Timeline for answer to Moral skepticism and "walking the talk" by Christopher King
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2018 at 18:02 | comment | added | Christopher King | @SAH In practice, one's personal utility function usually involves both selfish and moral elements. Even if you do not believe that morality is "real", it is still true that people desire to do things such as helping other people. | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 7:21 | comment | added | SAH | (I realize there are tons of potential problems there. Just suggesting some could be solved definitionally. Surely something in philosophy sometime requires a definition.) | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 7:17 | comment | added | SAH | Really interesting. I'd never heard that. Is that idea---i.e., that utility value is independent of "is"--- true only if "utility" is construed as something arbitrary/undefinable, or also if it is considered as simple as, perhaps, "surviving, having healthy offspring, and avoiding pain"? I thought the definition of utility was that it is buried in "is"? | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 23:53 | comment | added | Christopher King | @SAH If one accepts the is-ought problem, the same reasoning can be used to show that one can not derive a personal utility function from is-statements as well. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 21:23 | comment | added | SAH | "Why not?" --Well, for one thing, in so-called moral tests, it seems there is usually something to be gained by the subject himself from failing to be moral. The law's arm is not long enough, I don't think, to make moral actions the right choice for personal utility all or even most of the time. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 14:57 | history | answered | Christopher King | CC BY-SA 4.0 |