The world is a worse place if you roll snake eyes.
A prudential ought simply defines an action that is pursuant to a goal.
âIf you want to annihilate all the Jews in germany, you ought to set up a system.â
âIf you wish to win at chess, you ought to study openings.â
âIf you donât want to be late for the prom, you ought to leave nowâ.
Certainly no one would mistake that last, at least, for a moral âoughtâ.
But notice that each âoughtâ is directed at a person.
So does the moral ought. Do you think the goals are different for some reason?
And btw, you canât give examples of prudential âoughtsâ that are clearly not prudential, nor are they things you ought to do. (E.g., genocide). Goals that donât also fit the moral bill arenât prudential. At least, I see no reasonânor has any been offeredâto think so. If I want to cause a car accident, I ought to swerve and crash. --Thatâs not a prudential ought because causing a car crash is neither prudential, nor something you ought to do (in any sense).
Being a better chess player, and not letting your date down, are sometimes things you ought to do. But I still see no reason to think theyâre prudential but not moral, or moral but not prudential. What do you think the goal of morality is? Because if you think itâs anything to do with human excellence, or something like that, then developing your skills (chess included), or being a good partner (proms included) are fucking included.
And btw, is it your view that mathmatics is a subjective enterprise? Because youâve quoted me as saying itâs not⌠and you typically only quote people who you think have said something ridiculous. Iâm trying to figure out a way to quote you as quoting me saying something pretty commonsensical.
I am a river.
Are you claiming that every goal is a moral goal? The goal of winning a card game is a moral goal? of completing a house of cards? Of drawing a picture of a boat?
Really?
But it is - if your goal is to cause the accident, you ought to swerve. This is just English. itâs the way we use the language. You canât just make up new meanings and discard the ones you donât like. Except that if you donât, your thesis falls apart.
And sometimes not. So what? To claim a moral theory, youâd have to tell us which times are which. Which is why I call your thesis completely vapid. It tells us nothing.
I have stated many times that my claim is that the subjective/objective dichotomy is useless.
What?
Iâm here to tell you that you keep begging the question⌠everytime you suggest that something can be prudential but not moral, or moral but not prudential----without. ever. explaining. the. difference. Maybe you should go back a few pages and start from the beginning.
How the fuck is that prudential? Use fucking English.
Typical iambiguous ploy. âSo abortion is sometimes ok, and sometimes not!!! What!!!â. Red herring. Itâs like asking me to explain the game of baseball and then being dissatisfied because I didnât tell you how they make the bats. Wake up. If you want an answer, then create a threadâŚ
lol. yea totally uselessâŚ
No point addressing that one.
Opinion and reality⌠psh, who needs it.
I think itâs early onset dementia⌠as it was for dear Fritz.
What was that???
Truly? You canât tell the difference? I have explained it several times, now. I donât think i can make it any simpler. But Iâm not making it up. Itâs a difference that everyone who has ever written about the topic seems to know but you. Not that i have read everything on the topic, but Iâve read a lot. I think youâre on your own, here. There are some philosophical issues that have been accepted as settled.
Because âprudentialâ, in this context, means âinstrumentalâ. Pursuant to a goal. This is verrry standard stuff. The rest of the world uses the word this way - again, you are the only person that i know of who does not already know the distinction.
I would expect you to describe the bat well enough so that i could make one, yes. Else I wouldnât be able to play the game. I would not require lathe speeds, but I would want to know which materials would not work. SoâŚyeah. Sure.
itâs really not that early, in my case.
Let me put this gentlyâŚ
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRUDENCE AND MORALITY.
-
There wasnât for Plato. Thatâs why âall evil is due to ignoranceâ. Thatâs why Socrates wouldnât escape from jail when he had the chance. Thatâs why âitâs better to suffer harm, than to do harmâ. Thatâs why the good life is a properly ordered psyche.
-
There wasnât for Nietzsche. Thatâs his beyond good and evil. Power (aka âabilities-toâ) itself is whatâs valuable. Nietzsche is not an amoralist, he just tied his values to enhancing power (prudence)
-
There wasnât for Hobbes. You obey the Sovereignâand give him all of your power, submitting almost completelyâbecause itâs in your self-interest. After the Sovereign is established, you obeyâand you ought to obeyâonly because itâs in your self-interest. When your life is threatened by the Sovereign, you have no duty to obey anymore. Hobbes is not a moral nihilist, he equated prudence with moralityâwhat you ought to do.
These are your fucking philosophers. Theyâre the guys you reference, as a SCtheorist, as a supposed Nietzschean, and the one that anyone with a shred of philosophical dignity references (i.e., Plato). The only main philosopher who distinguishes them is fucking KANT!!! (The person you claim is an idiot!! How do you like him now!?).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA⌠AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
BAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Ahem. Sometimes ILP makes me insane.
Ring the gong maestro.
Prudent means prudent. I use fucking English, and itâs a simple word that doesnât need to be twisted by you.
phyllo, what says you in the peanut gallery?
I am a river.
If you look in a dictionary, you will find a significant difference in the meanings of the words âprudentâ and âmoralâ. Itâs easy to think of actions where prudence and morality are not aligned. Itâs also easy to think of prudent actions which do not even raise the issue of morality.
You should try it. Itâs lots of fun.
Ruh-roh.
phyllo,
You are eating peanuts on the shit end of a sinking dingy going nowhere. I am making it rain. Faust is rethinking Kant and prepping your life-preservers. I am captaining a comfortable ship cruising past. Hereâs a wave. The rivers going where I want, because I am the river.
Go ahead, holler at your last two friends, Merriam and Webster. They canât hear you, and if they could, theyâd tell you youâre wrong.
Kind regards,
Mo
Would you also say thereâs no difference between your neck and your head?
Mo,
Of course you are comfortable, youâre out of touch with reality. You have redefined the meanings of words until they no longer match common usage. Your definitions are either outright wrong or just trivial. Itâs impossible to have a discussion with you because you are using a different language than everyone else on this forum.
You are all wet.
Trivial is the word, phyllo. According to Moâs thesis, every decision is a moral decision. Firstly, no one would live that way. Second, it robs meaning from morality. Which finger shall i pick my nose with? Well, if someone can say âYou ought to use the most effective one,â then I guess, since they used the word âoughtâ, it must be a moral decision.
What stooges.
You have no idea what the fucking difference is, and if you did, you would have straightforwardly said what it is by now.
YOU HAVENâT.
My view is clear. Itâs the tradition in philosophy. Since Plato, Nietzsche, Hobbes, and others. You anon, phyllo, Faust, do not have a fucking clue what you mean by âmoralâ. You use it in a meaningless way. An empty term. Thatâs because youâre following the hard left the tradition took after Kant, and you donât even realize it. Kant thought that prudence was your empirical/phenomenal self-interest. But you were also a noumenal being. Problem is, nothing in the noumenal realm can be known. And neither can your use of the term âmoralâ. So much the worse for you. I use fucking English, ORDINARY ENGLISH.
Itâs a shame that you have nothing but insults to offer----and if they came after anything that wasnât utterly ignorant, I would be insulted.
Typical iambiguous ploy. âSo abortion is sometimes ok, and sometimes not!!! What!!!â. Red herring. Itâs like asking me to explain the game of baseball and then being dissatisfied because I didnât tell you how they make the bats. Wake up. If you want an answer, then create a threadâŚ
I can only allow those following this exchange to judge for themselves the extent to which Mo has accurately conveyed, oh, never mindâŚ
prudent - 1. capable of exercising sound judgement in practical matters, especially as concerns oneâs own interests
(from the Latin âprudensâ, to fore-see)
moral - 1. relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct
(from the Latin âmoralisâ, of manners or customs used by Cicero as translation of the Greek âethikosâ)
Morality deals with relationships with other people. Prudence exists without these relationships but may be also be applied to relationships.
It may be prudent to cooperate with a psychotic killer although it involves doing something immoral.
Alone on a deserted island, prudence still exists but morality does not. It is prudent to build a shelter, but there is no morality associated with such an action. Same with brushing your teeth.
Hope this helps.
Or, to paraphrase Lewis Carroll:
âI donât know what you mean by âmorality,â â Iambiguous said.
Mo smiled contemptuously. âOf course you donâtâtill I tell you."
âBut how do square objectivity here with William Barrett's conjecture that value judgments often revolve around conflicting -- but eminently reasonable -- points of view?" Iambiguous objected.
âWhen I use words,â Mo said, in rather a scornful tone, âthey mean just what I choose them to meanâneither more nor less.â
"But what if they mean something different to me?" Iambiguous protested.
"Then you are wrong!", trumpeted Mo.
prudent - 1. capable of exercising sound judgement in practical matters, especially as concerns oneâs own interests
(from the Latin âprudensâ, to fore-see)
moral - 1. relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct
(from the Latin âmoralisâ, of manners or customs used by Cicero as translation of the Greek âethikosâ)
Thereâs no difference here. âRight and wrong in conductâ = âsound judgment in practical mattersâ.
Morality deals with relationships with other people.
What? Are you claiming thatâs all there is to it? If so, you are dead wrong. What moral theory are you talking about? Is it virtue theory? âbecause then obviously youâre wrong. Is it consequentialism? âbecause if so, youâre wrong again. Is it Kantianism? âbecause there youâd be wrong too. Those are the three main moral theories in the history of philosophy. Which one do you want to be wrong about?
It may be prudent to cooperate with a psychotic killer although it involves doing something immoral.
It is not prudent to do something immoral because a psychotic killer said to. What a ridiculous and indefensible example.
Alone on a deserted island, prudence still exists but morality does not.
Utterly false. You ought to build a shelter. You ought to take care of yourself. You ought to care for your health. Thatâs all there is to say about it. Thereâs no sense in applying your non-existent distinction.
On the other hand, Moâs point here is not unreasonable. You can clearly see the direction in which he is going in melding the meaning of the word moral with the meaning of the word prudential.
Still, it is âout in the worldâ when you are forced to apply the meaning you assign to these words to particular behaviors that you are only able to garner a greater or a lesser consensus.
Mo merely insist if you are not on his side of the lines being drawn then you are wrong.
By definition, in other words.
His own.
Always.