How Significant is 'Moral Feeling' and Compassion in Ethics?

[Leontiskos]

Oooh . . . looks like Sy is now resorting to censorship: "! This post is not visible to other users until it has been approved by a moderator."

This is happening intermittently, and I assume it is affecting everyone. My guess is that it has something to do with the new new incentives introduced for buying Scott's book.

[GE Morton]

Oooh . . . looks like Sy is now resorting to censorship: "! This post is not visible to other users until it has been approved by a moderator."

That was not me. Maybe it's a glitch? I have no idea about that because I am not doing admin any more, aside from banning spammers and approving posts awaiting approval.

No matter what the issue may be, you can always be trusted to assume wrongly

Sorry! That was a hasty assumption on my part. Perhaps some bot, responding to a particular word? Does this site use those? Haven't had that happen in years. In any case, the post is now up.

[GE Morton]

Oooh . . . looks like Sy is now resorting to censorship: "! This post is not visible to other users until it has been approved by a moderator."

This is happening intermittently, and I assume it is affecting everyone. My guess is that it has something to do with the new new incentives introduced for buying Scott's book.

That's possible. Good guess.

[GE Morton]

It certainly doesn't help that many billionaires pay zero tax. for instance, Murdoch has not paid any tax in Australia for some years now, despite earning billions.

I'd agree that if Murdoch pays no taxes, that is unfair --- he certainly receives some benefits from Aussie state, local, and federal governments.

That is a inherent problem with income taxes --- it is easy to manipulate what shall count as income. Taxes should be levied instead on assets, since protecting those ("life, liberty, and property") is the chief raison d'etre for government (in the liberal tradition). And you have a market for determining their value.

[Ecurb]

Oh, I think we should work to minimize poverty too ("eliminating" it is a pipe-dream). Not by seizing wealth from those who produced or otherwise earned it, but by enabling others to earn it, or more of it, by removing legal obstacles to their doing that, and refuting and rejecting the lefty dogmas that lead them to believe that is "oppressive," and that they're "entitled" to prosperity.

But your "stability" argument is a version of the "torches and pitchforks" argument: "We must turn over the prisoner to the lynch mob, lest they storm the jail with torches and pitchforks." I doubt any competent cost-benefit analysis of your proposal would show a net benefit for many people.

.

Uh, oh! Pitchforks and torches! Where are Scout and Jem when we need them?

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" is an iconic American position, but surely it's also reasonable to try to create a more stable society. Maybe your proposed methods would work, but I doubt it. A safety net is humane, as well as beneficial in preventing the pitchforks and torches from burning things down. The main reason to support it is humanitarian; the secondary reason is that stability is beneficial to the rich people who benefit the most from our economic system of laws.

You're forgetting that "merit," like "goodness," and "value," are subjective. The only person qualified to decide what counts as merit, and the magnitude a reward, is the person paying it

Huh? Can't we measure economic merit by how many widgets are produced? Value" is subjective; "merit" is (or at least can be) objective. The team that scores the most goals merits the victory.

[Sy Borg]

Oooh . . . looks like Sy is now resorting to censorship: "! This post is not visible to other users until it has been approved by a moderator."

That was not me. Maybe it's a glitch? I have no idea about that because I am not doing admin any more, aside from banning spammers and approving posts awaiting approval.

No matter what the issue may be, you can always be trusted to assume wrongly :lol:

Sorry! That was a hasty assumption on my part. Perhaps some bot, responding to a particular word? Does this site use those? Haven't had that happen in years. In any case, the post is now up.

The post is up because, when I saw it in the queue, I immediately approved it.

To paraphrase Gunnery Sgt Hartman ... there's only two types of people who see agency where there is none - theists and conspiracy theorists, and you don't look much like a theist.

[Sy Borg]

It certainly doesn't help that many billionaires pay zero tax. for instance, Murdoch has not paid any tax in Australia for some years now, despite earning billions.

I'd agree that if Murdoch pays no taxes, that is unfair --- he certainly receives some benefits from Aussie state, local, and federal governments.

That is a inherent problem with income taxes --- it is easy to manipulate what shall count as income. Taxes should be levied instead on assets, since protecting those ("life, liberty, and property") is the chief raison d'etre for government (in the liberal tradition). And you have a market for determining their value.

Thing is, in a bad year I pay almost 50% tax, sometimes more but Murdoch makes vastly more than I do and he pays nothing.

People resent this kind of thing. I suppose if we suppressed the information, then "troublemakers" would not use to cause bother. China and Russia can prevent potential rabble-rousers from ever gaining enough information to know how deeply they have been manipulated and exploited.

[GE Morton]

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" is an iconic American position, but surely it's also reasonable to try to create a more stable society.

Of course. But not by immoral means.

Maybe your proposed methods would work, but I doubt it.

They certainly wouldn't eliminate all poverty, or envy, which is the main impetus for unrest related to inequality.

A safety net is humane, as well as beneficial in preventing the pitchforks and torches from burning things down.

The trouble with "safety nets" is that they quickly becomes hammocks, as pols troll for votes by promising ever more free lunches. Moreover, what counts as "humane" varies with tenets of one's private morality.

. . . the secondary reason is that stability is beneficial to the rich people who benefit the most from our economic system of laws.

I suspect most of those "rich" would see the risk of "instability" to them as very small, and not worth any substantial insurance premium beyond what they're already paying for the criminal justice system.

You're forgetting that "merit," like "goodness," and "value," are subjective. The only person qualified to decide what counts as merit, and the magnitude a reward, is the person paying it

Can't we measure economic merit by how many widgets are produced? Value" is subjective; "merit" is (or at least can be) objective. The team that scores the most goals merits the victory.

That Alfie produced X widgets is objective. But that is only meritorious if someone values the widgets, and the value assigned to them is subjective.

[Ecurb]

Can't we measure economic merit by how many widgets are produced? Value" is subjective; "merit" is (or at least can be) objective. The team that scores the most goals merits the victory.

That Alfie produced X widgets is objective. But that is only meritorious if someone values the widgets, and the value assigned to them is subjective.

So the team that scores the most goal only "merits" the victory if someone values victory more than defeat? That's playing fast and loose with the language. The team that scores the most goals merits the victory even if they don't care whether they win or lose.

[GE Morton]

Can't we measure economic merit by how many widgets are produced? Value" is subjective; "merit" is (or at least can be) objective. The team that scores the most goals merits the victory.

That Alfie produced X widgets is objective. But that is only meritorious if someone values the widgets, and the value assigned to them is subjective.

So the team that scores the most goal only "merits" the victory if someone values victory more than defeat?

Yes, of course. The participants in some voluntary, organized activity already agree as to the goals of the activity, and value them. Else they would not be participating.

The team that scores the most goals merits the victory even if they don't care whether they win or lose.

That is absurd. If they didn't care about winning or losing they wouldn't be playing.

[Ecurb]

The team that scores the most goals merits the victory even if they don't care whether they win or lose.

That is absurd. If they didn't care about winning or losing they wouldn't be playing.

Incorrect. People can play for the exercise, for the love of the game, for individual accomplishments, etc. As a member of the Heisman club Hall of Fame for my collegiate sports accomplishment, my acceptance speech fantasized about a pick-up game. No fans in attendance. Nobody carefully keeping score. Just a pure love of play. Still, someone might win, and merit the victory.

[Sy Borg]

I suspect most of those "rich" would see the risk of "instability" to them as very small, and not worth any substantial insurance premium beyond what they're already paying for the criminal justice system.

Billionaire Bunker Owners Are Preparing For The Ultimate Underground Escape

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/ ... 2779c4e12a

"Our buyers are looking for protection from one thing as a majority. No matter what happens in this country whether it be a war on our homeland, a catastrophic earthquake like the New Madrid quake of the 1800s, a pandemic such as this one, we are on the brink of social/civil collapse, and that is the real threat we all face."

“I was never worried about nuclear war when I decided to build a bunker,” says Terry, “I was more concerned about civil unrest, and now we see the possibility of what we had always planned for. It’s a whole different story when people are fighting over food and toilet paper. I don’t think it is the virus that will destroy the world; I think it is what comes after.”

As far as security, should civil unrest become widespread, Terry has that planned out as well. “We have weapons but only as a last resort. We have 15 hidden cameras around the property for surveillance, and have rehearsed an escape plan to the bunker that will take 25 minutes to be locked in.”

[Good_Egg]

...you may be confusing the goal of a moral theory with the goals of individual agents. Every intentional act has a goal, some reason for doing it. Constructing a moral theory is no exception --- it aims to bring about a certain result. Alfie may have any of many goals in doing X, but a moral theory will be indifferent to those, as long as Alfie's doing X does not conflict with the goal of the theory. As Ecurb mentioned, if we deem murder to be wrong, there must some reason it is so deemed --- some state of affairs, or goal, that murder thwarts.

The goal of a moral theory, as I see it (and which is implicit in most moral codes historically) is to devise a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents and "moral subjects" which enable all agents and subjects in a moral field (a social setting) to maximize their welfare.

A moral theory need not, of course, have that goal. But it is a plausible one, it's rationally defensible, and consistent with the central thrust of moral theorizing historically.

You know that theories don't have intentions; only minds have intentions. Two people may have different intentions in advocating the same moral code.

In formulating the equation "E = M times c-squared" Einstein had the intention of accurately describing the universe. Similarly, moral philosophers in the natural law tradition aim to accurately capture ( in their ethic , their codification of morality) the "fundamental moral norms" that underlie our moral intuitions.

Whereas lawmakers aim to make the world a better place by penalizing certain actions. And similarly, those who take a social constructivist approach to morality aim to make the world a better place by advocating an agreed code of conduct, so that actions contrary to the code are socially discouraged.

What I'm struggling to keep straight in my head is the relationship between the aims of a person putting forward an ethic - a moral code - and the contents of that ethic.

Some might say that the one determines the other in a straightforward manner. That a philosopher whose aim is to maximize human welfare will necessarily advocate a code that says "Do whatever will maximize human welfare".

I think this fails to take account of the subjectivity of value.

It is conceivable that a philosopher might see a code under which everyone pursues their own idea of human welfare as less effective in promoting the philosopher's idea of human welfare than a code which says "Thou shalt not do X, Y or Z". Where X, Y, Z embody the negative of the philosopher's values.

[Belindi]

Good-Egg wrote:

What I'm struggling to keep straight in my head is the relationship between the aims of a person putting forward an ethic - a moral code - and the contents of that ethic.

A moral code is authoritative of a culture whereas the aims of a person are definitive of that person. There is an everlasting mismatch between culture of belief and individual . It's this mismatch ,the sheep and the goats effect , that causes social change.

[Leontiskos]

Still waiting for your response, GE Morton:

Let me try to restate my argument more concisely. In short: Public morality is concerned with interactions between moral agents (i.e. justice). This means that public morality is primarily concerned with formal rules for interaction (law), and is secondarily concerned with anything which those interactions depend upon. This is because those things upon which the interpersonal interactions depend will have a determinate effect on the public sphere and the capacity of moral agents to abide by the law. For example, the moral philosopher who legislates against theft does so because he believes that theft is unjust and ought not occur. Since he believes that theft is unjust and ought not occur, he will in no way limit himself to legislation, but will go on to education and formation. He will therefore be interested in discoursing on things like greed, jealousy, property, the virtue of justice, etc. If you disagree, then you must tell us why the moral philosopher would legislate against theft but not address the causes of theft in moral agents.

Now above you conceded that a theorist--including the moral theorist--seeks to change beliefs. This is true, but since the moral philosopher is primarily concerned to shape action, his focus on beliefs is only mediate with respect to action. Other realities which shape action include values and emotions. If the object of moral philosophy is action, then why would the moral philosopher concern himself with beliefs but not values or emotions, given that all of these things mediate action?