/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14461988]

>consequences are irrelevant to morality
>”then why should we be moral?”
>uh...because it’s the right thing to do ok!
Why does anyone take this goblin seriously?

[Anonymous No.14462003]

prussian drone mentality

[Anonymous No.14462051]

>>14461988
>if I do good thing I get good thing so I should do good thing
Preschool mentality

[Anonymous No.14462054]

>>14461988
All ethics are fundamentally deontological.

[Anonymous No.14462067]

>>14462051
>denying his subjective preference of certain conscious experiences over others
If you could achieve the most preferable life possible, then you should do it. If that life isn’t the most moral life, then I don’t want to be moral

[Anonymous No.14462077]

>>14462054
no

[Anonymous No.14462199]

>>14461988
Copied from the Danganronpa not general on /v/
A hypothetical? Would a strictly principled man such as Kiyo agree that what is ethical is derived from the consequences of the act performed and not the act itself? If this were true, anything could be justified for the "greater good" and what actions should be taken requires much more thought than a simple principle, as one must consider the consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, for every decision one makes. This is incredibly inconvenient and assuming that this should be the norm is absurd, as the common man's daily life would be much more inefficient and stressful, as every decision needs to be more intently considered, and thus is worse than the categorical imperative even by consequentialist standards.

[Anonymous No.14462207]

>>14462077
>no please don’t talk like you’ve read Kant because I haven’t

[Anonymous No.14462226]

>>14462207
you didn’t provide an argument lmao just a flat claim
>>14462199
in most cases, murder brings bad consequences. Therefore it’s practical to not murder as a rule. The rule exists because of consequences, not because of whatever vague, circular reasons deontological retards come up with

[Anonymous No.14462232]

Morality is teleological. It ought to be done because it is the dictate and needs no teleological dictate to appeal to itself, otherwise morality would be arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.14462242]

>>14462232
>it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do

[Anonymous No.14462245]

>>14462226
Doesnt the term murder itself imply moral wrongdoing and would thus always be morally wrong, regardless of consequence? Or does one view the act of killing and then retroactively describe it as murder or manslaughter after observing the consequence?

[Anonymous No.14462257]

>>14462242
Its axiomatic. You would still run into the same problem in trying to justify why a "good" consequence is better than a bad one. Its good because its good.

[Anonymous No.14462288]

>>14462245
it’s immoral because it leads to bad consequences. If you kill a man who is trying to shoot up a populated area, then it’s not murder
>>14462257
Improving your conscious experience is much more axiomatic. The right actions are those which benefit you. You can’t deny the axiom of preference of conscious experience. We don’t do good things “just because.” It all comes down to irrationality, emotions, subjective feelings. That’s the base of morality

[Anonymous No.14462299]

>>14462288
What if believing in teleological morality improves your conscious experience?

[Anonymous No.14462307]

>>14462288
Lets suppose killing in self defense leads to bad consequences. Just imagine a moment it does. Is that murder?
Imagine killing in cold blood leads to good consequences. I'm sure its possible. Is that not murder? Your standard is arbitrary.
>It all comes down to irrationality, emotions, subjective feelings.
Thats the same as pure egoism which is the denial of morality altogether, and even utilitarianism cant be justified under that.
>the right actions are those which benefit you
Why is self benefit good? Because it is good. Therefore, all questions of morality will eventually be reduced to that statement.

[Anonymous No.14462344]

>>14462299
If there is no better alternative, then go ahead
>>14462307
well, murder is actually defined as unlawful, premeditated killing. It’s still the case that killing lawfully might lead to bad consequences, because the victim’s relatives might take revenge on you. And it’s possible that murdering may lead to good consequences. But it’s too risky to try it, since the punishment will likely far outweigh the reward, and even if you don’t get caught, you won’t be at peace, sind you will know fear and guilt.
>Thats the same as pure egoism which is the denial of morality altogether
It’s not denying morality but framing morality as being based on consequences for the self. Right actions are those that are self-beneficial. Otherwise, what is right, and why pursue it?
>Why is self benefit good? Because it is good
Because it leads to the most preferable experience. Sure, we cannot reason why eating makes me feel so good, it just does. Given that information, it makes sense that I should make myself feel good, because I prefer it. But other systems of morality are farther removed from this axiom of experience, so you end up with circular reasoning with no good foundation. Why should I care about minimizing suffering, if it doesn’t relate back to my experience? Or why should I follow a rule if the consequences are irrelevant? There’s no good reason to do such things.

[Anonymous No.14462380]

>>14462344
>most preferable existence
Why is a preferable existence good? Because preferable itself implies a good, thus reducing your statement to good because its good. Which can then be reframed into a more simple telology, in which the moral dictate is the good itself

[Anonymous No.14462419]

>>14462380
No, it’s more like “why do I prefer these experiences” which is answered by “because I’m designed to prefer them.” I don’t have to reason about what I should or shoudnt do. It’s axiomatic that I prefer to do certain things because I desire them. It’s a completely irrational basis. Kant wrongfully ignores this and tries to create a moral system totally based on reason.

[Anonymous No.14462439]

>>14462419
How do you know you are designed to prefer them? Designed in what sense? How does that make it good, or moral, or justified?

[Anonymous No.14462448]

>>14462344
Says the guy that isn't chasing opiate highs. You don't even believe in your own system. Pathetic excuse for a man.

[Anonymous No.14462476]

>>14462439
I told you that it’s an irrational basis. I subjectively value some experiences over others. There doesn’t need to be any more reasoning about it. Given this fact about myself, it makes sense to pursue the most preferable experiences, because it feels good. Reason is only useful when our instincts are not enough to decide which actions will be good for us. But often even reason is not enough, so we are left guessing. This is where moral dilemmas come from: not knowing which action will lead to the best experience, or sum of experiences, in the future.

Basically, reason is subject to emotion and irrationality when it comes to morality. We’re all just taking advantage of the possibility of feeling good.

[Anonymous No.14462484]

>>14462077
Yes.
"We should increase the greatest good for the greatest number"
"Why?"
"Because... that's our duty"
Objectively speaking, "utilitarian" or "consequentialist" ethics do not exist. They are still rooted in an axiomatic duty.
All morality is deontologic.

[Anonymous No.14462497]

>>14462448
>implying this will lead to a better life overall
If it did, then most people would do it. There are more types of positive experiences than the type of simple pleasure that accompanies drugs or sex. Also, these pleasurable actions can definitely lead to unwanted consequences in the future.

[Anonymous No.14462505]

>>14462476
That's not morality. That is self-interest merely. I'd suggest you read Derek Parfit's account of self-interest theory.

[Anonymous No.14462523]

>>14462505
Morality concerns what we should and shouldn’t do. I’m simply saying that there’s no reason why I should not do that which makes the most preferable experience for myself. Otherwise why be moral?
>>14462484
Sure, if you consider “I should make myself feel good and being about the consequences to achieve this” an axiomatic duty

[Anonymous No.14462550]

>>14462419
You're trying to extract a telology from nature which just isnt possible
You're still trying to connect preference to a good, design notwithstanding. You cannot extract morality from nature without appealing to reason at all, which makes your claim against reason void.

[Anonymous No.14462586]

>>14462550
Without the irrational aspect there is no such thing as morality. But without reason, there is still morality. The reason only exists to support the irrational. If you had no emotions or any sort of preference of experience, then you would have no reason to do anything, so you definitely could not reason about what you should or should not do. But even animals know by instinct that some paths of action are more desirable