Post Number:#31 March 12th, 2012, 2:58 am
I can't keep saying the same thing to you: our Ethics is founded on many things, only one of which is some of our moral intuitions. The other thing that informs our Ethics is our sense of justice and fairness. Another thing that informs our ethics are our abilities, physical and cognitive. Another thing that informs our ethics are the particular circumstances from moral dilemma A and moral dilemma B. And another thing is that we live in the type of social groups we do with certain goals, namely to live safely and prosper (or flourish).Not *your* intuitions, I meant intuitions in general. You say utilitarianism doesn't correspond with our intuitions, and I say so much for intuitions. Why? Because utilitarianism makes rational sense, whereas intuitions are just here because the whole evolution thing that I won't bother spelling out again.
I really don't get it. Utilitarianism isn't our Ethics now. We don't subscribe to it. You want us to drop our Ethics, the one I'm trying to analyze, and adopt Utilitarianism. So, you have an argument to give, not simply to insist that we need to drop our intuitions and use only reason, as if this was obviously something better than using intuition. It's not. We are human beings, sophisticated animals living amongst one another, and part of our make-up is that we react emotionally. You want to factor things out like our emotions. But why should we? You give no argument. So, I've done my job: I've given an analysis of Ethics as it stands. Your job is to argue why it should be supplanted with Utilitarianism. You haven't done that. And merely proclaiming all the wonderful benefits of your view is not an argument. In fact, I think Utilitarianism is an abomination and the product of small minds. Now prove me wrong.