The Philosophy Discussion Forum

PH and gang do not realize their insistence there are no moral facts, no moral objectivity, i.e. no Moral Normativity, except there are is only Moral Relativism is 'SELF-REFUTING'.

The fact is;
"PH's insistence, there are no moral facts, no moral objectivity, no Moral Realism i.e. no Moral Normativity, except there are is only Moral Relativism"
is itself an ought and normativity, i.e. a epistemic normativity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:22 am PH and gang do not realize their insistence there are no moral facts, no moral objectivity, i.e. no Moral Normativity, except there are is only Moral Relativism is 'SELF-REFUTING'.

The fact is;
"PH's insistence, there are no moral facts, no moral objectivity, no Moral Realism i.e. no Moral Normativity, except there are is only Moral Relativism"
is itself an ought and normativity, i.e. a epistemic normativity.

Well, it would be if PH said there shouldn't be an objective morality rather than there can't be one.

He might be incorrect. That's a possibility with such an assertion. But it's not a moral assertion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:51 am He might be incorrect. That's a possibility with such an assertion. But it's not a moral assertion.

Yes it is.

All judgments about "correctness" or "incorrectness" are performed with respect to some norm.

He admits to that. He appeals to "the way we use words" as being the baseline for the "correct" way to use words.

Adherence to this norm is what he calls "correct".
Deviation from this norm is what he calls "incorrect"

But that's exactly how moral assertions work!

Deviation from behavioural norms is what we call "morally wrong"

So then calling this color "blue" is incorrect. It's morally wrong.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:30 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:51 am He might be incorrect. That's a possibility with such an assertion. But it's not a moral assertion.

Yes it is.

All judgments about "correctness" or "incorrectness" are performed with respect to an assumed norm.

A moral norm?
All mistakes in information are moral mistakes?
The true is the good?
The good is the true?
One set?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:30 am Deviation from behavioural norms is what we call "morally wrong"

I wouldn't the set of deviations from behavioral norms that. I never considered cross-dressing morally wrong, for example.
And I didn't consider the kids who were worse in math than me less moral than me.
Nor those better, more moral.

I think there is a useful distinction here.

I can't see a good reason to conflate those two categories.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:39 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:30 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:51 am He might be incorrect. That's a possibility with such an assertion. But it's not a moral assertion.

Yes it is.

All judgments about "correctness" or "incorrectness" are performed with respect to an assumed norm.

A moral norm?

Suppose it's not a moral norm - just a regular norm.

Why does he think using words differently is "wrong" or "incorrect"?

Whatever the reason - he is using "wrong" and "incorrect" synonymously with "deviation from norm".

But murder is also deviation from norm. A behavioural norm.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:39 am All mistakes in information are moral mistakes?

Yep. The difference is not in kind - only in magnitude of severity.

Lying/misrepresenting this color as "blue" is not as wrong as murder, but I am still misleading your mind if I keep using the term "blue" when I have this color in mind. Even if it's not intentional on my part; and a mere product of miscommunication - you are still misinformed. And you ought not be misinformed.

There's a threshold of severity where some people will "correct" you about it and some won't. It's that's a matter of strictness.

Philosophy (as it's practiced) espouses maximum strictness about the use language.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:39 am The true is the good?
The good is the true?
One set?

That's the Monotheistic view - yes.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:44 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:30 am Deviation from behavioural norms is what we call "morally wrong"

I wouldn't the set of deviations from behavioral norms that. I never considered cross-dressing morally wrong

You didn't. The people punishing you for it did. That's why they punish you for it.

I never considered using words differently to be "incorrect" or "wrong" either, but philosophers punish you for it too.
Using different logic/methods of argumentation? You'll be punished.

It's how social norms are enforced.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:44 am , for example.
And I didn't consider the kids who were worse in math than me less moral than me.
Nor those better, more moral.

Yet we punish the kids who got an F with lower social status. You know exactly who the dumb kids in the class are

And it's not like we celebrate their achievements. So much so we even call it failure.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:44 am I think there is a useful distinction here.

Useful to what end?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:44 am I can't see a good reason to conflate those two categories.

THe statements I am making are being made pre-categorization.

If you want to draw the distinction - draw it for whatever purposes suits you. But that doesn't diminish the facts.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:51 am If you want to draw the distinction - draw it for whatever purposes suits you. But that doesn't diminish the facts.

Yes, I did draw the distinction. Or redrew it.
I think it's useful to distinguish between what gets called immoral behavior from mistakes, even if a meritocracy may conflate the kids in math class, though generally only at the ends of the bell curve. I play sports with people of different levels. I see and it seems even like a norm to see a difference between cheating and making mistakes. Or fouling me and repeatedly dropping a pass. 1) someone who is a dick on the court, I generally find is dick elsewhere. It says something about how they treat other people. Generally not being good at the game doesn't say that to me. There can be overlaps. And someone who lacks hand-eye coordination I won't want driving a forklift at my warehouse. But it's much more specific for me. Behaviors that indicate stuff about what used to get called character (used to be called that mroe widely) I put more on the moral end. Which is different for me than skills, including skills around producing correct answers, especially if restricted to certain fields.

My wife has a brain injury. It affects her memory for people's names, mainly, nouns to some degree in general. It's pretty regular. It has nothing to do with morals. She did not become less moral after her injury. That's nonsense.

It wouldn't be nonsense to say that she makes a lot more mistakes.

It's tricky with things like math class, yes. I have to avoid being put in the position of trying to defend society which has different values than mine. But even while society does punish people who fail math, it doesn't treat moral and skill/informational mistakes the same. And I think there are good practical reasons for this. Even in schools the interventions for breaches against moral norms are different from those made against mistakes. The categories are generally distinct and, at least in their minds, the negative consequences are suited to the category differences. I'm not arguing that making mistakes has no negative consequences. They're just different ones, generally.

Again, I can't see a good reason to give up the distinction. It works well for me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:51 am If you want to draw the distinction - draw it for whatever purposes suits you. But that doesn't diminish the facts.

Yes, I did draw the distinction. Or redrew it.
I think it's useful to distinguish between what gets called immoral behavior from mistakes

OK. Is it so useful that you have to treat them as different discrete categories; or will a continuum suffice?

There's a fuzzy line on the continuum where certain mistakes are serious enough that we must do something about them e.g they must be corrected; and norms enforced. Where other transgressions can be overlooked as unimportant.

To me it's a question of strictness (which is also a sliding scale). You can let everything slide if you so choose. You can be a sanctimonious p**** and be strict about any deviations from any standards. Go be a Grammar Nazi if that's your thing.

Hence the point that the transgression is only a difference in severity but not in kind. An error is an error is an error. It' carries negative connotation - a failing on our part. Not positive. Not neutral. Negative.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am , even if a meritocracy may conflate the kids in math class, though generally only at the ends of the bell curve. I play sports with people of different levels. I see and it seems even like a norm to see a difference between cheating and making mistakes.

So why do you call it a "mistake"? The word contains the connotation of something being "wrong".

When we say that somebody is incorrect/wrong about something there is always the connotation that they OUGHT to have done otherwise.

Now, you are welcome to sub-divide oughts into moral and non-moral, but the is-ought gap doesn't pertain to moral oughts. It pertains to all oughts.

Every judgment of error (moral or otherwise) comes from a place of an imagined counterfactual reality in which the error wasn't made.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am Or fouling me and repeatedly dropping a pass. 1) someone who is a dick on the court, I generally find is dick elsewhere. It says something about how they treat other people. Generally not being good at the game doesn't say that to me. There can be overlaps. And someone who lacks hand-eye coordination I won't want driving a forklift at my warehouse. But it's much more specific for me. Behaviors that indicate stuff about what used to get called character (used to be called that mroe widely) I put more on the moral end. Which is different for me than skills, including skills around producing correct answers, especially if restricted to certain fields.

All I am hearing so far is that people ought to have done better (N.B better, not just differently) by you. With the fine print that some oughts are more serious than others..

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am My wife has a brain injury. It affects her memory for people's names, mainly, nouns to some degree in general. It's pretty regular. It has nothing to do with morals. She did not become less moral after her injury. That's nonsense.

Morality isn't an intrinsic property to individuals. It's an emergent property of collectives. Don't take it personally.

If a doctor's capacity to heal people is diminished by a brain injury their morality is diminished. That doesn't make them immoral. Just less moral in practical terms - their capaity for goodness is diminished.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am It wouldn't be nonsense to say that she makes a lot more mistakes.

And that comes from a place where you wish that she didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't call them "mistakes."

It's just what your wife does. Why is it a "mistake"? Because it would've been better if she hadn't done that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am It's tricky with things like math class, yes. I have to avoid being put in the position of trying to defend society which has different values than mine. But even while society does punish people who fail math, it doesn't treat moral and skill/informational mistakes the same. And I think there are good practical reasons for this.

But we do treat them the same. We wish they didn't happen and we do what we can to avoid repeats. We do what we can to make the future better. Be it by giving the kid extra Maths lessons; or sending the murderer to a corerctional facility. We (attempt to) correct! Sure - one is more servere than the other but neither failure is treated with indifference.

Do that over thousands of years about multiple aspects of human affairs and you end up with compound interest in improvement in our circumstances. It's so deeply ingrained in who we are there even our words have positive and negative connotation!

That's how morality works.

In any case, this entire phenomenon of gradual and continuous micro or macro corrections we humans do is what I call "morality". I am talking about an objective/empirical global-scale phenomenon that can be traced throughout human history. It's the on-going pursuit of living up to higher standards - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you strip away this moral connotation ingrained so deeply into our language then you can't even say that somebody is getting "better" at something! You can't even say that things are getting "worse"! You can't make any value judgments with respect to any change in any direction.

Yeah, things are different now than they were 2000 years ago. We die less. We are more healthy. We are more educated. Less starvation. Less war. More equality. More justice. We are happier. Things are by all accounts changing in a particular direction. There's a definite historical trend.

But is any of that change "better"? Are we actually improving anything or are we making things worse?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm
OK. Is it so useful that you have to treat them as different discrete categories; or will a continuum suffice?

Some things I see as clearly on one side. Some acts are trickier. You might make what I would call mistakes, but there is a lack of care involved, so there is a moral aspect or character aspect to those mistakes.

You are my employee and you mess up some interaction with a customer and cost us 500 bucks, I don't fire you. Habitual smaller mistakes, but otherwise you are a good worker, I'd probably try to train you or place you somewhere else. You steal 50 bucks, you're out. Even though the consequences of the single act are even less, one reflects on intentions, interpersonal attitudes and character traits. One is a skill issue or even just, well, one of those things that happens if it was a single instance. Gray areas arise if i think intentions and interpersonal attitudes and character traits are causal in your mistakes.

There's a fuzzy line on the continuum where certain mistakes are serious enough that we must do something about them

Sure, that's why I chose a work example where even though the consequences are less, my response would immediately be more severe, and my intentions, attitudes and my interperonal relation with the person would also change. It's in that realm that the stealing moves the isue.

To me it's a question of strictness (which is also a sliding scale). You can let everything slide if you so choose. You can be a sanctimonious p**** and be strict about any deviations from any standards. Go be a Grammar Nazi if that's your thing.

And they get called grammar Nazis precisely because they are conflating realms.

Hence the point that the transgression is only a difference in severity but not in kind. An error is an error is an error. It' carries negative connotation - a failing on our part. Not positive. Not neutral. Negative.

Again that's why I chose that example. It's not severity, it's about the attitudes and interpersonal relations and character. Likewise with my wife. Likewise that we do not consider developmentally disabled people in need of punishment. We can think they are grand old people and consider them of good character, but we see to it they don't fly airplanes.

So why do you call it a "mistake"? The word contains the connotation of something being "wrong".

Well the goal was for them to catch the pass. They wanted to, I wanted to. They punch me in the face when I go up for a rebound, I wouldn't let them baby sit my kids. Intention, character, interpersonal relations. Different category.

When we say that somebody is incorrect/wrong about something there is always the connotation that they OUGHT to have done otherwise.

But when it's an immoral act, that they intended to make the 'mistake.' There are gray areas, where someone drives too fast and kills someone. They are still considered to have acted immorally. Though they will be punished less than the person who runs over their exes new girlfriend. And part of the reason the negligent homicide person is punished as much as they are is they are considered to have knowingly put others at risk, even if they didn't have the intent to kill (that person).

Now, you are welcome to sub-divide oughts into moral and non-moral, but the is-ought gap doesn't pertain to moral oughts. It pertains to all oughts.

Again, I see moral oughts as aimed at a different category of situations.

Morality isn't an intrinsic property to individuals. It's an emergent property of collectives. Don't take it personally.

If a doctor's capacity to heal people is diminished by a brain injury their morality is diminished. That doesn't make them immoral. Just less moral in practical terms - their capaity for goodness is diminished.

I think that's an equivocation. They are no longer a skilled doctor. And if you can show them this the moral ones will stop being doctors. And it shows nothing about their character, intentions or interpersonal relations in general.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am It wouldn't be nonsense to say that she makes a lot more mistakes.

And that comes from a place where you wish that she didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't call them "mistakes

It's just what your wife does. Why is it a "mistake"? Because it would've been better if she hadn't done that.

Obviously. I said that. It wouldn't be nonsense to say she makes more mistakes. It would be nonsense to say she is now less moral.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm
OK. Is it so useful that you have to treat them as different discrete categories; or will a continuum suffice?

Some things I see as clearly on one side. Some acts are trickier. You might make what I would call mistakes, but there is a lack of care involved, so there is a moral aspect or character aspect to those mistakes.

You are my employee and you mess up some interaction with a customer and cost us 500 bucks, I don't fire you. Habitual smaller mistakes, but otherwise you are a good worker, I'd probably try to train you or place you somewhere else. You steal 50 bucks, you're out. Even though the consequences of the single act are even less, one reflects on intentions, interpersonal attitudes and character traits. One is a skill issue or even just, well, one of those things that happens if it was a single instance. Gray areas arise if i think intentions and interpersonal attitudes and character traits are causal in your mistakes.

But you are still missing the forest for the trees.

The common property amongst any and all situations we deem "erroneous" or "wrong" is that we wish them to have been better/different.
We have a counter-factual idea of how the situation OUGHT to have been. You know that a better outcome is possible. You know that the current outcome is suboptimal.

That delta between what has come to be and what could have been. That's the common golden thread I am talking about.

Without that counter-factual there can be no such thing as "problem" because a "problem" implies something could've been different/better in some imaginable aspect.

If that aspect is unimaginable then there's no problem - it's just the way the world is and it can't get any better.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm

There's a fuzzy line on the continuum where certain mistakes are serious enough that we must do something about them

Sure, that's why I chose a work example where even though the consequences are less, my response would immediately be more severe, and my intentions, attitudes and my interperonal relation with the person would also change. It's in that realm that the stealing moves the isue.

So if you strip that scenario from any moral connotation you are still passing judgment on the situation from an imagined better counter-factual.

You are still in the domain of value-judgments and problem-solving. And in that sense you are still trying to improve the situation.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm And they get called grammar Nazis precisely because they are conflating realms.

They aren't conflating realms - they are being perfectly consistent with the game of social norm enforcement.

Some people are of the mindset of "What do rules even mean if they can be arbitrarily broken?"
Call them maladjusted or whatever but they are anything but inconsistent.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Again that's why I chose that example. It's not severity, it's about the attitudes and interpersonal relations and character. Likewise with my wife. Likewise that we do not consider developmentally disabled people in need of punishment. We can think they are grand old people and consider them of good character, but we see to it they don't fly airplanes.

You are being too particular. The whole point is that we take the pragmatic factors and context into account while we seek for the most optimal ethical outcome.

But in the end the decision to stop old people from flying airplanes is made directly on the basis of ethics/morality. We stop them from flying commercial airplanes at 65. But they are still free to fly their own private airplanes.

Because their bad judgments in a 2-seater have a lesser and more localised impact than their bad judgments in a commercial airliner.

Ethics and systemic risk go hand-in-hand.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm

So why do you call it a "mistake"? The word contains the connotation of something being "wrong".

Well the goal was for them to catch the pass. They wanted to, I wanted to.

OK.So they did what they did and it coincide with the goal. Why is that a "mistake"?

See there's always this alterne timeline involved in every judgment... The pre-supposition that things ought to have been otherwise.

If it wasn't there you'd simply accept everything that happens to you.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm

When we say that somebody is incorrect/wrong about something there is always the connotation that they OUGHT to have done otherwise.

But when it's an immoral act, that they intended to make the 'mistake.' There are gray areas, where someone drives too fast and kills someone.

Intention doesn't matter. Whether I am murdered or die in a car accident - dead is dead, so I put on my risk manager hat on and prioritize accordingly. Most of the things that are likely to harm me isn't other humans - it's nature itself and nature's lack of intent doesn't make its tricks any less of a moral concern.

So there's systemic stuff like clean water, sanitation, hygiene, acces to medicine - I consider all of those those as great moral leaps.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm They are still considered to have acted immorally. Though they will be punished less than the person who runs over their exes new girlfriend. And part of the reason the negligent homicide person is punished as much as they are is they are considered to have knowingly put others at risk, even if they didn't have the intent to kill (that person).

Well yeah. Because the punishment isn't done for the sake of retribution or paying off the blood debt. The punishment is disincentive for the next guy.

If justtice was done in retribution - any life should cost a life. Good thing we don't do that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm

Now, you are welcome to sub-divide oughts into moral and non-moral, but the is-ought gap doesn't pertain to moral oughts. It pertains to all oughts.

Again, I see moral oughts as aimed at a different category of situations.

I am not concerned with what they are aimed at. I am concerned with their conceptual/semantic properties.

An ought is always about counter-factuals. And by deduction - so are moral oughts.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm

Morality isn't an intrinsic property to individuals. It's an emergent property of collectives. Don't take it personally.

If a doctor's capacity to heal people is diminished by a brain injury their morality is diminished. That doesn't make them immoral. Just less moral in practical terms - their capaity for goodness is diminished.

I think that's an equivocation. They are no longer a skilled doctor. And if you can show them this the moral ones will stop being doctors. And it shows nothing about their character, intentions or interpersonal relations in general.

I don't think any conception of morality pertaining to personal character is of any practical use. Medicine is a social good. Healing peopel is moral.
I am a strict consequentialist on this regard. f*** intentions.

If you kill somebody accidentally we are still going to take measures to prevent such accidents from recurring. Not all moral action requires blaming someone but all moral actions require that we attempt to do better next time.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am Obviously. I said that. It wouldn't be nonsense to say she makes more mistakes. It would be nonsense to say she is now less moral.

I don't think morality works like that. It's not like body mass where you can gain some or lose some.

In fact, I don't think there are intrinsicly moral or immoral people. There are just people capable of anything. If you do more good than bad - then you leave the world better than you found it. If you do more bad than good then you leave the world worse than you found it.

The world's generally getting better so most people must be doing more good than bad.

A simple diagram might help clear things up. I dunno! Just a suggestion.

How Does Relativism Contradict Itself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52goRAXCYH8

Inconsistent Moral Relativism (Gilbert Harman)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WqOFJgIFyxs

Btw, the OP is applicable to those who insist there is no moral objectivity, i.e. on the basis that facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Since there are no objective moral facts, thus morality is relative.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:07 am How Does Relativism Contradict Itself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52goRAXCYH8

Inconsistent Moral Relativism (Gilbert Harman)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WqOFJgIFyxs

First video is about factual relativism, not moral relativism. Second video looks like a strawman to me. I don't think most moral relativists hold it as some sort of universal ought that we ought to respect all moralities equally.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm But you are still missing the forest for the trees.

The common property amongst any and all situations we deem "erroneous" or "wrong" is that we wish them to have been better/different.
We have a counter-factual idea of how the situation OUGHT to have been. You know that a better outcome is possible. You know that the current outcome is suboptimal.

It seems like you want to focus on one quality: wishing something was different and call this an ought to be that different way we wish something was. Just because these differences share this quality - and I do have questions about the use of ought there - doesn't mean that we can't have two qualitatively different categories that have other differences.

If someone is ugly we might think, it is better if they were beautiful. But this doesn't mean that distinguishing between
she was incorrect about the capital of Hungary
she shouldn't talk shit about her friends behind their backs
her eyes are too close together to be considered pretty
(so going after the traditional, truth, goodness, beauty.

I think these are different categories. And while we could come up with a way to make a forest out of them, they are distinct.

That delta between what has come to be and what could have been. That's the common golden thread I am talking about.

Or 'we wish it had been'. Could have been implies free will in the case of actions and some other kind of ontological flexibility in the other two categories that may not exist.

Without that counter-factual there can be no such thing as "problem" because a "problem" implies something could've been different/better in some imaginable aspect.

If that aspect is unimaginable then there's no problem - it's just the way the world is and it can't get any better.

Aren't you trying to get me to see a more accurate version of reality here?
Do you treat all three categories the same in your interactions with people?

So if you strip that scenario from any moral connotation you are still passing judgment on the situation from an imagined better counter-factual.

You are still in the domain of value-judgments and problem-solving. And in that sense you are still trying to improve the situation.

Right but just because two categories share something in common, that doesn't mean they are not separate categories.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm And they get called grammar Nazis precisely because they are conflating realms.

They aren't conflating realms - they are being perfectly consistent with the game of social norm enforcement.

Then why call them Nazis. To me that label implies that they have added qualites of the moral realm to the truth realm. In people's reactions to them. And they are clearly breaking social norms in dealing with issues of grammar rules. They treat it as a moral issue, which breaks certainly the norms of the people that label them so.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Again that's why I chose that example. It's not severity, it's about the attitudes and interpersonal relations and character. Likewise with my wife. Likewise that we do not consider developmentally disabled people in need of punishment. We can think they are grand old people and consider them of good character, but we see to it they don't fly airplanes.

You are being too particular.

I think particulars help see the distinction. Here I was also specifically arguing against the criterion 'severity.'

The whole point is that we take the pragmatic factors and context into account while we seek for the most optimal ethical outcome.

But in the end the decision to stop old people from flying airplanes is made directly on the basis of ethics/morality. We stop them from flying commercial airplanes at 65. But they are still free to fly their own private airplanes.

Right, here you are giving a particular situation to show equivalence. I do think there are situations where the actions are similar. But then there are situations where they are not. In your example, perhaps some elderly see this as punishment. 'And while I anticipate a potato, potatoe response, I think it actually matters that it is not seen as punishment, but rather statistical batching. Yes, you may well be someone who can fly at your age, but we cannot invest the time and energy in determining for each individual case. But we do not see you as a less moral person. While we might if at 63 with early onset dementia beginning, knowing your diagnosis, you did continue to fly. Because you were still together enough to know that was a bad idea'. You intentionally put us at risk.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm

So why do you call it a "mistake"? The word contains the connotation of something being "wrong".

Well the goal was for them to catch the pass. They wanted to, I wanted to.

OK.So they did what they did and it coincide with the goal. Why is that a "mistake"?

See there's always this alterne timeline involved in every judgment... The pre-supposition that things ought to have been otherwise.

If it wasn't there you'd simply accept everything that happens to you.

Sure, again, yes, they share this quality, but not others.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm

When we say that somebody is incorrect/wrong about something there is always the connotation that they OUGHT to have done otherwise.

But when it's an immoral act, that they intended to make the 'mistake.' There are gray areas, where someone drives too fast and kills someone.

Intention doesn't matter.

It certainly does to most people. It does within law. I think it even matters in the way you react to people posting here - though I could be reaching.

Whether I am murdered or die in a car accident - dead is dead, so I put on my risk manager hat on and prioritize accordingly. Most of the things that are likely to harm me isn't other humans - it's nature itself and nature's lack of intent doesn't make its tricks any less of a moral concern.

Well, I think we treat situations categorically differently when intent is involved.

Well yeah. Because the punishment isn't done for the sake of retribution or paying off the blood debt. The punishment is disincentive for the next guy.

That's certainly some people's intention with punishment, some not, but they are not the same kinds of situations and we react differently to them.

Morality isn't an intrinsic property to individuals. It's an emergent property of collectives. Don't take it personally.

I don't think any conception of morality pertaining to personal character is of any practical use.

Good, I have been sensing that and I think that is where we are different.

Medicine is a social good. Healing peopel is moral.
I am a strict consequentialist on this regard. f*** intentions.

I partly want to respond that there are good consequentialist arguments for dealing with intention differences and responding to them differently - but I am not going to say that because I think that helps your case and not mine.

If you kill somebody accidentally we are still going to take measures to prevent such accidents from recurring.

Sure, though we'll treat the situations differently and perhaps radically differently.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am Obviously. I said that. It wouldn't be nonsense to say she makes more mistakes. It would be nonsense to say she is now less moral.

I don't think morality works like that. It's not like body mass where you can gain some or lose some.

I think in both categories we consider overall evaluations, not just individual cases. The kids who do less well at math. The kids who bully.

We look at overall patterns. To me there is a categorical difference between saying my wife makes more mistakes now and this entails she is less moral. I think the first is obviously true and I can demonstrate this to pretty much anyone. IOW that is closer to science. I don't think it makes sense to say she is less moral.

In fact, I don't think there are intrinsicly moral or immoral people.

I don't think it's binary, but I certainly do put people on different places on the spectrum and deal with them differently. I find this very useful.

There are just people capable of anything. If you do more good than bad - then you leave the world better than you found it. If you do more bad than good then you leave the world worse than you found it.

And this can be translated into good employee, friend, spouse, neighbor and bad......Obviously there will be grey areas and exceptional acts.

The world's generally getting better so most people must be doing more good than bad.

I see trends and countertrends and I have my fingers crossed, but am less optimistic than you are.