GingerJacob36 t1_jbg9xta wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in There is nothing to say about truth, admits Simon Blackburn. Here he presents the deflationist approach to truth – one that aims to put an end to the search for a theory of truth, which Blackburn now recognises is futile by IAI_Admin
Can you explain how activism runs against utility? It seems like it could be very much in line, as it is aimed towards the greatest good, at least in the mind of the activist.
[deleted] t1_jbgcjel wrote
I guess utility is a complex idea. I was thinking something like martyrdom.
edit- one might imagine actions that are activist that have incalculable or unknowable utility. "I don't know if what I'm doing will amount to anything, but I am nonetheless compelled." I don't believe that every ethical choice can be reduced to something like an economic tradeoff.
jamesj t1_jbgsbr5 wrote
This is puzzling if you think natural selection acts on the level of organisms, but completely explained (along with other altruistically motivated actions) I'd you think that natural selection acts on the level of genes (selfish gene theory).
frnzprf t1_jbivmg9 wrote
It's also evolutionary beneficial if people influence each other by communicating and so the personal morality of a human can be influenced socially, which is indirectly evolutionary.
Human babies are relatively uncapable in comparison to other animals and they learn important skills by copying. It's like IKEA furniture that is easier to produce and ship, because there is still some assembly required.
[deleted] t1_jbjrs5b wrote
>I'd you think that natural selection acts on the level of genes (selfish gene theory).
Yes but just about any human action can be argued to have evolutionary benefit, so we can't use this as a feature or a marker of ethical progress.
frogandbanjo t1_jbgkzfv wrote
People martyr themselves for dumb and evil shit all the time, though. It's just that we refuse to call it martyrdom at a particular point in time and so perpetuate the illusion of objective morality.
Once you let go, you begin to understand that all "heroism" can be put in a same category of baffling behavior as people who behave "evilly" when they reasonably ought to know they'll get punished for it anyway. Clearly the human mind is capable of either rejecting utilitarianism outright (even just personal utilitarianism,) slipping below the bare minimum knowledge/intelligence requirements to engage productively with it, or convincing itself that the unquantifiable trumps the quantifiable. Those do not have any strict relationship to heroic moral action. They happen with "evil" actions all the time.
GingerJacob36 t1_jbgxlac wrote
Interesting that you feel there is no objective morality. I think we can agree that what is best for some is not best for others without feeling like we can't navigate the territory at all.
Even the martyrs are acting in a utilitarian mindset, either for a good we now generally agree about, or for a less discernibly positive way.
Ischmetch t1_jbhr9gn wrote
Not necessarily. Some simply act for the sake of Aristotelian virtue.
GingerJacob36 t1_jbjw0rv wrote
But it's not just courage for the sake of courage. There is always a motivating ethic of some kind, or a desire for change.
frogandbanjo t1_jbkro5x wrote
Morality doesn't follow from first-order premises (truth claims about the universe,) and so it's in even worse shape than "reality" is when challenged by Descartes. It relies upon either a middle or supplemental step to get to where it wants to go. That middle or supplemental step can be rejected by anyone trivially.
Push yourself to ask hard questions. What if ruthlessly enslaving 90% of the human race is the only way to ensure that humanity doesn't spoil its only life support system and doom itself to civilizational collapse and accelerated extinction? Personally, when I consider such hypotheticals, I become uncomfortable with even the vague notion that there is an objectively correct moral answer to them, regardless of whether I think I know what it is.
If you don't, by all means. Recognize that various moral systems posited throughout history would offer up both conflicting rationales and even conflicting answers outright, and then claim with confidence that surely there is an objectively correct answer, even if perhaps you don't know it.
GingerJacob36 t1_jbt5h6m wrote
That question doesn't negate the existence of an objective morality. If the scenario you presented was one possible way of life, we could all agree that it would not be the best one. It is objectively not as good for as many people as many other ways to live. Enslaving 60% of the population would be much better, and enslaving 0% would be much better than that. These are all objectively better than each other, and that thought process can continue into pretty much anything else that we encounter.
It's not that it wouldn't be a hard question to answer, but it's not an impossible one to answer and there are metrics along which that decision could be made.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments