TTI Forums

That post had me searching the Wikipedia Petyr.

Wikipedia wrote:“Deontologists who are also moral absolutists believe that some actions are wrong no matter what consequences follow from them. Immanuel Kant, for example, famously argued that it is always wrong to lie – even if a murderer is asking for the location of a potential victim.[6] Deontologists who are not moral absolutists, such as W.D. Ross, hold that the consequences of an action such as lying may sometimes make lying the right thing to do.”

The conversation is expanding my exposure to philosophy. I certainly believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. Perhaps my views fall more in the category of the amoral deontologist. What pitfalls await me for having these types of perspectives?

musashi wrote:That post had me searching the Wikipedia Petyr.

Wikipedia wrote:“Deontologists who are also moral absolutists believe that some actions are wrong no matter what consequences follow from them. Immanuel Kant, for example, famously argued that it is always wrong to lie – even if a murderer is asking for the location of a potential victim.[6] Deontologists who are not moral absolutists, such as W.D. Ross, hold that the consequences of an action such as lying may sometimes make lying the right thing to do.”

The conversation is expanding my exposure to philosophy. I certainly believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. Perhaps my views fall more in the category of the amoral deontologist. What pitfalls await me for having these types of perspectives?

Deontologists believe that something is "good" because of it's "end value"; basically the end justifies the means. Teleologists believe that things are good or evil in and of themselves, objectively, in other words. That is the context I meant to convey, and nothing else.

Lying is definitely the right thing to do sometimes, in order to protect greater values. For instance, when you lie to a killer about where your children are hiding. It is very easy to tell whether an action is immoral or moral. Moral actions trade value for value equally, or trade a lesser value (it's bad to lie), for a greater one (I love my children). Immoral actions are sacrifices of greater values, (life) for lesser ones, (I want people to think I'm a heroic, altruistic person).

Deontologists believe that something is "good" because of it's "end value"; basically the end justifies the means.

That is certainly not what I believe. For example, building a militia consisting of willing able men to fight the English for independence is moral, even though the odds of me dying and the people I recruit is very high. If the early Americans didn't fight the English, it's likely most of them of them would have lived a reasonably long (but difficult to bear) life under English rule. But forcing, i.e. drafting people into the fight would have been very wrong in my opinion. So I do not take such an absolute stance as you imply that I do.

Jefferson's statement does indeed imply sacrifice, as does my paragraph above. But it's not a bad thing. None of the militia want to die, I think that much is clear. I think you may be confusing the meaning of sacrifice in this context with altruism. Altruism to me is doing something for the good of the many but without a reason behind it, but simply for the sake of doing good for the many.

Petyr - if I understand you correctly, in the example of fighting the English for independence, you would rather not fight them? Because there is a much higher chance you would die fighting them, than just living under their rule. I suspect you'd fight them - but that would mean you would more likely die than if you didn't fight. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Or at least, the meaning of sacrifice for a good reason?

What do you think of Mike Monsoor? He was a NAVY Seal who threw himself on top of a grenade to save his team.

*edit: Changed grammatical error

Pyr Oura wrote:

Deontologists believe that something is "good" because of it's "end value"; basically the end justifies the means.

That is certainly not what I believe. For example, building a militia consisting of willing able men to fight the English for independence is moral, even though the odds of me dying and the people I recruit is very high. If the early Americans didn't fight the English, it's likely most of them of them would have lived a reasonably long (but difficult to bear) life under English rule. But forcing, i.e. drafting people into the fight would have been very wrong in my opinion. So I do not take such an absolute stance as you imply that I do.

Jefferson's statement does indeed imply sacrifice, as does my paragraph above. But it's not a bad thing. None of the militia want to die, I think that much is clear. I think you may be confusing the meaning of sacrifice in this context with altruism. Altruism to me is doing something for the good of the many but without a reason behind it, but simply for the sake of doing good for the many.

Petyr - if I understand you correctly, in the example of fighting the English for independence, you would rather not fight them? Because there is a much higher chance you would die fighting them, than just living under their rule. I suspect you'd fight them - but that would mean you would more likely die than if you didn't fight. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Or at least, the meaning of sacrifice for a good reason?

What do you think of Mike Monsoor? He was a NAVY Seal who threw himself on top of a grenade to save his team.

I answered this very explicitly several posts ago. It's so clear you must not have read it at all.

Petyr Baelich wrote:There are situations where I would risk my life, but there are none where I would sacrifice it. It is not a sacrifice for me to die while fighting to protect those whom I love. It is not a sacrifice for me to fight for something I believe in, and it would be a sacrifice for me not to fight. The difference is that I apply everything to the standards of an objective reality.

I'm done with this discussion, go troll somewhere else.

As to Mike Monsoor, yes, I think he was very weird for doing that. What does it matter to him what happens to his teammates if he's dead? If it is moral for him to sacrifice his life for them, how is it moral for them to accept that sacrifice? The only conditions where his action is moral is if he had a reasonable expectation of surviving the grenade, (wearing EOD-tech full-body suit, for instance). If it were me I'd try and pick up the grenade and throw it, or more likely, kick it away. Anything to try and survive the attack so that I could continue the mission. Throwing my life away is not heroic. Sacrificing my life to save someone else's is AT BEST morally neutral, and at worst a sacrifice of the worst sort. Risking one's life is another thing entirely. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this issue.

Pyr Oura wrote: The right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment of the constitution, as a means for citizens to rebel if they're oppressed by their government. Please try not to shoot anyone who simply disagrees with you.

I have to say, there is nothing I despise more than having this quote taken out of context. I loathe it more than altruism and socialism combined.

The Second Amendment (and it is worthy of capitalization) states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Meaning that you don't get to just randomly buy a gun and use it. Instead it states that you can own arms, and use them, in defense of the state (at the time it was written, that actually meant people) in a well-regulated militia.

<irked>

Pyr Oura wrote:Petyr - I really fail to see why you disagree with me. Especially if you're in the army.

Next, being in the Army does not mean that you are for or opposed to anything. Assuming the reason that someone joins the military is something that no man is qualified to do without speaking to the serviceman in question.

Additionally, I hope you served in the military if you're going to break out with that, otherwise you have just offended yourself, as well as everyone who has ever served, fought or died for our freedom.