Message from @Green Syndicalism
Discord ID: 612932383767003146
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
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
definitely