then you're referring to a different sense of principle than I am

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

yes, but theres no reliable way to determine "what could have been"

so, even if there was a perfect hierarchy, we arent privy to it

(which would mean we cant really be principled because of limited perceptions)

(if we were egoists, that is)

Or, from an empirical consequentialist perspective, it means that we should allow people to try different principles, and see what happens

yea, we should do that too

if it turns out that being principled leads to better results than critical thinking

then we should be principled

actually, i argue this is true for most people

people are pretty bad at making these evaluations

I don't disagree with that point

(at least on the big decisions in their lives)

that's probably one of the functions of religious institutions

yes

i mean, its also part of why we have the law

true

so yea, there's definitely a large place for deontological thinking. i just think if you're a particularly smart person, you're losing out by following it

(deontology doesnt catch out the edge cases)

so if you can get those edge cases right, and others cant, you have an advantage over them

heh, depends on the cost of figuring out those edge cases vs the benefit of solving them