My opinion > your opinion.

[trix]

Dear trix,

You are stupid and therefore your opinion is automatically irrelevant. Have a pleasant week.

Will do, thanks! 

[Freeky]

That was a really stupid, and I'm saying this knowing it was you that said it, REALLY STUPID example, no matter what point you were trying to get at.


Do not reply to my post, I just wanted you to know how disgusted I am that you are okay with trying to justify some dude putting a beat-down on a little girl, hypothetical or not.

[Epimetheus]

Opinions are subjective.
Crimes of passion are, by definition, not justified or thought out like you implied.
A discussion of moral philosophy? Is that what you want?

Also I like Nigel's and BadBeast's posts

[trix]

That was a really stupid, and I'm saying this knowing it was you that said it, REALLY STUPID example, no matter what point you were trying to get at.


Do not reply to my post, I just wanted you to know how disgusted I am that you are okay with trying to justify some dude putting a beat-down on a little girl, hypothetical or not.

  i c wut u did ther

but but, don't you get it?  IM the little girl, being hurt by the big bad man.  Wont you protect me?

[trix]

Opinions are subjective.
Crimes of passion are, by definition, not justified or thought out like you implied.
A discussion of moral philosophy? Is that what you want?

Also I like Nigel's and BadBeast's posts

I suppose that is what I want.  What about on a bigger scale?  This conversation with my roommate derived from arguments of culture.  When is it okay for one society or community to impose their opinion or definition of self-righteousness upon another?  How much pressure is okay and for how much of an ethic breach?

On one side, most here probably agree that invading china because they censor the internet is a bad idea.  Except possibly Dok.  His opinion on things is rather unpredictable.

On the other, if a small nation were practicing ritual sacrifice is it okay to pressure them?  Economic pressure, bad press, flipping them off, dropping the big one, how far is okay?

Obviously solid definitions aren't going to happen, but what kind of yard (or meter for you other people) stick do different people use?

[Scribbly]

I don't have an opinion.  WE have an opinion.  And it is superior...Not because we are more talented, or generally cleverer than fuck, but because we're RIGHT and they're WRONG, and that's really all there is to it.

Who is this we?  The royal we?  Discordians?  Doktors?  Bipeds?

Whoever considers it wrong if grown men get away with kicking little girls.

yes it's a bit circular, but that's really how it works.

check a serious Philosophy Ethics class if you ever get the chance. You're in uni IIRC, I was too and even though I studied Computer Science, I'm really glad I took the chance to take that class on Ethics. I also took another one about general overview of philosophy, which was interesting, but nowhere near as useful as the one on Ethics.

thing is, your questions about what opinions on what is right and what is wrong, there are many different answers to. Kantianism, utilitarianism, "because God says so", "because I say so", "because it is virtuous", etc etc.

Funny thing is how nearly all of them come to the same conclusion on the matter of kicking little girls.

The other funny thing is how they're all wrong, if you really get into the details of it. This is an important lesson in Ethics because it allows you to avoid that sort of discussion, if possible.

IMO utilitarianism and virtue ethics are the best ones. But the former requires too much self-sacrifice because it inevitably makes you the sucker in a world where most other people don't play utilitarian, and the latter is kinda subjective and not very well defined.

Now that's about questions whether opinions on "right and wrong" are more important than others.


In the general case, however, opinions on other matters than whether something is right or wrong, some opinions are strictly better than others. I refer you to the Barstool Experiment.

Trip's post is pretty damn good, really.

However, I will say that I do not believe that utilitarianism is a viable moral philosophy. If you want to discuss this, then lets discuss it without hypothetical examples; examples are good for some things, but in morality and ethics, they muddy the water awfully. You want to discuss laws of action. That's fine, you'll find a million and one different ways to proceed, but the first step is to lay out a logical grounding for your position. There are always edge cases, and those need to be debated and considered on their individual merit. But although you can spend a lot of time pondering specifics, it isn't useful. The most useful thing that can come out of ethics is to codify a set of principles for yourself which you then take forward. (As most people are surprisingly willing to violate their principles, however, this is only arguably useful at all.)

Mine is pretty simple. I believe that you can define what is right and wrong on an individual level by considering whether you would be okay with the action being carried out on you. The key consideration here is to take into account the preferences of all individuals involved. On the simplest basis, then, if everyone involved is able to consent and consents to it, it is fine. The fuzzy areas in individual actions are largely parenting (where children cannot consent due to their age and the unformed basis of their sense of self) and the mentally and physically handicapped (where the limitations are fairly obvious).

I do not believe, on an individual level, that it is necessary to consider anything else. Individual ethical actions are a very personal thing, and come down to the principles that individuals hold most important. Trying to codify them rapidly becomes a horrible mess, so it is best to place the right of the individual to think for themselves and have the agency to carry out their preferences above other concerns, such as the 'rights of the many' or the fostering of particular ethical precepts. Utilitarianism naturally calls out to a broader social context, which I do not believe works in individual relations, and can fall down as Trip says when it comes to asking people to make sacrifices. Virtue ethics relies on a codified set of principles which will never be agreed on by all people.

There are problems with scaling this up from individuals to societies. For the rules governing societies, I turn to John Rawls, and particularly his first text 'A Theory of Justice'. There is no reason why the rules governing individual relations should be the same as rules governing societies. Societies need to proceed from a basis of a social contract, which allows individuals to live together pursuing their own lives with minimal interference, whilst ensuring that the right of those individuals to pursue their own lives is not infringed by the pursuits of their fellows. If you are genuinely interested in the subject, I consider Rawls' work to be pretty much the best there is. I spent a good year reading other social texts and comparing/contrasting to his. The theory isn't perfect, because no theories are, and implementing all of his suggestions in practice is likely impossible. But from a theoretical basis, it is a lot more practical than most and provides a clear and compelling argument. Obviously, IMO.

[Triple Zero]

However, I will say that I do not believe that utilitarianism is a viable moral philosophy. If you want to discuss this--

I believe I was pretty explicit about that I did not

Mine is pretty simple. I believe that you can define what is right and wrong on an individual level by considering whether you would be okay with the action being carried out on you.

That sounds a lot like the Categorical Imperative, aka Kantianism.

And where utilitarianism has examples where it is merely "not viable", the Categorical Imperative, "do unto others ..", has many situations in which I, personally, believe it is plain wrong to refrain from a certain action just because I wouldn't be okay with it being carried out on me. A bit of the "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the sort of person I preach to" kind of thing.

Virtue ethics relies on a codified set of principles which will never be agreed on by all people.

I don't see the problem with that, actually.

For example:

People are going do things that are wrong, otherwise what's the point of distinguishing right from wrong? Some of those people will believe they are in the right. Except they are wrong. So you smash their skulls in because that's the virtuous thing to do. Except when they are little girls, because that would be wrong.

It is really not that complex.

[Scribbly]

Err, sorry Trip, the discuss comment was aimed at Trix. I could have been more clear there. 

[Placid Dingo]

I found the moral ideas of Camus useful; there are no moral absolutes, just measurable consequences. The consequence of allowing the girl to get beat down is, well, she gets beaten down. So it would be ratiOnal to prevent the man.

[Doktor Howl]

On one side, most here probably agree that invading china because they censor the internet is a bad idea.  Except possibly Dok.  His opinion on things is rather unpredictable.

No, it's very predictable.  China is China's problem.  And we can hardly bitch that THEY censor information, can we? 

[Phox]

Trix, I've totally figured out what's wrong with you. It makes so much sense now. You're Canadian, aren't you?

[Doktor Howl]

Trix, I've totally figured out what's wrong with you. It makes so much sense now. You're Canadian, aren't you?

He's close enough.  Canada bleeds down into the Northern states, which explains Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington.

Hell, upstate New York is just a piece of Ontario that broke off and got some poo on it.

I don't think we can blame them for the Dakotas, though.

[Phox]

Trix, I've totally figured out what's wrong with you. It makes so much sense now. You're Canadian, aren't you?

He's close enough.  Canada bleeds down into the Northern states, which explains Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington.

Hell, upstate New York is just a piece of Ontario that broke off and got some poo on it.

I don't think we can blame them for the Dakotas, though.

That makes perfect sense. Canadian bastard infecting PD with Canada germs and whatnot. 

ETA: Well, at least he's not Welsh....

[Doktor Howl]

Trix, I've totally figured out what's wrong with you. It makes so much sense now. You're Canadian, aren't you?

He's close enough.  Canada bleeds down into the Northern states, which explains Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington.

Hell, upstate New York is just a piece of Ontario that broke off and got some poo on it.

I don't think we can blame them for the Dakotas, though.

That makes perfect sense. Canadian bastard infecting PD with Canada germs and whatnot. 

ETA: Well, at least he's not Welsh....

As far as you know.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What I don't understand is why he feels the need to bring his second-year philosophical wankery here. He's IN COLLEGE, isn't he? Aren't there a bunch of other naive gits there who haven't had this discussion ten thousand times that he could be boring with his pointless sophomoric rehash, and might therefore actually find it interesting?