Nitpicky? Hell yes.
Started by Inevitable Droid, November 21, 2010, 02:21:39 PM
Quote from: "penfold"Well I have a number of problems with your scheme.
Quote1. Sanity is not itself absolute. Rather it is a measure of conformity.
Quote2. You've radically limited the scope of morality. The implicit claim you are making is that so long as behavior 'fits' with social norms it can be considered moral.
QuoteBut what about an affair? It does not breach any of your categories, it is neither insane, nor incompetent, and, while some may frown on it, for the most part our social norms accept such behavior.
QuoteIt seems to me your system makes for a bad litmus test, unable to distinguish right from wrong at anything but the most severe levels. Most moral decisions in my life have involved choices which are all sane, competent and socially acceptable; none the less I feel their moral weight.
Quote3. Most importantly you at no point talk of the individual and their motivations. I understand that you are arguing against moral realism (though I meet fewer and fewer proponents of that these days) but your account is entirely behaviorist.
QuoteBy your model the sociopath can be a moral person
QuoteIt has always seemed blindingly obvious to me that morality is about people not merely their behavior. Any account of morality which does not deal with issues of knowledge, intention, negligence, recklessness, culpability, guilt etc... are incomplete.
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Is there a way to deal with such things objectively?
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"...an artifact of one individual alone, could never in any sense be objective, for the directives would have to come from the individual, and thus could never be objective facts for that individual, but merely commitments, which are subjective.