and other times, MD&D creeps me out...

[_mfbukowski]

The best part is that you think that point needs to be made, just because eugenics is taboo right now doesn’t even begin to mount of a defense for your half assed normative ethic, since how you’ve defined morality has nothing to do with what is presently accepted....

,.... but eugenics is clearly not moral. ....


The problem for you is twofold; (1) morality isn’t legislated by consensus, so making the observation that eugenics is unpopular at the present has no bearing on how you’ve defined morality. (2) There is overwhelming evidence that eugenics has clear value in a civilization.

What you need to do is somehow come up with some kind of rationalization that eugenics doesn’t have survival value. The only thing you have come up with thus far, is the Nazis, which leads you down a perilous road because that starts looking like success in war is a sign of superior morality (which is even creepier than what you‘ve said thus far).

This should be interesting.

If morality isn't legislated by consensus, oh wise one, what IS it "legislated" by?

Eternal principles written in heaven?

Clearly the consensus in civilized societies is that forced eugenics is NOT moral. Why do you think that is the case?

I have asked you two questions- 1- what "legislates" morality, and 2- why is eugenics NOT considered moral.

I have given you my answers, and now I expect yours.

[_mfbukowski]

I know you felt that I misunderstood your position. I still think I understood it. I view your response to me as a way of backtracking and trying to work out your thoughts in light of the expressed criticism in this thread. I don't think you're being dishonest. I think your initial position was a naïve, grasped at one. I certainly don't think you were expressing the modern bargaining theory defense of contractarianism. Though, I think you would be well-served to reform your position into it.

I think you have an excellent point and I will seriously consider your suggestions.

Clearly my comments have been off the cuff and not expressed formally.

[_mfbukowski]

Let me throw another one out there for the assembled multitudes.

Why does utilitarianism work?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Let me throw another one out there for the assembled multitudes.

Why does utilitarianism work?

I dunno.

Ask FAO Schwarz.



So I guess my nihilism is fine then... *rolls eyes*

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_MrStakhanovite]

I have asked you two questions- 1- what "legislates" morality, and 2- why is eugenics NOT considered moral.

I have given you my answers, and now I expect yours.

Are you asking for my own views?

[_mfbukowski]

I have asked you two questions- 1- what "legislates" morality, and 2- why is eugenics NOT considered moral.

I have given you my answers, and now I expect yours.

Are you asking for my own views?

Of course. What do you THINK I was asking for. You have already said that morality is not reached by "consensus", obviously you don't think certain maxims are moral because God says they are- I am wondering on what basis you think eugenics is so obviously immoral.

So please answer the two questions from your point of view.

I want to see how well YOU will do at this.

Of course the easy way out is just mimic some other philosopher without much modification. I suppose that is what you will do.

[_EAllusion]

I'm not sure I understand the question about utilitarianism. It works by definition because "what works" is the end. If you mean, "why should someone be a utilitarian?" there are a variety of approaches. Since I'm a consequentialist, I guess I can point out that I think it is the best theoretical account that approximates moral language and cognition. In short, it describes what moral assertions are aiming at and therefore ought to be used when dealing with moral assertions.

[_MrStakhanovite]

can you refresh my memory EA, did you like and use Mackie's error theory?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Of course. What do you THINK I was asking for.

I’m unsure if this was just a statement or a question, but I’ll treat it like a question.

I repeated your request with what I thought you were asking, because clarity is important in philosophical dialectic. It’s similar to the old public speaking strategy that you repeat the question back to the person, to make sure you and everyone else understands.

You have already said that morality is not reached by "consensus".

True. I don’t think that people create morality, and that things that truly are moral can be considered immoral by all agents, and that consensus of agents will never actually affect that moral fact in question.

obviously you don't think certain maxims are moral because God says they are

This is true.

I am wondering on what basis you think eugenics is so obviously immoral

I don’t think it’s obviously immoral, but I think it is intuitively abhorrent to the greater western culture, because personal autonomy is such a big part of our life.

Now there is a distinction that needs to be made for this discussion. We are treading over two areas of moral philosophy that are deeply related but act very differently. Second order questions about the existence objective moral facts is meta-ethics and questions about if X is right or wrong, good or evil falls into the domain of normative ethics.

A case for the morality or immorality of eugenics can be made by any number of normative ethical systems.

So, what legislates morality?

Nothing. I believe that moral facts (e.g. It is morally wrong to torture babies for pleasure) are abstract entities that exist necessarily, much like mathematical entities, like Cantor’s heaven.

While my ideas are most definitely Platonic, I do not believe in a Platonic heaven, where there is a perfect form of justice that we all mimic, just that justice is a abstract property, like green or round, that is used by cognitive agents to form judgments about a state of affairs.

I’m going to stop here, to prevent a total wall of text post. This explanation is far from complete, but I find it far more fruitful to explain and defend my ideas when it is question driven.

[_EAllusion]

can you refresh my memory EA, did you like and use Mackie's error theory?

Yes and no. I don't adopt error theory, but I think Mackie puts on a case good enough to be worth addressing. I also use it when attempting to give people a sophisticated understanding of nihilism. People also forget the second half of Inventing Right and Wrong when discussing Mackie, and I've been known to bring that up.