| Spoiler alert: you can steal regardless of whether it is morally right or morally wrong. It can be a necessary or an unnecessary evil, it still doesn't matter. Things you have to consider: 1. Legal consequences - make sure you don't get caught 2. Natural consequences (ex. getting killed by the person you stole from; societal collapse due to everyone stealing) |
| Isn't it like moralism vs realism? The first is concerned with moral values like freedom, justice, and equality, while the latter is more concerned with power and objectives. I'm more of the latter btw. |
| "You misunderstood from the very beginning. You just believed what you wanted to believe." Rei Ayanami |
| Both suck or have the type of flaw that is so small yet vital, that one hit and wham-- goal destroyed or morphed into something that wasn't the goal to begin with. What's the words-- Achilles Heel. One is dependent on moral codes (which changes) and is liable to be something externally not there. Great for consistency /s. The other has the potential to neglect/disregard all ethical routes to ensure the most positive outcome, but positivity is vague and also not always equated to what is needed or good. Again, great for the long term /s. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
finestseeker17 said: deg said: first time i heard about pragmatism to be honest (no i mean i heard of it but never been knowledgeable about it) maybe a new thread about that is better then than this one that as you said have an obvious poll results already I think Lux_Lucis above already gave us a clear distinction between the ethics of utilitarianism & pragmatism. In the extremest sense, Pragmatism (especially Neopragmatism) sees truth only as the product of convention, transaction or even competition. Hence, power plays a big role in Neopragmatism. Take note that Pragmatism practically demotes philosophy into mere rhetorics competing with one another. Many people criticized both the philosophy (neopragmatism) and the figures behind it and yet our reality seems to be leaning towards them. Honestly, this can be quite distressing for people who don't have any "will to power" or for people who yearn for virtues, let alone metaphysical or transcendental things. Basically, in a pragmatic world, those people are the losers. I don't know where you got such a horrible conception of pragmatism. Pragmatism is a tool for us to judge the validity of our ethical assumptions. The way we do this is by examining the results borne out of our assumptions in the real world. |
finestseeker17 said: @Maenads I mentioned some terms and I mentioned some figures in this thread. You can start from there. Maenads said: Pragmatism is a tool for us to judge the validity of our ethical assumptions. You should read more books. I don't mean any harm. EDIT: In case you're not convinced. Here's an excerpt from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ...Peirce’s (1878 [1986: 273]) claim that truth is “the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate” and James’ (1907 [1975: 106]) claim that truth “is only the expedient in the way of our thinking”... Both Peirce and James are "classical" figures in pragmatism. If those dudes from the late 19th and early 20th century could say those stuff imagine what the dudes from the 20th & 21st century could say regarding truth within the scope of pragmatism. All the books in the world won't save me from people who quote half sentences out of context. |
| Both are incredibly inept and are works of mongrels. |
  “The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
| Deontology is the ethics of a Spiritual people Pragmatism is the ethics of materialist animals I don't favour either. |
 |
deg said: I believe in transgression as the only authorityLuchse said: Both are incredibly inept and are works of mongrels. UnoPuntoCinco said: Deontology is the ethics of a Spiritual people Pragmatism is the ethics of materialist animals I don't favour either. what kind of school of ethics do you two favor then? |
|
deg said: The school of Luchse obviously. It is but the only way for one to partake in proper life. This school stands for "What Luchse does is always right."Luchse said: Both are incredibly inept and are works of mongrels. UnoPuntoCinco said: Deontology is the ethics of a Spiritual people Pragmatism is the ethics of materialist animals I don't favour either. what kind of school of ethics do you two favor then? |
“The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
deg said: I'm way past caring for other bodies@UnoPuntoCinco @Luchse wtf lol if one of you say something like contractarianism like social contract does then i can agree with that |
|
finestseeker17 said: I agree with this. I think it was demonstrated (in a study) that utilitarianism and deontology activate different parts of the brain, such that people who prefer either might have come to have done so due to differences in brain chemistry. Personally, I take a form of utilitarianism, but I see an ideal case where utilitarianism could be construed inherit to most of the benefits of deontology. The rules that deontologists prescribe in the first place are due to them leading to historically positive results. I suggest that it wasn't God that appeared before us with an edict, but that rampant theft lead to disastrous societal consequences in the past that caused people to reject theft. And likewise, ultimately, people reject theft to preserve those good results.Obviously, like you said it's all according to the particulars. When we try to fix either utilitarianism or deontology to specifics, or fail to be specific enough, we could always find edge cases and caveats. But when we entertain them pragmatically, it is easy to see that they could lead to the same result by two different approaches. And in my view, which one sticks to any individual depends on whether they are more process-oriented (utilitarian) or people-oriented (deontology). Are people a part of a larger process, or do people create these processes? (Note: Even if someone believes in God, they could still believe that God acts through them instead of the natural order.) |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| you should broadly be asking if people subscribe to consequentialism, not utilitarianism utilitarianism isn't the only form of consequentialism i also emphasize broadly, because nobody fully subscribes to any loose ethics system we just try to be internally consistent |
More topics from this board
» Every animal on Earth somehow gained human intelligence and the ability to speak, are you still going to eat meat? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Dec 11 |
61 |
by Sasori56483
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » How often do you eat at fast food resturants?DesuMaiden - Yesterday |
15 |
by NS2D
»»
28 minutes ago |
|
» Give me your best punsJakkun - Oct 29 |
12 |
by traed
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» 2025-26 NBA season ( 1 2 3 )deg - Jun 23 |
122 |
by deg
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
» do you guys know about the meaning of your own name?Ymir_The_Viking - Dec 12 |
22 |
by traed
»»
55 minutes ago |