic said...
I agree, but I see little evidence that Democrats care to differentiate between actual racism and politically expedient claims of racism. Nor do I think many uber-woke progressives can even tell them apart. Calling a non-racist a racist is not going to help race relations at all.
I think we both agree that people have to call out what they do or do not see as racism. Perhaps other people genuinely see racism where you do not. Perhaps others see racism as a structural issue and thereby disagree with you, who seems to think racism is merely an interpersonal issue.
Calling people racists has always been a way to be accused of making race relations worse. King, among many others, was accused by many of making race relations worse. So, merely a notion that race relations might be made worse does not seem to be a sufficient reason to refuse to identify racism.
I like the MLK dream as the blueprint for eliminating racism. Much like eye color, skin color should not even remotely be a factor in how we judge others or relate to them.
Blueprints contain instructions, not just a a model of the final result. What specific actions do you recommend, if any?
I'm reading a fantasy book series by Brandon Sanderson, The Stormlight Archive. In this world, having blue eyes is a status symbol. Only the nobility have them, and anyone not of the nobility who is born with them (or achieves them through less biological means) will instantly become of high status. Needless to say, in this world eye color is a central part of a person's identity. They judge each other by eye color. The skin colors in this world are irrelevant.
I couldn't tell you the eye color of almost anyone I know outside of my direct family, because our society couldn't care less. That is how we should be regarding skin color. Using such labels literally divides people, which automatically creates an "other" to get resentful over for whatever reason.
I agree with the vision. How do we get closer to it? What's a method you would approve of, preferably one that would not have been endorsed by the proponents of Jim Crow in the 1930s?
Legion of Logic said...
But let's give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt and analyze the situation.
...
Mike Bloomberg is a racist. So if racism is a problem for someone, I suggest they don't vote for Mike Bloomberg.
That was an excellent comment. Well said.
I agree with the vision. How do we get closer to it? What's a method you would approve of, preferably one that would not have been endorsed by the proponents of Jim Crow in the 1930s?
For starters, one thing I would like to see as a matter of top-down policy would be stopping the use of "hyphenated American" to describe people, nor the use of skin color to divide into different voting blocks. We should be "Americans" as far as politicians and media pundits are concerned. In the background I believe it's important to continue tracking racial numbers for things like graduation rates, resource allocation, incarceration rates, etc to ensure racist policies aren't being enacted, intentionally or otherwise. But talking about "white voters" or "values important to the black community" or such should be phased out of the general lexicon. A man with darker skin than mine is as much my brother and fellow American as some other albino farmer-tanned abomination such as myself, and a man with darker skin than mine probably agrees with me on far more issues than we disagree, so why divide us?
Entertainment industries could help out with more mixed-race couples. Things that casually mix skin colors to the point that they become as irrelevant as hair or eye color.
It would take time, perhaps generations, but I truly feel it has to start with the cessation of continually dividing ourselves into different demographics based on skin color. That shouldn't be the default mindset.
I think we both agree that people have to call out what they do or do not see as racism. Perhaps other people genuinely see racism where you do not.
But again, so many on the left can't actually tell racism from non-racism, so all they do is water down accurate identifications. People tune them out.
Here was an amusing example of what I mean. A black man says something that many on the left view as a racist statement (it isn't inherently so) and so the CNN reporter accuses him of "white privilege". This ignorance then gets widely disseminated among conservative outlets and Twitter feeds, and the tuning out gets even worse.
Basically, what I'm saying is that an accusation of racism should not simply be tossed out as if it proves itself - it should be a measured response based on analysis. It should never be used as a political hit tactic.
Something I would like to add about that "white privilege" notion that I introduced into the thread. I deny it exists.
By that, I mean that my status as a white person - something utterly beyond my control - should in no regard be compared to the sort of privilege that rich and connected people enjoy, where they benefit from a system that they themselves help to craft, and give themselves opportunities that no one else can get. Being white is nothing like that. I did not shape society, nor do I have any power.
So no, the problem is not "white privilege". If I can walk down the street without being stopped by police, or walk through a store without being trailed by employees, that's not because I am "privileged". In fact, my ability to do those things is merely the baseline expectation of how anyone should be treated in similar situations. "White privilege" isn't the problem - those with darker skin are often systemically treated like crap, below the level of baseline expectation of treatment. I don't need to be brought down - they need to be allowed to join me.
And how do we do that? By making behavior, rather than shade of skin, the measure for suspicion. The dream of MLK, in other words.
Culture divides groups more than anything else.
We used to look at America as a melting pot where cultural diversity meant we are all Americans first, all with interesting ancestoral stories.
Those days have been gone a long time. Now children are being taught that the old melting pot America myth was told so those diverse groups would give up their group identity without a fight. Their own particular hereditary culture comes first and there is a common enemy to all groups that is trying to keep them in their place.
I think this is the real argument. What is American culture to be, or should there be an American culture at all.
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
For starters, one thing I would like to see as a matter of top-down policy would be stopping the use of "hyphenated American" to describe people, nor the use of skin color to divide into different voting blocks. We should be "Americans" as far as politicians and media pundits are concerned. In the background I believe it's important to continue tracking racial numbers for things like graduation rates, resource allocation, incarceration rates, etc to ensure racist policies aren't being enacted, intentionally or otherwise. But talking about "white voters" or "values important to the black community" or such should be phased out of the general lexicon. A man with darker skin than mine is as much my brother and fellow American as some other albino farmer-tanned abomination such as myself, and a man with darker skin than mine probably agrees with me on far more issues than we disagree, so why divide us?
There's a lot in there to agree with, so I hope you don't take my disagreements as indicating that I am directly opposed.
Some people have said that, based on their skin color, they are treated as if they are not fully American. They feel to not focus on the reasons for their exclusions would have the effect of sweeping these exclusions under the rug. Historically, racial issues that are not discussed tend to lose priority among politicians. If no one is talking about race, where does the political will to track graduation rates, resource allocation, incarceration rates, etc., come from, when politicians are always looking to cut services they feel do not have popular support?
Legion of Logic said...
Here was an amusing example of what I mean. A black man says something that many on the left view as a racist statement (it isn't inherently so) and so the CNN reporter accuses him of "white privilege". This ignorance then gets widely disseminated among conservative outlets and Twitter feeds, and the tuning out gets even worse.
Basically, what I'm saying is that an accusation of racism should not simply be tossed out as if it proves itself - it should be a measured response based on analysis. It should never be used as a political hit tactic.
I agree the CNN reporter was wrong to assume she was talking to a white man, but I don't think many people on the left view saying that you've worked hard is a racist statement.
In fact, to put race aside in this, would you agree that, generally, if you are in the media and you say things that wealthy and powerful people want to hear, it will be easier to make the climb up the career ladder?
bmiller said...
Culture divides groups more than anything else.
Only when people assume that there sub-culture is superior, as opposed to traditional.
You are right about thought on the "melting pot" have changed. However, It seems to be that, just as Britain has a culture, but there are also sub-cultures for the Welsh, English, and Scottish, there's no reason we can't have an American culture that encompasses sub-cultures.
Only when people assume that there sub-culture is superior, as opposed to traditional.
The people who promote multi-culturalism assume the meta-culture of multi-culturalism is superior. When in fact it is entirely artificial and unnatural.
bmiller said...
The people who promote multi-culturalism assume the meta-culture of multi-culturalism is superior. When in fact it is entirely artificial and unnatural.
The opposite of multi-culturalism is enforced cultural unity. Is that supposed to be organic and natural?
Multi-culturalism is a self-contradictory policy if someone actually tries to enforce it. If all cultures are equal and none are to be promoted over any other, then multi-culturalists cannot promote their culture as being superior and remain coherent.
People naturally, sooner or later, gravitate toward rational systems if they are allowed to. That's why irrational systems are unnatural.
Maybe multi-culturalists cannot be tolerant, but most societies can more or less tolerate sub-cultures to exist as long as they don't fracture that society.
bmiller said...
Multi-culturalism is a self-contradictory policy if someone actually tries to enforce it. If all cultures are equal and none are to be promoted over any other, then multi-culturalists cannot promote their culture as being superior and remain coherent.
You're a little less coherent here than usual. Who supposedly "enforces" multi-culturalism, and when did multi-culturalism become a culture?
People naturally, sooner or later, gravitate toward rational systems if they are allowed to.
People gravitate toward systems that make them comfortable, regardless of rationality.
Maybe multi-culturalists cannot be tolerant, but most societies can more or less tolerate sub-cultures to exist as long as they don't fracture that society.
What are these multi-culturalists supposedly intolerant of?
One Brow,
Thanks for the civil discussion. I think I'll leave things here.
Post a Comment