wanderer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#21
Report 13 years ago
#21
Yup - this is just the free will problem.
0
reply
Calvin
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#22
Report 13 years ago
#22
(Original post by TCovenant)
It might be more accurate to view "moral luck" as more a new piece of terminology than a radical new paradigm of thought. That said, the new category does to some extent mark a significant new way of looking at the issue.
...
Given that I think that there isn't any significant debate outside of a deterministic logic, the 'Moral Luck" paradigm is an insignificant philosophical development in my view. That said, it does represent a new area of debate, even if, in my view, the logical conclusion is absolute determinism in any case.
I'm going to pretend I understand what "significant debate outside of a deterministic logic" means - ok I see what he's saying - the impression I got was the moral luck was just being used as a catch word to do with what psychological dispositions one had, if it's being broadened to include external circumstances to that seems worthy of additional mention
0
reply
wanderer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#23
Report 13 years ago
#23
(Original post by Calvin)
I'm going to pretend I understand what "significant debate outside of a deterministic logic" means - ok I see what he's saying - the impression I got was the moral luck was just being used as a catch word to do with what psychological dispositions one had, if it's being broadened to include external circumstances to that seems worthy of additional mention
It just means that all useful discussion assumes determinism, which I'd have thought would be a reasonably common viewpoint - I pretty much agree, anyway.
0
reply
allymcb2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#24
Report 13 years ago
#24
(Original post by Phonicsdude)
A wise woman, quoting God Himself, once said, "Pragmatism not idealism".
(/QUOTE)
Pragmatism is simply human failure to achieve idealism
(QUOTE)
We have no choice about the genes we are given. Nor do we have a choice about who are parents are. Two enormous influences on who we are and our moral inclinations are beyond our control. We then have several decisions to make. Do we want to behave morally as often as possible? The answer to this will almost certainly be 'yes'.
We can then make numerous choices which will impact upon our chances of behaving morality. Who our are friends going to be? How much effort are we going to invest into behaving morally (for we are all guilty of complacency: I could write my essay which will be a sound investment in my future or I could procrastinate on TSR replying to threads on philosophy)?

Nevertheless, if we say that we would like to behave morally as often as possible then how can we not assume responsability for our actions?

Good thread. More thought required.

After I've written this essay, bien sur.
You are forgetting that morality is not objective. A serial killer may well believe he is acting morally if he is killing other serial killers, or people who do not follow his religion etc...

What I am asserting is that whether or not it is possible to hold people responsible for their actions depends on your definition of the related nouns and pronouns.
0
reply
TCovenant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 13 years ago
#25
A serial killer may well believe he is acting morally if he is killing other serial killers, or people who do not follow his religion etc...
That may be so, nevertheless, the fact that some agents hold conflicting moral views, or are moral nihilists, does not necessitate that objective morality does not exist.
0
reply
Phonicsdude
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 13 years ago
#26
(Original post by allymcb2)
You are forgetting that morality is not objective. A serial killer may well believe he is acting morally if he is killing other serial killers, or people who do not follow his religion etc...

What I am asserting is that whether or not it is possible to hold people responsible for their actions depends on your definition of the related nouns and pronouns.
We are the ones who decide whether we want to behave as morally as we can be bothered to.
We are the ones who will judge are own actions.
If our set of morals are attacked by someone else then we are prepared to justify our actions.

This seems to be taking the thread off topic.
0
reply
wanderer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#27
Report 13 years ago
#27
(Original post by TCovenant)
That may be so, nevertheless, the fact that some agents hold conflicting moral views, or are moral nihilists, does not necessitate that objective morality does not exist.
No, but its considerable evidence against it, even ignoring the weakness of the concept.
0
reply
TCovenant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 13 years ago
#28
its considerable evidence against it, even ignoring the weakness of the concept.
No it isn't, its not even evidence against it in any sense, let alone evidence of any significance.
0
reply
wave_o_mutilation
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 13 years ago
#29
i used to think that, but it's determinist and therefore pretty unempowering. i gave up on that kind of philosphy because it doesn't actually help your life in anyway, it's just another way of avoiding resposibility for your self.

The existentialist view is that we are free, despite the circumstances we may have been born in and that we should take responsibilty for EVERYTHING, for if i am not happy with my situation or that of the world, it is my responsibilty to change it. not to lay blame or look for excuses.

sorry if any of this has been already said, i havent read all the post yet.
0
reply
TCovenant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 13 years ago
#30
it's determinist and therefore pretty unempowering
Whether it is unempowering is of course quite aside from the question of whether it is true, not accepting a thesis solely because it isn't empowering would simply be self-deception. In any case I do not believe that determinism precludes 'empowerment.' It does not lead to quietism or inaction.

Accepting the thesis of determinism is a philosophy of fact and reality, and as it isn't normative doesn't immediately follow into "improving your life," nevertheless I would maintain that it certainly doesn't hinder living your life or ‘being-in-the-world.’ Rather I would argue that acknowledging determinism is likely to be of aid to life. Positing that human action is non-deterministic precludes the possibility of logical, rigorous analysis, as this would necessarily hinge upon an observation of cause and effect.

Accepting that one is determined does not preclude the possibility of acknowledging ‘responsibility for one’s self’ as the (determined) nature of the individual is still the determinant factor in their action. Criticism of determinism because it renders ultimate responsibility for oneself (some-one cannot cause themselves from a perspective outside of themselves) is a vapid argument, and one that applies equally to existentialism. Normative judgements of action are in my view, entirely separate from the judgement of the ‘moral status’ of the individual, necessarily, as the latter is impossible.

For some-one to act in a certain manner, they need only to be physically free to do so, grounding morality or any other ‘science of action’ in the belief in a metaphysically free acting-being is unnecessary and unhelpful, as the concept is clearly incoherent.

In short, a refutation of determinism is both doomed to failure and unnecessary in order to regain the ethos: ‘if i am not happy with my situation or that of the world … [I ought] to change it. not to lay blame or look for excuses.’
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (10)
21.28%
My career doesn't need one (5)
10.64%
I'm sick of studying (10)
21.28%
I can't find a course I want to do (1)
2.13%
I don't know enough about them (4)
8.51%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (17)
36.17%

Watched Threads

View All