Message from @RamblingPhoton
Discord ID: 612926280655962112
a christian would value consequences differently to me
I went and made a pizza and you're still going damn
Would it be fair to say that if you were operating in a purely consequentialist model, that the ranking in preference of consequences would be a set of principles? For example, killing someone would be a worse consequence than property damage
you could certainly approximate "principles"
but you dont have to treat them as principles
Jesus fucking Christ, I spend 8 hours away and this place Hiroshimas...
like killing a dictator could be a great thing
just because in general killing has bad consequences, doesnt mean it should be treated as a principle in a hierarchy that isnt to be violated
if you say, "well killing bad people would just form another part of the set of principles," this is when your principles become way too convoluted to set out
i personally am an ethical egoist, so i think i should only do things which are in my self interest. its my only principle, and from this principle i can derive what behaviours i should implement, and these are fluid over time and space
so am i principled? not in the deontological sense
all moral theories start with a premise
but deontological theory has not just an original premise, it also has a code of conduct (duties/principles), which lists out your behavioural imperatives in advance of consequences. egoism doesn't have this addendum
So I would still consider those to be principles, not just an approximation thereof.
the issue is they're fluid
they change on a whim
so its the opposite of a principle
determing what is in your self interest is an evaluative process
Self interest is your principle. Still a principle.
but its not a principle in the *sense that i was referring to*
you're right in that its technically a principle
but i was referring to post-moral principles
which are "principles that come *after* you've defined your morality"
(you require an original principle to define *any* moral theory)
brb
Could it be that the 'putting principle over consequences' that you were talking about earlier is just a different ranking order of the consequences in question? It doesn't seem to require post-moral principles to me
not to answer for him but as an assumption I think you can do both. Make moral claims without thinking about them, and putting them over their consequences
Sure, you can do that and make those claims. But you can also defend the same action from a consequentialist perspective, and those are different frameworks
*it could be*, but the problem is you get an infinitely complex ethical code of conduct
(which wouldnt make too much sense to draw up in advance)
but also, as an evaluative entity, your preferences change with each split second
so one ordering a few seconds ago, could now be completely different
whereas a deontologist would say "nope, my principles are still the same as before"
Green if you have a second I would like your opinion on this <#266396659062145025> Do you think if this was added to the constitution it would stop the abortion argument because the law would be specifically against women or do you think the arg would be 'men and women cannot do it' which I think is probably bad faith
i think they would take the latter, because it suits their religious biases
but also, technically, in the age of transhumanism, who knows right
<:PepeLaugh:565528391336329216>
I hope it happens soon
I want my anime existance
Just because we are imperfect evaluative entities doesn't mean that which we are evaluating can't be a ground truth. It is possible to change evaluations of a given action without changing the ranking of the different consequences