For moral relativists

[DougShrapnel]

Pvn, I believe that there are certain advantages of a moral system that is quick at the cost of consistency. Not that I employ that strategy, but I'm not sure consistency is a clear favorite. A wrong action is often better than no action. Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn, I believe that there are certain advantages of a moral system that is quick at the cost of consistency. Not that I employ that strategy, but I'm not sure consistency is a clear favorite. A wrong action is often better than no action. Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give an example?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pvn, I believe that there are certain advantages of a moral system that is quick at the cost of consistency. Not that I employ that strategy, but I'm not sure consistency is a clear favorite. A wrong action is often better than no action. Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give an example?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, yet I think that it might change the discussion away from the main point, and on to specific logical issues with the example. A vast majority of people decide what morally is right vs what is wrong based of how they feel about it regardless of consistency issues. There is always an attempt to rationalize away the consistency issues when they are brought up. However most often these attempts are nothing more than making up stories ex post facto.

When discussions of good and bad arise, I must ask to who or what is something good for. Consistency, to whom or what is consistency good for? Does consistency provide enough benefit to out weigh the time that needs to be spent to figure out a consistent system. That question might depend on if a moral system can encompass all situations simply. I would say no, there are to many different situation that don't easily fit into any system. And in doing so you may miss some of the breadth and deep of life's experiences. The benefits of a consistent system may not overcome the time investment of working it out.

I might continue with possible benefits of a consistent system and show that the actual benefit over a system, that isn't necessarily consistent, may not be enough. Instead I will just ask to whom is the benefit or for what benefit does having consistent morals actualize? I realize that I might sound silly here, and that the benefits of a consistent system should be obvious. And the benefits of a system with consistency as it's goal is obviously better then a system with inconsistency as it's goal. But I'm trying to see why a consistency based system, wins out over an efficiency based system. If i can make a machine that produces 10,000 widgets in an hour yet has a defect rate of 1 in 100, why is that worse then a machine that produces 1000 widgets that never fails.

I assume the OP was about taxation. And against my better judgement I will briefly address that. Most people do not feel wrongly injured by taxation. Yet, do feel wrongly injured by "tax cheats". If someone feels wrongly injured by a mugger or grifter that donates his ill aquired gains to a "social good" they are being inconsistent, unless you consider intent. The moral grammer that is pervasive in the world clearly distinguishes actions based on intent. So there is some perceived intent difference between the two actions.

The previous may seem strange to you. But I can allow for that type of moral system simply because I use an ethical system that is based in reality, that can have only one goal. The goal is survival, when i say survival I don't mean simply existence I mean the quality of survival and continued existence. Quality is part and parcel with survival. This moral standard allows for competing moral systems to coexist arising from the personal preferences of the moral agent, provided the system has a survival benefit, and again quality of survival and/or survival.

PS In my post I said not a clear favorite. I should change that to clear winner, as consistency might just be a clear favorite.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, yet I think that it might change the discussion away from the main point, and on to specific logical issues with the example. A vast majority of people decide what morally is right vs what is wrong based of how they feel about it regardless of consistency issues. There is always an attempt to rationalize away the consistency issues when they are brought up. However most often these attempts are nothing more than making up stories ex post facto.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Most people haven't thought about what they support enough to even realize whether it is consistent or not.

[ QUOTE ]
When discussions of good and bad arise, I must ask to who or what is something good for. Consistency, to whom or what is consistency good for?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Really, I don't care. The OP is about *personal* subjective preferences. If you don't like consistency, say so.

[ QUOTE ]
Does consistency provide enough benefit to out weigh the time that needs to be spent to figure out a consistent system. That question might depend on if a moral system can encompass all situations simply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that question would depend on your personal subjective preferences.

[ QUOTE ]
I would say no, there are to many different situation that don't easily fit into any system. And in doing so you may miss some of the breadth and deep of life's experiences. The benefits of a consistent system may not overcome the time investment of working it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, those benefits might overcome the time investment of "figuring it out" (whatever "it" is). So I don't see this as an argument for or against.

This reasoning seems circular to me.

Imagine if the question were "do you like green?"

And now imagine if you said "does liking green provide enough benefit to outweigh the time spent figuring out if you like green? I would say no, the benefits of liking green may not overcome the time investment of liking green (or the time investment of painting your house green)."

It's simple, do you like green or not? I am not trying to figure out who is going to benefit from liking green. I am not here to tell you that green is better than blue.

Do you like green? Yes or no.

[ QUOTE ]
I might continue with possible benefits of a consistent system and show that the actual benefit over a system, that isn't necessarily consistent, may not be enough. Instead I will just ask to whom is the benefit or for what benefit does having consistent morals actualize? I realize that I might sound silly here, and that the benefits of a consistent system should be obvious. And the benefits of a system with consistency as it's goal is obviously better then a system with inconsistency as it's goal. But I'm trying to see why a consistency based system, wins out over an efficiency based system. If i can make a machine that produces 10,000 widgets in an hour yet has a defect rate of 1 in 100, why is that worse then a machine that produces 1000 widgets that never fails.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you could have one that produces 10,000 an hour AND never fails? Given the choice between the two you posed, I agree with you, but you haven't shown any reasoning that correlates to our question of moral systems.

[ QUOTE ]
I assume the OP was about taxation. And against my better judgement I will briefly address that. Most people do not feel wrongly injured by taxation. Yet, do feel wrongly injured by "tax cheats". If someone feels wrongly injured by a mugger or grifter that donates his ill aquired gains to a "social good" they are being inconsistent, unless you consider intent. The moral grammer that is pervasive in the world clearly distinguishes actions based on intent. So there is some perceived intent difference between the two actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP wasn't about taxation specifically, though it's certainly related.

If person X doesn't feel wronged or injured by taxation, that's great. I think that person X should be free to pay taxes. That doesn't say anything about person X forcing person Y to also pay taxes, though. I like Coke better than Pepsi, does that personal subjective preference provide a justification for me to use force to prevent my neighbor from drinking Pepsi and forcing him to drink Coke?

[ QUOTE ]
The previous may seem strange to you. But I can allow for that type of moral system simply because I use an ethical system that is based in reality, that can have only one goal. The goal is survival, when i say survival I don't mean simply existence I mean the quality of survival and continued existence. Quality is part and parcel with survival. This moral standard allows for competing moral systems to coexist arising from the personal preferences of the moral agent, provided the system has a survival benefit, and again quality of survival and/or survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any conflict here. You like X, I like Y, we should both be able to enjoy our own preferences.

[ QUOTE ]
PS In my post I said not a clear favorite. I should change that to clear winner, as consistency might just be a clear favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does there need to be a winner?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, yet I think that it might change the discussion away from the main point, and on to specific logical issues with the example. A vast majority of people decide what morally is right vs what is wrong based of how they feel about it regardless of consistency issues. There is always an attempt to rationalize away the consistency issues when they are brought up. However most often these attempts are nothing more than making up stories ex post facto.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Most people haven't thought about what they support enough to even realize whether it is consistent or not.


[/ QUOTE ] If you agree with this, and you also agree that most people get along well enough in life in spite of it then you understand my point. It is a successful strategy. I will gladly address the rest of your post if you can rebut it. I will also address the rest of your post for any reason you choose.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the judgments of others?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the judgments of others?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are irrelevant.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the judgments of others?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a moral system can only be judged by those who adhere to that moral system based on benefits it provides? Do you see how this might be a bit ridiculous? If that's the case, a better moral system for me would be to steal every time I can get away with it than to not.

[yukoncpa]

Suppose a moral system was: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Does consistency mean that I should go and buy everyone blow up, Asian, girlie dolls for Christmas, if this is what I would like others to do for me? I guess I don’t understand what it means to have a consistent moral system. Is it possible to create a system that is consistent and that all rational human beings would agree with?

I guess a moral system that people would agree on would be something like: don’t lie to, deceive, kill, or harm another human being unless your actions are such that every unaffected, rational person would agree with you. But then, it seems like I’m building inconsistency right into this.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose a moral system was: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Does consistency mean that I should go and buy everyone blow up, Asian, girlie dolls for Christmas, if this is what I would like others to do for me? I guess I don’t understand what it means to have a consistent moral system. Is it possible to create a system that is consistent and that all rational human beings would agree with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consistency, for the most part, and when combined with the given of a single-class system, means that the *identity* of the actor is not relevant to the analysis of the action.