Seeking definition of : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Seeking definition of » Seeking definition of

Seeking definition of
How to define "benefit" with regard to ethical attitudes without paradox.

Page: 1 2

Seeking definition of

jambaugh
Philosophizer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 20, 2009
Location: Georgia

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 26

Posted 11/06/09 - 03:10 PM:	#11
Kant Chocula wrote: Based on this, I am going to reiterate my recommendation that you read Allan Gibbard's Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment, Harvard University Press, 1990. Coming from a non-cognitivist position, he creates a plausible value system and then explains how this system can be analyzed in order to judge, know and predict normative sentences. I would think that your "means to act or power" is moral agency (as it applies to the various acting bodies). I will try to elaborate Gibbard's main arguments. I am going to assume that your 2nd quality is moral agency (without which we may as well be talking about LGM's). Your 1st quality would be described in terms of a factual-normative world (<w,n>). A <w,n> is a complete possible world in which there is a complete and consistent normative system (i.e. the world is the complete set of facts and every act is required, permitted or prohibited). The parallel to your 3rd quality requires Gibbard to tweak the definition of validity. He defines validity as every <w,n> where premises hold is a <w,n> where the conclusions hold. The rules of a <w,n> are constructed from the complete and consistent set of norms for the given <w,n>. The fact of a given <w,n> may be "murder is forbidden" and the corresponding norm would be "murder is wrong." For any given fact one can attach the corresponding norm, e.g. if P = "murder is forbidden" then "P_n-forbidden." In this manner predictions, knowledge and judgments can be made with certainty given sufficient facts. I am not presenting this in order to suggest you borrow Gibbard's position. I am offering it as an example you might find of use to your own model. If what I have offered piques your interest, I have chapters 1 and 5 in pdf if you would like to preview his much more robust explanation. Thanks for the references and yes I'd like to see more if you don't mind uploading and messaging me a link. Thanks. I don't want to get caught up in some of the issues with deontic logic. As far as I'm concerned each individual has their own world view and inductive reasoning which needn't be consistent. My aim eventually is to try to evoke some of the language of quantum theory (relativized logic) to construct models for ensemble behavior with random "ethical" qualities. For now I'm just playing with qualitative classifications looking for symmetries and categories. Here is where I am a bit confused. I do not understand why you are shifting to harm/benefit language from ethics language. Unless you are defining moral attitudes in terms of harm/benefit I see no reason to bring the terms into play. All ethics is designed around choices and the only applicable ethic is that of the individual making the choice. Ethics is the weighing factor we place on choices. Some less dramatic (should I wear a tie) but always in the end they are motivated by prime emotions which reflect self love/hate and other love/hate which are seeking harm or benefit to self or other. It seemed pretty clear-cut initially and as is typical, upon closer examination things are not so cut an dried. Before I make dramatic simplifying assumptions it is good to have an idea what is getting excised in the process. [/quote]I had originally suggested Gibbard's book because he posited that moral attitudes are adaptive syndromes (which implies that moral attitudes are evolutionarily beneficial). [/tex] Are you cashing out benefit as that which aids the value system, will and reasoning? If so, what does it mean to aid any of the three qualities?[/quote] You may aid someone's reasoning by simply informing them of facts not in their possession... or harm it by deceiving them. You may empower an individual by giving them tools or dis-empower them similarly by damaging them or their tools. [/quote] I fully understand the implications of harm on any of the three qualities. Perhaps it would be easier to consider coming at this problem in terms of that which causes the least amount of harm rather than providing the greatest amount of benefit.[/quote] Before making comparisons and optimizing judgments one need to classify and seek a means to quantify. Quantification is most difficult. Sometimes we can compare especially benefit/harm of a given type. But how much pain is knowledge worth? How much ignorance is power worth? Not really comeasurables so I can at best define quantum prioritizations and maybe guess at statistical behavior. Still fleshing it out for now. Won't know what I want to do until I see what I have to work with. Cuthbert wrote: Does that perhaps not leave room for weakness of will? E.g. I think smoking is a dumb choice (value system), and I could give up if I wanted (means to act), and I think it's bad for my long term health (ability to predict). But I smoke anyway. That's because I'm weak-willed and give into my desires against my better judgement. I have considered it. From a third party point of view also, temptation, moral corruption, inducing despair and fear... Gotta Run or I'd leave a more detailed reply. Back later.
James "Hmmmm.... toughy!" --Deep Thought (from the Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy)

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.