afterzir Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 I think it has the potential to rival UPB (with some tweaking). - initiating violence interferes with goals, hence NAP - reaching goals requires bodily control hence self-ownership http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98etcB76QYw
dsayers Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Just so you are aware, your title and opening post provide me no incentive to click on that link. I see no defining of terms. Also, goals are subjective and therefore cannot be universalized. 1
thebeardslastcall Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Where does my world domination goal fit in with this system? If you inhibit my world domination goal is that unethical?
Nathan Metric Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Couple of criticisms. 1)That which is axiomatic = what is logical. The claim in the video that logic is non-axiomatic is backwards. An axiom =/= a "basic assumption" as the author claims. An axiom is a proposition that is fundamental to understanding AND impervious to critique. 2) Figuring out how to do what you want to do is not philosophy. It's amoralism. Philosophy is about virtue. 3) Just because humans have goals as a result of their intrinsic nature does not mean they should achieve them. That is a naturalistic fallacy. Trying to get an ought from an is. A valid proof for objective morality does not commit the naturalistic fallacy. For example, one can prove "truth is virtuous" without committing a naturalistic fallacy (in fact the very idea of calling things fallacies is based on the fact that reality is non-contradictory and that one ought to adhere to reality. Otherwise calling such and such a "fallacy" would have no meaning)
Mister Mister Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 initiating violence interferes with goals...unless it doesn't.
afterzir Posted February 16, 2016 Author Posted February 16, 2016 Where does my world domination goal fit in with this system? If you inhibit my world domination goal is that unethical? Domination, by definition, prevents others from achieving their goals (the video doesn't say this, which is why I tweaked it above) (if you say that interfering with others goals is unethical, then it works out) initiating violence interferes with goals...unless it doesn't. How does it not? (the only exception I can think of is masochism, but even then your goal is to experience violence)
Wuzzums Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 So can I kill a man in a coma? My goal is to kill, he has no goals whatsoever, therefore murder is moral.
thebeardslastcall Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if what I was doing is ethical. I asked if it's ethical to stop me from achieving my goals. What if my goal is to run a successful restaurant and you open a competitive business across the street? If your goal is to be more successful than me with your new restaurant do I have to close mine? I'm trying to show that going by goals is not a sound foundation for ethics, unless you can make a good case to the counter and correct me. Goals are constantly at odds and can remain and be so without violence (and with violence too of course). Why did you choose goal based ethics and do you really believe it to be a sound and well formed approach? Exploring new ideas is all well and good, but giving a nascent idea an excessive claim of credulity will just fast track people towards ignoring you instead of helping you to develop your idea(s). I agree with the first response in that I didn't click on the link either for probably similar or the same reasons as them.
afterzir Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if what I was doing is ethical. I asked if it's ethical to stop me from achieving my goals. What if my goal is to run a successful restaurant and you open a competitive business across the street? If your goal is to be more successful than me with your new restaurant do I have to close mine? I'm trying to show that going by goals is not a sound foundation for ethics, unless you can make a good case to the counter and correct me. Goals are constantly at odds and can remain and be so without violence (and with violence too of course). Why did you choose goal based ethics and do you really believe it to be a sound and well formed approach? Exploring new ideas is all well and good, but giving a nascent idea an excessive claim of credulity will just fast track people towards ignoring you instead of helping you to develop your idea(s). I agree with the first response in that I didn't click on the link either for probably similar or the same reasons as them. I need to think about this. My first thought is that that example with the restaurant sounds more like difficulty than interference. Example: if two men (A & B) are in love with the same woman, then there is a "natural rivalry". A is making it difficult for B but isn't interfering with B (if A tied B up with a rope, then he would be interfering).
Recommended Posts