1st response to No Trust’s review

Ok, first of all thank you so much for the detailed review. It was great to get such thorough feedback.

Secondly, I’m not sure what impression I gave of my ethical stance, but it may not have been accurate: I honestly haven’t found a system that works yet.

Now to business . . .

“We can rarely guarantee to predict accurately every consequence of our actions.”

Which alone makes consequentialism a more or less worthless standard of moral evaluation.

Yes, I agree entirely. I simply had to discuss consequentialism at length in order to write a balanced essay-I’m not very fond of it either!!!

“Even if we could be reasonably certain that all the immediate effects of our pulling a child out from in front of a bus would be positive, if this child turns out to be Hitler we have in fact (according to classical utilitarianism) done a terrible wrong.”

This assumes Hitler as a child is predestined to be a mass murderer.

Another criticism of consequentialism which I agree with entirely. Consequentialists seem to demand predestination/omniscience!

“For example, a man in soviet Russia married to a political dissident would (according to Kant) be wrong to lie to the police about his wife's whereabouts, as this would suggest he was willing that lying become common practice.”

Since the Soviets consistently showed an unwillingness to respect ANYONE’S rights to autonomy, no-one was obligated to respect theirs. Lying to (and killing) bad people is easily something I’d like to see universalized. “Saving innocent lives” is irrelevant to the matter, it’d be just as moral to lie to a soviet if he was asking where the nearest restroom was, or if he was looking for a doctor to patch up his buddy’s gunshot wound.

Er . . . yes . . . I think I’m guilty as charged here. What I was trying to do was point out that there are circumstances in which we might (being human) be unable to avoid considering the consequences of our actions: I can’t see how they can be ignored entirely. However the example I chose unfortunately sucks.

“There seem to be no major theories which show how to combine a concern for both consequences and intentions.”

And neither can be objectively quantified in any meaningful are moral or not in and of themselves, intentions don’t matter in the real world and consequences can’t be accurately measured.

This is highly debatable, surely? “in and of themselves”? So how do you know? Some form of intuitionism (which makes moral debate impossible) or theism. I can’t imagine you (as a rationalist) would particularly like either of these alternatives. Also, you seem to run into the fact-value and is-ought distinctions. This is basically that the facts of a matter do not determine the “rightness”, which you may agree with, but then what sort of existence do right and wrong have? They are not facts (as a knife at a murder scene is a fact-you cannot see “wrong”) but you claim they are “real” BUT you are not an intuitionist . . . I’d like an answer to this if possible!

I do not understand your distinction between right/wrong and permissible/non-permissible. Surely they “permissible” and “right” are simply different terms for the same basic concept?I am woefully ignorant. What exactly does it mean to be “a rationalist in the Austrian tradition”?

Thank you once again for you’re review!!!

UPDATE: Thanks to RadynI now have another way to attack NoTrust!!!

Radyn writes: “Permissible implies that society has determined an action to be legally/morally allowable, ie, you won't get stoned for it. What's permissible isn't necesarily what's "right", and vice versa, because what's "right" is subject to the individual's own morality, while society determines what's "permissible".”

So how can NoTrustbelieve things are right or wrong “in and of themselves” ie. There is an objective right and wrong; but then claim that there is only permissive/non-permissive?

Honesty compels me to admit that Radyndid also make some criticisms: please check out his review.

UPDATE: NoTrusthas responded with another epic review. He makes some very valid and sensible points. In fact, most of what he says is valid and sensible. Like I said at the beginning of this chapter, the essay itself does not necessarily reflect my views: it is more an assessment of various viewpoints. Nonetheless I hope it may be possible to avoid moral skepticism entirely. I can’t accept the position apparently taken by NoTrust, which seems to reduce ethics to a matter of purely sociological interest. Nor can I come up with something better. Once I’ve solved the problem of life the universe and everything you’ll be the first to know!!!