0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nothing immoral about eating a cow. Conscious beings have nothing to do with it - humans only. Though civilised humans do take a dim view of gratuitous harm to anything.
David Cooper countered this argument by suggesting that the accumulation of happines also takes into account the expected future feelings and emotions of all potentially existing conscious beings. Taking drugs only bring temporary happiness for someone, but potentially causes sadness and pain of their family and friends in the future.
This utilitarian morality suggests that most resources should be given to most emotional people, since they would generate more total amount of happines. Most losses should be distributed to least emotional people, since they would generate less total amount of suffering.
insisting to eat a cow just to cause their suffering will be judged as immoral.
What makes you think that human is so special?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 17:50:43insisting to eat a cow just to cause their suffering will be judged as immoral.On a joyous occasion my aunt announced to the assembled relatives and friends "If it wasn't for Jewish weddings, the country would be overrun with chickens. L'chaim." The best opening toast ever.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 17:50:43What makes you think that human is so special? On a cosmic or even global scale, nothing. Just another temporary bit of chemistry. But from a human perspective, it's the only living thing with which we can communicate to the fullest extent of our own understanding, the species on whose collaboration we depend, and the only species that has not evolved to eat us or compete with us for food.
The universal morality that I've proposed can be classified as a form of utilitarianism, but the utility function to be maximized is interpreted as the likelihood to keep the existence of conscious beings in universe. In other words, it's the probability to achieve the best case scenario, which is equivalent to the probability to avoid the worst case scenario.
That's in contrast with Moral absolutism.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutismQuoteMoral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism),[1] but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[2]Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.QuoteMoral absolutism can be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions also adhere to moral absolutist positions, since their moral system is derived from divine commandments. Therefore, such a moral system is absolute, (usually) perfect and unchanging. Many secular philosophies, borrowing from religion, also take a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of people, the nature of life in general, or the Universe itself. For example, someone who absolutely believes in non-violence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,[3] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law.[4] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism),[1] but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[2]Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.
Moral absolutism can be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions also adhere to moral absolutist positions, since their moral system is derived from divine commandments. Therefore, such a moral system is absolute, (usually) perfect and unchanging. Many secular philosophies, borrowing from religion, also take a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of people, the nature of life in general, or the Universe itself. For example, someone who absolutely believes in non-violence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,[3] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law.[4] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.
The absolute rule which should never be violated in any situation is don't do any action which knowingly causes the best case scenario harder to achieve.
A free market supposed to be a self organizing system. But if some parts of the system aggregate and accumulate enough power to manipulate or bypass self regulatory functions, they can accumulate more resources for themselves while depriving and sacrificing others, making the entire structure to collapse. It's akin to behavior of cancerous cells.
Let's say there was a large sinkhole several kilometers away from a river. A big flood raise the river water level and reach the sinkhole. It was filled with river water containing a school of fish from a certain species. When the flood subsided, the sinkhole is isolated again from other bodies of water, but now it contains water and some fishes. After a few millenia those fishes evolves and diverse into several species with different behaviors and genetic makeups. Some are adapted to near surface, while some are adapted to deeper and darker part of the sinkhole. They lose some funcionality of vision.They can survive with any random changes as long as they are still tolerable by the range of conditions of their environment. The environment includes preys, predators, and competitors.One day there is an earthquake which create a crack at the bottom of the sinkhole. The water is drained out and seeping into lower layer of earth crust.The sinkhole end up dry just like how it began. The only fish can survive are those with ability to live on dry land.
This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2021 19:25:04This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.No, it is necessary to test an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver.