Being Logically Consistant

>>1534904

Being logically consistent in such a way is foolish. You aren't even being logical, you're trying to mash up very simplistic pictures of the world. Only such simple propositional worlds could generate idiocies like the NAP or a first-order "utilitarianism".

Worry more about consistency in routine logics and you'll find how much more inconsistent everyone else is. Then you realize that it's stupid to depend on the simplistic world pictures and you spin more stable pictures using your experience and good data.

>>1534904
Whether or not either ideology allows you to, why would you restrict yourself to just one moral framework? Wouldn't the ideal thing be to take what you like from both sides and combine them into your own ideology? Unless a particular value from one side directly contradicts one from the other, you aren't being inconsistent. I understand why some would wish to be part and parcel to a specific ideology, though. The sense of belonging to something larger than oneself and all of that.

>>1534908

So you're arguing for pragmatism then? If so, how does one weigh the preferable outcome without an ideological measure?

>>1534917

So, I could side with NAP, unless if "extreme" circumstances - utilitarianism wins the day. You know, like, kill a baby to discover the cure for cancer.

> I understand why some would wish to be part and parcel to a specific ideology, though. The sense of belonging to something larger than oneself and all of that.

Yes, we're fond of labels. Even not having an ideology, like relativism or nihilism, can be considered an ideology.

>>1534919

We have a vast array of instincts and preset intuitions. Not to mention that living in a world with other agents gives you material to form models of their psychology that cain be and is tested in interactions with them.

Humans aren't "logically consistent". They juggle multiple pictures of the world and try to bet on the one with the largest payoff in a particular situation.

If you want standardized humans, build a robot with a completely sequential brain.

>>1534904
By the very nature of ethical problems it's impossible to be logically consistent following them since any logical development need a set of axioms, and until you believe in some supernatural force there are no axioms to be found in nature that treat the problem of morality.

Now if you create arbitrary axioms that's another problem, but then you can do the fuck you want, for example, "I follow this axiom until this happen", etc

>>1534904
>morality
Ew.

The truth of it is that humans are a group-forming animal and said groups tend to abide rules that its members are comfortable with. Basically actions which harm the group or members thereof, or are seen as reasonably likely to harm the same, are viewed as undesirable of a member (bad). Actions which are seen to harm the group are punished in ways deemed appropriate. Actions which are seen to benefit the group are rewarded likewise.

Thus describes the whole of morality as it actually exists. Philosophers are just dumb cunts who like to ramble about nothing.

>>1534988
>b-but tigers taking care of baby deer?!11

>>1534988
So, most of the group thinks it's okay if I rape your mom. Thus you cannot rationally state that it is "wrong" for me to do so.

>>1535028
He can state that from his point of view it's morally wrong. He can state that from the POV of the group it's not. Morality is not objective.

File: broad minded album.jpg (51KB, 504x502px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 504x502px

>>1535037
Starting to make sense...

>>1535028
>So, most of the group thinks it's okay if I rape your mom.
You're probably being punished for not conforming to the group's wishes, or not a member of the group (outgroup), to whom morals don't apply as such.

>>1535048
>to whom morals don't apply as such.
Or I suppose you could view being member of another group as an action which itself deserves some level of punishment. Seriously all human morality can consistently fall under my rubric.

>>1535048
>or not a member of the group (outgroup), to whom morals don't apply as such.
But most groups do tend to apply morals onto other groups of humans, which is why dehumanization is such a common protective method and piece of propaganda during warfare.

>>1535050
Another name for your rubric: "Social Justice."

>>1535055
>But most groups do tend to apply morals onto other groups of humans
See
>>1535050

Generally speaking groups treat their members better than they will treat others is all I meant.

>>1535063
I don't see where justice comes into this really. Justice though, I believe, describes or is used to describe the situation where punishments and rewards are meted out to those who -actually- harm or benefit the group, respectively, contra those who do so only -apparently-

>>1535071
>Or I suppose you could view being member of another group as an action which itself deserves some level of punishment.

Well that sounds like "white guilt" to me.

>>1535080
Stay off 4chan for a while. All these buzzwords have fried your brain. This conversation has nothing to do with either social justice or white guilt.

>>1535080
>>Or I suppose you could view being member of another group as an action which itself deserves some level of punishment.

>Well that sounds like "white guilt" to me.
>>1535080
>>Or I suppose you could view being member of another group as an action which itself deserves some level of punishment.

>Well that sounds like "white guilt" to me.
Well that makes you sound like "an illiterate fuckwit" to me.

>>1535094
"Collective Guilt." "One Bad Apple Don't Spoil the Whole Bunch." I don't know how else to say it, but if you're saying that simply being a member of the group makes you eligible for punishment, even if you as an individual did not commit the offending act...?

>>1535109
Yep, you're an illiterate fuckwit :(

Having a totally consistent set of ethical principals isn't worth it man.

>>1534988
Explaining that humans have the propensity for behaviour where by they form rules for social interaction because they are social animals isn't really answering the OP's question.

>>1534908
Basically this. Learn to make the correct decision in the moment.