Breaking News: It Seems Corporate America Looks More Favorably on the GOP!

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']
Translation: There are no absolutes.

You do understand that your statement is a contradiction, right?
[/quote]

Cute logic trick. In the real world, there are very few absolutes. Taking an extreme case, even someone like Mussolini (98% evil) got the trains running on time.

[quote name='bmulligan']
Just because something is influential doesn't make it a good idea. The macarena was influential, as was living la vida loca, and brittney spears.
[/quote]

True, but when most of the leading ethical philosophers of our time consider it have a definitive influence on modern moral philosophy, it adds a certain gravitas to the work.

Those songs have nothing to do with the conversation. They were not influential, popular maybe, but they have no lasting impact on the arts.

[quote name='bmulligan']
Let's examine this one sentence further:

...in which the morality of our actions is judged by their contribution to the happiness of people

I believe you are refering to the common good? That's where the majority of people get to force the minority into submission. How does one measure happiness, exactly? Don't bother, you couldn't tell me no matter how hard you try because it's all a shade of grey.[/quote]

I paraphrased the philosophy to fit it into one sentence, and you highlighted one of the chief arguements used against it. However the arguement can be negated, I believe. Take slavery, is this practice OK if it makes a majority happier? The answer would be no in my opinion because it makes the minority so unhappy that their misery negates any positive benefits that the majority enjoyed. In addition it causes things like slave revolts which add to the misery of everybody, minority and majority alike.

The Utilitarian philosophy provides us with a useful tool in making ethical decisions. In evaluating morality, it takes into account the entire result of our decisions and actions. Thinking in this way gives one the ability to see through polar black/white, good/evil punditry, and make informed decisions with a clear perspective.

If you would like to know more about the way in which happiness is measured, I will defer you to Mill's book, which in my opinion is a must for anyone interested in moral philosophy.

 

[bmulligan]

Cute logic trick. In the real world, there are very few absolutes.

So which is it? First there were no absolutes, absolutely. Now there are fery few. It seems you need to learn the command of your own language.

True, but when most of the leading ethical philosophers of our time consider it have a definitive influence on modern moral philosophy, it adds a certain gravitas to the work.

Those songs have nothing to do with the conversation. They were not influential, popular maybe, but they have no lasting impact on the arts.

I really can't take anyone who uses the word "gravitas" seriously. So your claim of "leading ethical philosophers of our time" becomes even more laughable. Who cares if it is our time or Aristotles time.
Having 'contemporaries' agree on something or it being 'influential' is not a necessary condition for truth or benevolence to mankind. The examples of the songs have everything to do with the conversation as example of 'contemporary' thought.

I paraphrased the philosophy to fit it into one sentence, and you highlighted one of the chief arguements used against it. However the arguement can be negated, I believe.

Well, never having read it or had the pleasure of hearing your analysis at length, I seem to have read you like a short story.

Take slavery, is this practice OK if it makes a majority happier? The answer would be no in my opinion because it makes the minority so unhappy that their misery negates any positive benefits that the majority enjoyed. In addition it causes things like slave revolts which add to the misery of everybody, minority and majority alike.

This is armchair philosophy. You are close to something yet you can't see the forest for the trees. There ARE absolutes within your anecdote yet you don't acknowledge them. These 'positive benefits' are more than feelings or measures of happiness, or descriptions of cause and effect. They are principles of right and wrong, of freedom and slavery, black and white. It's the denial of thes principles that is the cause of misery.

I would love to hear how you think happiness is measured, not a defferal to someone elses dr. Phil philosophy.

 

[Trancendental]

Lot of splitting hairs, eh bmulligan?

[quote name='bmulligan']So which is it? [/quote]
There are very few absolutes. As in .01%. As in, there are so few absolutes, that they are insignificant when it comes to picking a system of moral philosophy.

[quote name='bmulligan']
I really can't take anyone who uses the word "gravitas" seriously.
[/quote]

Why, because it has more then 2 syllables?

[quote name='bmulligan']
So your claim of "leading ethical philosophers of our time" becomes even more laughable. Who cares if it is our time or Aristotles time.
[/quote]

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). An influential philosopher since his philosophies were first published.

[quote name='bmulligan']
Having 'contemporaries' agree on something or it being 'influential' is not a necessary condition for truth or benevolence to mankind. The examples of the songs have everything to do with the conversation as example of 'contemporary' thought.
[/quote]

So for you, the opinion of the greatest philosophers since 1850 about the most important questions of mankind have as much weight as what pop song the general public most enjoys? Come on, dude.

[quote name='bmulligan']
Well, never having read it or had the pleasure of hearing your analysis at length, I seem to have read you like a short story...

This is armchair philosophy. You are close to something yet you can't see the forest for the trees. There ARE absolutes within your anecdote yet you don't acknowledge them. These 'positive benefits' are more than feelings or measures of happiness, or descriptions of cause and effect. They are principles of right and wrong, of freedom and slavery, black and white. It's the denial of thes principles that is the cause of misery.

I would love to hear how you think happiness is measured, not a defferal to someone elses dr. Phil philosophy.[/quote]

This is the problem - most people think that philosophy is some intellectual pursuit, what you call "armchair philosophy" that has no bearing on their life. However it does, just look at all the influential decisions made by the Supreme Court, they use their philisophical (or unfortunately their religious) perspective to form their opinions about cases. It's the law of the land, from Brown Vs Board to Row Vs Wade we have all been affected by their decisions in one way or another.

Sure there are absolutes, because there needs to be something to compare a position to. However how many times is a moral question a choice between clearly defined absolutes? If it was that easy we could all have a group hug and give up political debates forever.

By happiness, I mean what the Greeks call "eudaimonia", a total feeling of wellness and prosperity, I'm talking about the happiness in "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Utilitarianism is a moral perspective, it is a very useful system for deciding the morality of decisions that I use every day. However it is not the be-all-and-end-all, the "Grand Unifying Theory" of ethics. I would agree that concepts such as justice and freedom are also important to consider when making moral decisions, and you can't base 100% of your decision on the Utilitarian theory, it's just not that simple (for example if there was an extreme case, where somebody was happy to be enslaved for example, it would still not make their enslavement morally correct). However I vehemently disagree that you can label policies in black and white terms such as "the just policy" or "the policy of freedom" based on contemporary norms (or the Judeo-Christian religions or classic philosophy or whatever source you derive your axioms of utopian societal behavior from) and thus qualify these policies as worthwhile. No, there must an analysis of the results of these policies, and utilitarianism takes those results into account. It brings the real world (and a shade of grey) into the stark black-and-white punditry often spouted by politicians trying to justify their position as the ultimate good.

Measuring the happiness of everyone your decisions will affect is a tall order, for a layman such as myself, I see it as more of a mental exercise then a mathematical formula. However I have great respect for anyone who has a system that they can easily and regularly employ, and once again I will encourage anyone truly interested to take a look at Mill's book, his organized system of measurement is an interesting and exciting exercise in thought.

And let's set the record straight, Dr. Phil is not one of the greatest philosophers of all time. JS Mill is.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='camoor']So for you, the opinion of the greatest philosophers since 1850 about the most important questions of mankind have as much weight as what pop song the general public most enjoys? Come on, dude. [/quote]
Well, I guess it all depends on who you believe are the greatest philosophers. And you keep interpereting the pop song analogy as literal, it was a reference to the popularity of todays passing fads with that of well thought out and established thought of historical thinkers. 1800's is still contemporary by comparison.

There are very few absolutes. As in .01%. As in, there are so few absolutes, that they are insignificant when it comes to picking a system of moral philosophy.

Sure there are absolutes, because there needs to be something to compare a position to.

you still can't come to terms wih yourself.

just look at all the influential decisions made by the Supreme Court, they use their philisophical (or unfortunately their religious) perspective to form their opinions about cases. It's the law of the land, from Brown Vs Board to Row Vs Wade we have all been affected by their decisions in one way or another.

And the court's philosophy and source of power is based on principles established in the constitution, written in black and white, but always subjest to interpretation. That pursuit of ideal interpretation of constitutional principles is the function of the court, not to change their positions based upon 'contemporary norms' or popular opinion.

You still haven't outlined how you measure happiness in others. Apparently it's too tall an order for you. Probably because you know it's impossible to do so using your changing definitions and lack of absolute anything. You're a bullshit artist, and not a very good one.

(for example if there was an extreme case, where somebody was happy to be enslaved for example, it would still not make their enslavement morally correct).

But by your 'philosophy' of pragmatism, if the party wants to be enslaved and derives happiness from it and this is the societal and contemporary norm, then it is morally correct. The contradictions in your mental exercises never cease. It'qs more like mental slight-of-hand.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']
Well, I guess it all depends on who you believe are the greatest philosophers. And you keep interpereting the pop song analogy as literal, it was a reference to the popularity of todays passing fads with that of well thought out and established thought of historical thinkers. 1800's is still contemporary by comparison.
[/quote]

Let the pop song thing go man. It didn't sound that good to begin with, trust me. Philosophy and the Pop song machine have almost nothing in common, can't you understand this?

[quote name='bmulligan']

There are very few absolutes. As in .01%. As in, there are so few absolutes, that they are insignificant when it comes to picking a system of moral philosophy.

Sure there are absolutes, because there needs to be something to compare a position to.

you still can't come to terms wih yourself.
[/quote]
This has always been my position, I just didn't state it clearly enough in the first post. It's consistent with everything I've said.

[quote name='bmulligan']

just look at all the influential decisions made by the Supreme Court, they use their philisophical (or unfortunately their religious) perspective to form their opinions about cases. It's the law of the land, from Brown Vs Board to Row Vs Wade we have all been affected by their decisions in one way or another.

And the court's philosophy and source of power is based on principles established in the constitution, written in black and white, but always subjest to interpretation. That pursuit of ideal interpretation of constitutional principles is the function of the court, not to change their positions based upon 'contemporary norms' or popular opinion.
[/quote]

Except that everything the court rules on isn't covered by the Constitution, and the interpretation of the constitution is where the philosophies of the justices come into play. If it was as simple as "To rule on this case, we turn to page 3, section 5 of the constitiution...", we would never have controversial decisions, or have a need to have intelligent people in the court.

[quote name='bmulligan']
You still haven't outlined how you measure happiness in others. Apparently it's too tall an order for you. Probably because you know it's impossible to do so using your changing definitions and lack of absolute anything. You're a bullshit artist, and not a very good one.

(for example if there was an extreme case, where somebody was happy to be enslaved for example, it would still not make their enslavement morally correct).

But by your 'philosophy' of pragmatism, if the party wants to be enslaved and derives happiness from it and this is the societal and contemporary norm, then it is morally correct. The contradictions in your mental exercises never cease. It'qs more like mental slight-of-hand.[/quote]

Bmulligan, it's a way of evaluating moral decisions. You have to think about how your decision will affect the happiness of others to make it work. If a person doesn't think about how their decisions affect the happiness of others, they are predisposed to making poor moral decisions. I can't teach you this over a post on the internet.

You call it a philosophy of pragmatism, and I would agree, it's a specific moral formula that measures the results of our actions. It's a good test, a "reality check" that a person can make against the principles that they live by. As I said before, I believe you can't just take it and make it the one system you use to evaluate all of your moral decisions.

My whole point was to give you another point of view, to prove to you that the world is not made up of conflicts between pure "good" and "evil" as some politicians would like us to believe. Don't you dare call me a "bullshit artist", I'm discussing theory here, if you need help in learning how your decisions affect others, then I suggest you need to do some work (I've already pointed you to a great source). But you won't do that, because it's much easier to turn on fox news and cheer as their pundits insert their brand of sloganism into your rigid worldview.

 

[bmulligan]

I now understand why they've eliminated the analogy portion of the SAT, thank you.

If a person doesn't think about how their decisions affect the happiness of others, they are predisposed to making poor moral decisions.

I'll tell that one to the next guy who tries to mug me in NYC. While I'm beating the crap out of him for trying to steal my money, I'll ask him if he's having a fulfulling life and overall feeling of euphoria.

Except that everything the court rules on isn't covered by the Constitution

Name one Supreme Court case that did not involve reliance on the word or principle of constitutional law.

You call it a philosophy of pragmatism, and I would agree, it's a specific moral formula that measures the results of our actions.

I'm glad we can agree that you are a pragmatist. However, you still have not explained how to measure anything. One needs to establish an objective standard in order to measure. We call them 'rules'.

I'll ask again: How does one measure "happiness"?

Your philosophy depends on this principle and you have yet to articulate it or even address it. Add this to your acceptance of contradictory thought as consistency and I must conclude you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm discussing theory here, if you need help in learning how your decisions affect others, then I suggest you need to do some work (I've already pointed you to a great source).

I've been working too hard already tring to extract information out of you, yet you'd rather defer to somone else without addressing the theory yourself. Since your actions are not creating happiness within me, you must be doing something wrong.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']I now understand why they've eliminated the analogy portion of the SAT, thank you.
[/quote]

You can't be snide if you don't have a leg to stand on. You need to prove your points.

[quote name='bmulligan']

If a person doesn't think about how their decisions affect the happiness of others, they are predisposed to making poor moral decisions.

I'll tell that one to the next guy who tries to mug me in NYC. While I'm beating the crap out of him for trying to steal my money, I'll ask him if he's having a fulfulling life and overall feeling of euphoria.
[/quote]

Yes, and what process do you use to make your brilliant decisions, like "Wow, vigilante justice is a great idea!". Subduing your assailant is one thing, "beating the crap out of him" is not what I would call the morally correct thing to do. Yet it is what I'd expect from a thug.

[quote name='bmulligan']

Except that everything the court rules on isn't covered by the Constitution

Name one Supreme Court case that did not involve reliance on the word or principle of constitutional law.
[/quote]

Where does the constitution specify how to handle the issue of abortion (Row vs Wade). Specifically. Give me the exact text.

[quote name='bmulligan']

You call it a philosophy of pragmatism, and I would agree, it's a specific moral formula that measures the results of our actions.

I'm glad we can agree that you are a pragmatist. However, you still have not explained how to measure anything. One needs to establish an objective standard in order to measure. We call them 'rules'.

I'll ask again: How does one measure "happiness"?

Your philosophy depends on this principle and you have yet to articulate it or even address it. Add this to your acceptance of contradictory thought as consistency and I must conclude you have no idea what you're talking about.
[/quote]

To measure happiness I imagine how I will affect people, I put myself in their shoes to see how I would feel if someone performed the same action. Again, I don't think my method of measuring happiness is necessarily the best or most scientific, but this is what I do.

[quote name='bmulligan']

I'm discussing theory here, if you need help in learning how your decisions affect others, then I suggest you need to do some work (I've already pointed you to a great source).

I've been working too hard already tring to extract information out of you, yet you'd rather defer to somone else without addressing the theory yourself. Since your actions are not creating happiness within me, you must be doing something wrong.[/quote]

Morality and ethics is hard work. I don't have all the answers, but I have read what the greatest thinkers have written and I have formulated my own moral code from this. I do know that life is not full of black-and-white, easily defined moral choices. My goal is not your happiness bmulligan, and morality is not all about you, you, you, it's really about doing the right thing for everybody who is affected.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='camoor']Where does the constitution specify how to handle the issue of abortion (Row vs Wade). Specifically. Give me the exact text. [/quote]

Apparently you do not understand the purpose of the Supreme court. You should READ the RoevWade decision, or any other supreme court opinions before commenting on something you know nothing about. Roe v wade struck down a texas statute allowing roe the right to sue in a texas court, something previously denied by texas courts.

[quote name='ROE v. WADE
Decided January 22, 1973']Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [/quote]


[quote name='camoor']To measure happiness I imagine how I will affect people, I put myself in their shoes to see how I would feel if someone performed the same action. Again, I don't think my method of measuring happiness is necessarily the best or most scientific, but this is what I do. [/quote]

I can't argure with this. Your philosophy is completely imaginary. This explains a lot.

Morality and ethics is hard work. I don't have all the answers, but I have read what the greatest thinkers have written and I have formulated my own moral code from this. I do know that life is not full of black-and-white, easily defined moral choices.

I never said moral choices were easy , they aren't usually. Nor have I claimed these choices are Black and White, they aren't, but the principles are.

My goal is not your happiness bmulligan, and morality is not all about you, you, you, it's really about doing the right thing for everybody who is affected.

But you have spent the last 3 days arguing just the opposite. My happines IS the basis of your moral code. The happiness of others should guide your actions. I am not YOU,YOU,YOU, I am one of the others whose happiness you must consider before taking any action. Another contradiction rears it's ugly head. But luckily for you, contradiction equals continuity in your fairy tale land of make-believe.

 

[Trancendental]

Interesting about the row vs wade. Thanks for the constitutional law update (sincerely). However one still has to define what a "person" is to make this judgement. There is no clause in the constitution that specifically defines at what point this occurs.

I imagine (or think about) the happiness of others within the best of my ability to measure it. The entire process is not imaginary.

You did say something I would agree with. Moral choices are not black and white. As far as the principles being absolutes arguement, it is rather interesting but I don't personally believe in it. For example, I believe that the principle of "freedom of speech" is in general a good principle, however crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater takes the principle too far. Therefore it is a principle that should not be applied absolutely, instead it should be applied within the bounds of reason.

As far as "you" are concerned, you are only one person, and a when making a moral decision we must think about the happiness (remember happiness means total well-being) of all. Any moral philosophy that fails to take into account the well-being of all people affected is flawed in my view.

 

[bmulligan]

You did say something I would agree with. Moral choices are not black and white. As far as the principles being absolutes arguement, it is rather interesting but I don't personally believe in it. For example, I believe that the principle of "freedom of speech" is in general a good principle, however crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater takes the principle too far. Therefore it is a principle that should not be applied absolutely, instead it should be applied within the bounds of reason.

Freedom of speech is an absolute freedom. However, the "fire" argument does not negate the principle. Your right to yell "fire" is superceeded by others' right to their own life and property. Yelling "fire" in this situation jeapordizes these rights of other individuals, it does not invalidate the freedom of speech. Individuals' rights do not superceede all others in all situations. This is the true role of government, to protect these transgressions between individuals' rights and to judge which ones take precedence, which were violated, and which deserve compensation or punnishment.

As far as "you" are concerned, you are only one person, and a when making a moral decision we must think about the happiness (remember happiness means total well-being) of all. Any moral philosophy that fails to take into account the well-being of all people affected is flawed in my view.

"You" are an individual and part of the whole. The whole is not an autonomous body that acts with volition as one body. It is an abstract made up of individual parts, each acting as his own island of freedom (and happiness). The "all" cannot exist without the "one", so any transgression (denial of happiness) upon the one is a transgression on the "all" and vice versa. i.e., If you deny one man his rights(happiness), we all suffer the consequences.

 

[Trancendental]

However by your logic it is not an "absolute" freedom.

Absolute - complete and without restriction or qualification.

Other's rights can supercede one's freedom of speech. It is not absolute by your definition.

I believe you are talking about the "certain unalienable rights" each person possesses in your second paragraph. These rights are a fundamentally different concept from the happiness of each person. The happiness of one person may or may not carry over into another person's happiness. Just because one person is made unhappy by a decision, it does not make the decision immoral by utilitarian theory. The cumulative unhappiness must outweigh the cumulative happiness of the decision for it to be considered immoral.

In the arena of rights afforded to each person, I believe your comment holds much more truth.