The Chainlink


Many of the posts on the front page right now are teetering in the realm of ethical debate or outright dilemma. What these conversations have in common is the theme of moral conflict. In each of these posts there is one individual who regards oneself as having a moral justification for committing or judging an action. While other individuals believe the others are in error. How do we account for this inconsistency in varying perspectives?

OA → ¬ O¬ A


The above is an illustration of the principle of Deontic Consistency which can be applied to morality stating that a moral principle or action cannot be both morally correct or in error. Is that even true? It depends on ones belief in truth. If you are a moral univeralist then this premise probably rings true to you because you most likely believe that ethics can exist as moral truths. But if you are a skeptic or better yet an anti-essentialist then you have absolutely no problem with moral systems conflicting with each other because morality doesn't reflect truth.

So Chainlink... Where do you fall? Universalism or Anti-Essentialism? Or will this conversation take us into the depths of Post-Modernity? Or do you even care?

Views: 461

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

i dont know where i fall, probably leaning towards anti essentialism...but what i have been seeing, is that we recognize a LARGE gray area in ethics which is what causes this moral dilemma.

but i wish to explore this moral correctivity and error...

lets say...a bike is stolen. a search for the bike ensues. a bike is found that matches the description of the stolen bike. an effort is made to recover this bike, and is ultimately taken back from this thief. for purposes of this discussion, lets pretend we are positive this is a bike thief that the bike is recovered from. it turns out that this bike is not the stolen bike, but we do it is a stolen bike that was in the hands of a thief trying to make a profit on it.

morally, where does this stand? we know the truths, but morally, this puts us in a huge gray area which questions the ethics involved.

and take into consideration the weakest link to finality of this dilemma...what to do with this bike that now has no rightful owner?
Wow, blow me away, I have to really think about this one. My post personally was in regards to ethics in relation to actual laws in the books and what people think about it, not what may actually be right or wrong which has always been free game for whomever it may apply too. I am curious, what do you think I am ? I just think I am a trouble maker with the right intentions. ha ha. I am a little taken aback by this because this is very very interesting and know I know my general vocabulary is very limited compared to some. But to answer your question straight up and re-reading the last paragraph, I am %100 Anti-Essentialism kind of person.
To further complicate matters how do we define what a rightful owner is?

Cutifly, the law doesn't necessarily have to reflect the predominant ethics of the culture or the ethics of a universal moral set. For example the abolition of slavery, child workers and the 8-hour-day may be seen as inline with morality today but at the time each of these laws were passed there was much heated debate.
yeah, that CAN complicate matters...but lets call the 'rightful owner' the person who would have a police report, and claim in the stolen bike registry, or a receipt of purchase.

if we throw too many variables into this equation, well...that'll be like discussing the meaning of life

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:
To further complicate matters how do we define what a rightful owner is?
thats what generally is great about law. it puts limits to the gray areas that leave subjectivity to the audience. BLACK AND WHITE. and this goes back to many recent conversations, as Thunderball suggests. it seems that the constitution is the biggest victim to these interpretations. not even are own morals are that black and white, so how can anything else be?

cutifly said:
Wow, blow me away, I have to really think about this one. My post personally was in regards to ethics in relation to actual laws in the books and what people think about it, not what may actually be right or wrong which has always been free game for whomever it may apply too. I am curious, what do you think I am ? I just think I am a trouble maker with the right intentions. ha ha. I am a little taken aback by this because this is very very interesting and know I know my general vocabulary is very limited compared to some. But to answer your question straight up and re-reading the last paragraph, I am %100 Anti-Essentialism kind of person.
I am not trying to say the law has anything to do with ethics or morality. My post was to get a feel of what people think and take it to heart. I just want to work inside the technical working of the law and in this particular instance I do not feel it is creating too much conflict by following it. I have also been confusing ethics and morals (my bad). Either way I DO NOT think something that is a law is always right and I also do not feel like something that people may feel is Moral or Ethical is always truth. I only want to try and get as much specific information as possible from all points of view and state my position. I pride myself on being reasonable and honest. I also consider myself a scientist of sorts. It really does not matter what other people think as long as I am being true to my own thinking. Also I can be very easily swayed to one side or the other depending on the information I am given. I also feel like I often need confirmation of information from more than just one person before I accept it as fact. That is what any good journalist or writer would do. Am I making sense ? Are people getting me ?
Or do you even care?

Answer: No.
I do care if I am making sense, not always what someone thinks but sometimes I do ... I liked how you asked me a question and also answered it for me. This is a familiar pattern emerging That saved me a little bit of typing time... lol - Also I have had more than 1, less than 3 messages telling me I am in need of help. So, in a public forum I am asking anyone who feels that they can help me and assist in making me a better person to send me a note and I will be glad to listen to what you have to say .... Thanks

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Or do you even care?
Answer: No.
I was just responding for myself. If anyone wants to get all philosophical about some posts lately, go for it. I'm not one to get all into abstract thought about bike-related decisions. Just remember that the same morals can't be applied across the board due to the different circumstances of different situations.

cutifly said:
I do care if I am making sense, not always what someone thinks but sometimes I do ... I liked how you asked me a question and also answered it for me. This is a familiar pattern emerging That saved me a little bit of typing time... lol - Also I have had more than 1, less than 3 messages telling me I am in need of help. So, in a public forum I am asking anyone who feels that they can help me and assist in making me a better person to send me a note and I will be glad to listen to what you have to say .... Thanks

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Or do you even care?
Answer: No.
Morals? Ethics? What are these you speak of?
Food first, then ethics. -Bertolt Brecht

Chuck a Muck said:
Morals? Ethics? What are these you speak of?
You make my brain hurt. So my truth is that I will have to drink some beer to come to my conclusion.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service