Alright, what ethics system are you using to reduce questions of morality to questions of fact? Kantian deontology? The principles of Nicomachean Ethics? The Bible?
most people don't believe that [the ends justify the means]
Why do you say this? Is there a study that says that? What were it's methods? Was it a single question, or were people subjected to a series of moral dilemmas?
In my experience, most people when faced with the trolly problem will conclude you should pull the lever, so I'm very curious as to the basis of your reasoning.
The PhilPapers survey shows the professional philosophers prefer deontological ethics. many people are not professional philosophers, but they do have religion. religion is almost universally divine command theory. that, too, is deontological.
I'm not really concerned with what professional philosophers prefer, I'm concerned with having self-consistent ethical axioms that are largely agreeable. I find deontology to be a generally poor approach to this problem, and so I don't use it. As for most people identifying with a religion, I believe it is a false inference to then claim that this means most people prefer deontology, and it would especially be false to say that most people prefer a specific deontological code (as I suspect you're already aware). Simply put: what people say they believe, and the beliefs we can infir from people's actions and opinions often contradict each other. People largely behave and argue as if they are naive utilitarians, and so I don't think it's reasonable to say that most people disagree with it.
of course it doesn't actually matter whether I'm right about most people being abhorred by claims like "the ends justify the means", though I am. what matters is whether you can actually prove the utility value of your proposed course of action BEFORE the consequences have come to fruition. and since you can't, since you can't have proof about the future, utilitarianism boils down to overwrought hedonism.
you can't have proof about the future
I'm beginning to suspect that you've educated yourself about utilitarianism only insofar as you need to in order to make coherent (though not necessarily accurate) complaints about it. I'm also beginning to suspect that you don't really have a firm understanding of philosophy in general. Apologies if that's inaccurate.
Alright so first of all: neither of us can prove to the other that our respective selves exist. That is a fact; it's impossible to prove that our senses represent reality, and so it is a fundamental fact that nothing about reality can truly be proven. However, retreating to this fact in the face of an argument about whether something is true or not is obvious sophistry. I am aware that you did not make this argument, but I want to make sure that you understand because it's an important part of epistemology. If you want to know more, look up "solipsism".
With that in mind, it's easy to see that I don't actually need to prove anything about the future; I just need to have a good justification for believing that my predictions are probable, and have a rough idea of how certain actions increases or decrease the probabilities of the ranges of utility values. I already stated my justification in the above comment.
Now, could I use my knowledge of statistics and probability to estimate the odds of a Biden victory, his future actions, etc. using available data? Yeah, probably. But frankly that's too much work because the differences in outcomes are stark enough that getting a more precise estimate won't change anything. It's like giving me a gun and politely asking me to shoot myself. I could figure out how likely I am to survive, but I don't need to do that before deciding to not comply for obvious reasons.
overwrought hedonism
WTF is wrong with hedonism that transfers over to utilitarianism?
I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve educated yourself about utilitarianism
no, I'm degreed
Alright so first of all: neither of us can prove to the other that our respective selves exist.
solipsism gets us nowhere
Yes, that's the point; if we can't tolerate any uncertainty, then in essence nothing is provable and there's nothing to do. It's inconsistent to assert that I must have perfect knowledge about something while acting as though I exist when you have no way of verifying that.
When you say that you have a degree, you mean specifically in philosophy, correct?
you have a degree, you mean specifically in philosophy
my focus was logic and scientific reasoning but the undergrad requirements covered ethics
It’s inconsistent to assert that I must have perfect knowledge about something while acting as though I exist when you have no way of verifying that.
there are ethical systems that can exist even if we don't. kantian ethics require only that you decide what should be universal law and act accordingly. that doesn't require that you know anything outside of yourself. by contrast, utilitarianism is fraught with epistemic problems.
Every set of axioms is independent of reality by definition. Deontology isn't special in that way; consequentialist systems are also axiom sets. Furthermore, every ethical system has the same problem when putting it into practice; if you don't know anything about the world, your ethics system might as well be empty.
if you don’t know anything about the world, your ethics system might as well be empty.
i suppose so, but if your axioms depend on the future, which by definition is unknowable, then it is empty.
Consequentialist axioms impose an ordering on world-states, almost all of which will never exist. I don't understand how you can think the axioms themselves depend on future events; by definition they wouldn't be axioms.
if you must do what will cause the most pleasure (or least displeasure), then your axiom depends on knowing the future.
No, acting upon the axiom requires "knowing the future" as you put it.
nothing. I am quite partial to it myself. but pretending you know what will create the most pleasure for everyone (or least displeasure) is just that: pretending. you might as well do what you want and make up a story about why it's going to benefits everyone because that's all that utilitarianism really is.
Alright, what ethics system are you using to reduce questions of morality to questions of fact? Kantian deontology? The principles of Nicomachean Ethics? The Bible?
Why do you say this? Is there a study that says that? What were it's methods? Was it a single question, or were people subjected to a series of moral dilemmas?
In my experience, most people when faced with the trolly problem will conclude you should pull the lever, so I'm very curious as to the basis of your reasoning.
The PhilPapers survey shows the professional philosophers prefer deontological ethics. many people are not professional philosophers, but they do have religion. religion is almost universally divine command theory. that, too, is deontological.
I'm not really concerned with what professional philosophers prefer, I'm concerned with having self-consistent ethical axioms that are largely agreeable. I find deontology to be a generally poor approach to this problem, and so I don't use it. As for most people identifying with a religion, I believe it is a false inference to then claim that this means most people prefer deontology, and it would especially be false to say that most people prefer a specific deontological code (as I suspect you're already aware). Simply put: what people say they believe, and the beliefs we can infir from people's actions and opinions often contradict each other. People largely behave and argue as if they are naive utilitarians, and so I don't think it's reasonable to say that most people disagree with it.
of course it doesn't actually matter whether I'm right about most people being abhorred by claims like "the ends justify the means", though I am. what matters is whether you can actually prove the utility value of your proposed course of action BEFORE the consequences have come to fruition. and since you can't, since you can't have proof about the future, utilitarianism boils down to overwrought hedonism.
I'm beginning to suspect that you've educated yourself about utilitarianism only insofar as you need to in order to make coherent (though not necessarily accurate) complaints about it. I'm also beginning to suspect that you don't really have a firm understanding of philosophy in general. Apologies if that's inaccurate.
Alright so first of all: neither of us can prove to the other that our respective selves exist. That is a fact; it's impossible to prove that our senses represent reality, and so it is a fundamental fact that nothing about reality can truly be proven. However, retreating to this fact in the face of an argument about whether something is true or not is obvious sophistry. I am aware that you did not make this argument, but I want to make sure that you understand because it's an important part of epistemology. If you want to know more, look up "solipsism".
With that in mind, it's easy to see that I don't actually need to prove anything about the future; I just need to have a good justification for believing that my predictions are probable, and have a rough idea of how certain actions increases or decrease the probabilities of the ranges of utility values. I already stated my justification in the above comment.
Now, could I use my knowledge of statistics and probability to estimate the odds of a Biden victory, his future actions, etc. using available data? Yeah, probably. But frankly that's too much work because the differences in outcomes are stark enough that getting a more precise estimate won't change anything. It's like giving me a gun and politely asking me to shoot myself. I could figure out how likely I am to survive, but I don't need to do that before deciding to not comply for obvious reasons.
WTF is wrong with hedonism that transfers over to utilitarianism?
no, I'm degreed
solipsism gets us nowhere
Yes, that's the point; if we can't tolerate any uncertainty, then in essence nothing is provable and there's nothing to do. It's inconsistent to assert that I must have perfect knowledge about something while acting as though I exist when you have no way of verifying that.
When you say that you have a degree, you mean specifically in philosophy, correct?
my focus was logic and scientific reasoning but the undergrad requirements covered ethics
there are ethical systems that can exist even if we don't. kantian ethics require only that you decide what should be universal law and act accordingly. that doesn't require that you know anything outside of yourself. by contrast, utilitarianism is fraught with epistemic problems.
Every set of axioms is independent of reality by definition. Deontology isn't special in that way; consequentialist systems are also axiom sets. Furthermore, every ethical system has the same problem when putting it into practice; if you don't know anything about the world, your ethics system might as well be empty.
i suppose so, but if your axioms depend on the future, which by definition is unknowable, then it is empty.
Consequentialist axioms impose an ordering on world-states, almost all of which will never exist. I don't understand how you can think the axioms themselves depend on future events; by definition they wouldn't be axioms.
if you must do what will cause the most pleasure (or least displeasure), then your axiom depends on knowing the future.
No, acting upon the axiom requires "knowing the future" as you put it.
nothing. I am quite partial to it myself. but pretending you know what will create the most pleasure for everyone (or least displeasure) is just that: pretending. you might as well do what you want and make up a story about why it's going to benefits everyone because that's all that utilitarianism really is.