The problem with rule/act utilitarianism/kantian ethics is that you have to designate what is and what isn't going to make the "world look better." Utilitarians see that as maximized pleasure for the most sentient beings. Kantians see that as acting out of moral correctness -- a take which I think sides more with your idea. Kant had a number of good ideas, yeah. :)
I clicked the comment button to say virtually that.
People have different views on what is 'better'. People also weigh the importance of the act itself and the result differently (Deontologist [believes a right action is the correct path, regardless of consequence] vs. Consequentialist [believes a good consequence is the correct path, regardless of what's required to get there]). There's also the issue of morality, ethics and so on that changes what one might view as resulting in the 'world looking better'.
No, I'm aware of that; that's why the philosophy is not "perfect". But it applies well to concerns of attitude and behavior. Say for example that you want to throw an expletive at someone. How would the world look if everyone treated each other like that? Or say that you want to punch someone in the face. Would the world look good if everyone kept slugging each other? It goes for basic stuff like that. Whenever you attempt on doing something that is probable to hurt someone, this philosophy could apply, even for those who think they're doing the right thing. "how would the world be if everyone were at war?" "how would the world look if nobody ever budged/compromised for someone else?"
Of course, it just doesn't apply to everything. "how would the world look if everyone caught fish for a living?" - maybe not...
"Or say that you want to punch someone in the face. Would the world look good if everyone kept slugging each other?"
One could say that if everyone punched each other whenever they got offended, eventually everyone would be a hell of a lot more polite to each other, if only to avoid getting whacked.
You know, your idea is VERY close to my own personal philosophy/religion. I like keeping my beliefs as fairly simple as possible, so I try to live every day of my life by this one idea:
Do whatever you want to do with your life, so long as whatever you do doesn't hurt yourself or others around you.
I guess that sort of ties into doing whatever you think is "right". Essentially, you're likely not doing anything "wrong", as long you know that you're not doing anything that goes against other people's well being, including your own. :)
I agree with this (and of course Hale's philosophy). As long as most people don't have too much of a terribly warped idea of what's best for the world, I do believe the world would generally be a better place if more people took that into consideration before taking actions.
Comments 9
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_first_formulation
4u
The problem with rule/act utilitarianism/kantian ethics is that you have to designate what is and what isn't going to make the "world look better." Utilitarians see that as maximized pleasure for the most sentient beings. Kantians see that as acting out of moral correctness -- a take which I think sides more with your idea. Kant had a number of good ideas, yeah. :)
Reply
People have different views on what is 'better'.
People also weigh the importance of the act itself and the result differently (Deontologist [believes a right action is the correct path, regardless of consequence] vs. Consequentialist [believes a good consequence is the correct path, regardless of what's required to get there]).
There's also the issue of morality, ethics and so on that changes what one might view as resulting in the 'world looking better'.
Sorry, life ain't black and white.
Reply
No, I'm aware of that; that's why the philosophy is not "perfect". But it applies well to concerns of attitude and behavior. Say for example that you want to throw an expletive at someone. How would the world look if everyone treated each other like that? Or say that you want to punch someone in the face. Would the world look good if everyone kept slugging each other? It goes for basic stuff like that. Whenever you attempt on doing something that is probable to hurt someone, this philosophy could apply, even for those who think they're doing the right thing. "how would the world be if everyone were at war?" "how would the world look if nobody ever budged/compromised for someone else?"
Of course, it just doesn't apply to everything. "how would the world look if everyone caught fish for a living?" - maybe not...
Reply
One could say that if everyone punched each other whenever they got offended, eventually everyone would be a hell of a lot more polite to each other, if only to avoid getting whacked.
It's a matter of perspective..
Reply
Do whatever you want to do with your life, so long as whatever you do doesn't hurt yourself or others around you.
I guess that sort of ties into doing whatever you think is "right". Essentially, you're likely not doing anything "wrong", as long you know that you're not doing anything that goes against other people's well being, including your own. :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment