• They/Them

Nothing interesting


To expand on what I said: I suspect moral realism is false ("isn't ethic something we invent rather then something that exist?"). I don't know what to think of the notion of moral responsibility and moral desert, frankly they are the notion I am the most sceptical of. Oddly enough, it's not because of free will, I tend to be compatibilist, but because I'm unsure what is the purpose of moral responsibility at all, and how it works.

I have what I think is a good reason to believe that hedonism fails at the task it is trying to accomplish (I know that's an awkward sentence, but it would take me a longer post to explain what I mean and what my argument is, all this without relying on the bastardization of hedonism that has entered into common vocabulary). Contractarianism used to appeal to me, because it didn't need to assume moral realism, but I have become disillusioned with it.

But then, when I see suffering in the world, do I not feel repulse? Do I not think "this must end?" Yes, yes I do. It might be irrational. Or maybe there is something I am not considering. I will say, I make an effort to distance myself from any thoughts of moral desert.

At this point, I think maybe we need to become Nietzschean and rethink the entire think. I'm also toying with the idea of what I call an "Augustinian" ethic, where human fallibility is assumed at the start. But I don't know. I don't know.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Quidam's post:

I have, and it's an option that is very interesting, but it has some problem. To start with, what virtue should be considered? Aristotle listened to the advice of common person and wise people, which seems fair. However, it lead him to consider things like "courage" to be a virtue, which make sense in the militarized culture of Athens, where service was mandatory for citizens, but is that something we want to keep? It seems that the opinion of people will be influenced by the culture they come from. OK then, let's consider all cultures. But all cultures have to wage war sooner or latter, it make sense that participant would end up with values that praise war. Indeed, individuals are profoundly influenced by the culture they live in, and those narratives will give them bad ideas. So we need a way to review which values are good and which values are bad. So we are back where we started. And that's not even considering challenge like "are moral judgement logically consistent?" which would also be a blow to virtue ethic. In short: We need more work to make sense of it. Like I said, I believe virtue ethic is a solid candidate, and I think it is more plausible then utilitarianism and deontology, but I still have doubts.