How come we can agree that the number 2 comes after the number 1 and b comes after a, but we can’t agree on something like God or the death penalty?
One group is a defined convention.
The other is an application.
What’s the difference, though. Can’t an application be a defined convention?
No.
There is no ‘result’ of 2 following 1 until we apply it, as in 1+1=2.
There is a very direct result of the Death Penalty. Its existence is an action.
Yeah, I don’t see it. Maybe, another example will help.
We can agree and apply to go on green and stop on red. Why can’t we do that for the death penalty?
Ironic example, since I am red/green colourblind.
But, we stop at red because it is normatively agreed upon. If we had decided to stop at green and go at red, there would be no fundamental change to the system. There is nothing inherent in ‘green’ that says ‘go’ and nothing inherent in ‘red’ that says ‘stop’. Only convention serves to guide us here. Independent of the colour used is the notion of going and stopping.
The death penalty is more in line with the going and stopping part of the equation, since the death penalty is the action rather than the convention. The convention would be based in the moral/justice system of the society where that occurs.
Right, I guess what I am saying is there anything to stop us from all believing in God and us all agreeing on the death penalty like we do with red and green lights and if that’s the case is it then possible for us all to agree on everything?
There have been periods where authorities have managed to sufficiently solidify their power that such things have occured.
But the notion of the individual capable of thought, individual rights, ect. serves as a spoiler on this. Modern people are relatively unwilling to submit themselves to a moral authority.
Take this question on, could there be anything right now, that we all agree on and accept, like stopping or going at a light, that in the future we’ll say, wow, that was horrible of us to think is acceptable?
Something EVERYONE agrees to?
Given that even those situations where we can look back and presume that ‘everyone’ believed such a thing, there is no certainty in those predictions.
Likewise, the premises of morality are very fluid, as there is no real ‘end goal’ that we can all recongize.
If I decided that 1+1=3 while keeping the normal counting order of 1, 2, 3, ect. I would be in for a world of hurt if I tried to build a house.
Yet virtue ethicists, deontologists, utilitarians, ect. can all sit around and argue about how ethics ought be structured while eventually agreeing on certain normative rules. At the same time, Marxists and Epicurians (both utilitarians) can have radically different goals in their persuit.
So, I doubt it.
Then you are saying every moral conundrum that could ever be has been.
I disagree.
But then again, I’m a virtue ethicist, so I think that every moral conundrum ought be dealt with on an individual case-by-case basis.
But given that even now there are people who argue in favour of things like segregation or that particularly vile institution of slavery, I think that we have unresolved issues at the present time that I think, if the situation were resolvable, would be resolved.
Given that, and a periodic view of history, while new moral problems will arise, I do not think that they will be different in kind from those we have already encountered.
So then, every conundrum has come up. New ones will come, but they won’t be different than ones we’ve seen.
Define ‘different’ and ‘new’.
Is the abortion debate different from the exposure debate? Clearly. Do they encompass the same themes? I certainly think so.
Hard and fast answers don’t exist, but knowing the general themes that one encounters in morality, a properly trained individual ought be able to react correctly to any new situation.
Exactly the way you are defining them.
No new themes will arise. New scenarios will exist that are examples of the theme.
That is pretty much my stance, yes.
That’s interesting. Very mathematical.
Is that the stance of a virtue ethicist by definition or an extension of the core beliefs of virtue ethicis?
Just my stance. Can’t speak for anyone else.
But given my rejection of teleology, a circular notion of history seems to make the most sense. But how to incorporate progress into that? Hence a periodic notion of history.
As for virtue ethics, since virtue ethics focuses on the agent rather than the act/consequence, the whole idea is to create a free-form system that can respond to anything. I think most people can agree that laws break down at a certain point, so they are clearly insufficient as moral guidelines. Likewise, trying to create the best world possible while thinking that the ends justify the means has a terrible track record. Especially because the success of the various ends is so wildly unpredictable.
So, in my opinion, it is better to focus on the agent. My view that things can be related by kind or by theme even if different in subject only strengthens this conviction.
You’re talking about a system of gov’t?
I’m just talking about normative ethics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
There are three (broad) categories for normative ethics.
-
Consequentialism. Which end you are shooting for varies within this group, but the focus remains firmly on the end, the result of one’s action.
-
Deontological. This one deals with the act itself, so certain types of actions are proscribed whereas others are encouraged.
-
Virtue. What sort of person is doing the action. This is the only pre-emptive one, where the individual is shaped soas not to perform ‘bad’ actions.