|
I might respond more later, but I want to share a very pertinent quote that had an impact on me when I was going through the same situation you seem to be now. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -Richard P. Feynman At a certain point, its important to step back from your theory, stop trying to improve it, and take a long hard look at it, and then ask yourself "Does this reflect the reality of the situation?" Improving your model, by virtue solely of making it more consistent and more stable, is not worth anything if it moves you further from the truth of the situation - its psychologically rewarding, sure, but you need to stop and think about what the purpose of it is. I am assuming you are young, and have had pretty limited experiences in lots of ways, but that you are still open to change. Everyone should be, no matter how old they are, but being young does make it a bit more likely.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
absolem posted:I just read "Surely you must be joking" again. Feynman is one of my favorite people. It seems that my theory lines up fine with "dah real wurld" It's good to hear. Hopefully, though, you will humour me for a little bit, then. I would argue there are two important pillars that any good moral theory must rest on: The Personal and The Practical. If you disagree, feel free to let me know, and to propose counter points as to what makes a moral theory worthwhile, but I think these points are fairly uncontentious. For the first part, The Personal, it's a question about purpose. It's important to understand that morality is prescriptive, not descriptive - it's a theory of engineering rather than one of natural science. And as such, it comes down to the ultimate engineers dilemma - "Am the thing I making actually the thing I want?" So look at what you've written, and do your best to imagine a world where those principles were widely adopted. Find sources where those ideals have been at least partially implement. Think of edge cases and complexities that might arise, and then decide "Is this the world I would most want to live in?" Expect to have at least your top choices here dealt a fatal blow by the next bit. The second part, The Practical, is all about dealing with the fact that real people are not going to adopt your philosophy wholesale. They will have different values, and different priorities, and you still need to live with them. They are imperfect, and act in the heat of the moment. They have human needs. The real world is seldom as simple as the idealized ones, and a philosophy that cannot thrive, or which is prone to corruption (like communism brought about by a large-scale workers revolt) is one that is inherently flawed, and lacks this pillar. Imagine your ideal world, and then imagine what it was like if 10% of the population planned on doing everything they could to abuse, pervert, and bypass your ideology for their own benefit. Would your world survive? Is your moral philosophy robust? Can you convince people to adopt it? The Practical ultimately leads to compromise. Compromise with the real world and with other people. You sacrifice a bit of your ideals in the hopes that you can create a cohesive morality that people will actually be willing to uphold. The morality of pacifism makes compromises for self-defense. The morality of non-aggression makes compromises by allowing aggression, but only in response... or it goes a step further, and allows it as prevention. But compromises can lead to abuses of their own. Many a good theory of morality falls apart in the details. And without both of these pillars, any theory of morality is worthless. It's a model that does not, and can not, reflect the real world. It's important to note, however, that the second concern is always changing - practicality is at least partially a byproduct of culture, and culture changes. To me, your philosophy fails on both counts - The world it would lead to is not a world I would especially want to live in, especially when you consider the practical ramifications that many people in that world wouldn't give a poo poo about said morality. And the practical bit... well, let's just say there are a lot of flaws relating to implementing such a philosophy in reality in still ending up with a world that isn't utter crap. The sort of compromises Libertarian philosophy leads to are often the kind that completely destroy any appeal the ideal world may have had, while also leading to steady corruption over time of any ideals the philosophy ever had.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Shibby0709 posted:Read Rawls. Many of the people in this forum and many academics agree with the system of ethics he lays out. It's not a priori, and makes no claim to be, but at least the applications of it seem to make basic sense. Thanks for the recommendations, actually! I've been looking for some things to add to my reading list.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So do all anarchists think that coercion is never moral or ethical? Or is that just my ~statist~ misunderstanding? It's a bit of a weird point. He argued it is never justifiable, but then went on, later, to list a number of situations where it was perfectly justifiable. Of course, he said those situations weren't coercion, but he seems to be using the word to mean whatever he wants to mean at the moment, so for the purpose of normal-speak it boils down to "things that are never more or ethical are never moral or ethical unless I think they are."
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 13:50
|
|