zippert Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Hello community, I struggle a little bit with deontology/ argment from morality. So there is a system of objective morality caled UPB and there are people arguing for violating UPB to get some effects. But how is the need for objective morality derived, when not for wanted effects? E.G. when I desire all people to be involuntary killed, then UPB does not bring me to my end goal. So when I am proposing an argument from morality, I also propose the direct effect of the moral system, e.g. no people murdered. Whats the point of UPB if not the effect of it? People who argue for effects, e.g. disciplinary spankiung, perform actions that lead to corruption of their minds and the minds of their kids, which in long term don't result in the regarded outcome. On the other hand Stef argues for effect by pointing out the negative effects of spanking. So isn't arguing for morality just a more realistic way of arguing for effect, because it regards the negative implivation of violating UPB?
dsayers Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 how is the need for objective morality derived If I say, "that bike is purple," this is different from saying, "that bike needs to be purple." If you own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another, then everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. In other words, if you own yourself, then murder IS immoral. An argument from effect in regards to murder would look something like, "If you do not murder somebody, they can contribute to society in a way you can benefit from." On the other hand Stef argues for effect by pointing out the negative effects of spanking. Stef has been very clear that the immorality of assault is paramount. However, he understands that despite logic, reason, and evidence being overwhelming that to assault children is entirely destructive, people still do it. They do it because the moral component doesn't stop them and/or doesn't inspire people who are witness to it to intervene. So he also argues from effect to reach people who do not think about assaulting children as if it's abnormal or at all destructive.
square4 Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 A moral theory is required to be true, but as a practical matter, we might argue for it because of its desirable effects.At the same time, the actual content of a moral theory might or might not argue based on effects. For example, the deontologist Kant argued that morality consists of good will, regardless of unintended effects.A problem we face when evaluating actions by its effects is this: How can we objectively determine if the effect of an action is good? The reality is unfortunately that people disagree about it. For that reason, the UPB approach focuses on effects that are inflicted on the property of others. The owner is the one who may decide to allow or forbid that something is done with his property. This means that the same action with the same effect is accepted if the owner wants it, but rejected if the owner does not want it. This shows it is not an argument from effect.Nevertheless, I think there exist valid moral arguments based on the evaluation of effect. These types of moral arguments would look at the direct result of the act, while an argument from effect would look at the larger indirect consequences.
alexqr1 Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Hello community, I struggle a little bit with deontology/ argment from morality. So there is a system of objective morality caled UPB and there are people arguing for violating UPB to get some effects. But how is the need for objective morality derived, when not for wanted effects? E.G. when I desire all people to be involuntary killed, then UPB does not bring me to my end goal.So when I am proposing an argument from morality, I also propose the direct effect of the moral system, e.g. no people murdered. Whats the point of UPB if not the effect of it? People who argue for effects, e.g. disciplinary spankiung, perform actions that lead to corruption of their minds and the minds of their kids, which in long term don't result in the regarded outcome. On the other hand Stef argues for effect by pointing out the negative effects of spanking.So isn't arguing for morality just a more realistic way of arguing for effect, because it regards the negative implivation of violating UPB?Objective morality is derived from the objective fact of self-ownership.Check out this video and let me know if it makes sense:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31PfA_bATr4&list=UUICLhy-IVD58jGRsb8leiiw&feature=c4-overview
Recommended Posts