RoR: Forum

Nice summary; thanks! (I am happy to have given it the first vote of appreciation.)

However...

They will often point out that the guilty person couldn't possibly have known, and has no reason to feel guilty. They believe that moral guilt can't be assigned when a person acted well and unforeseeable accidents occurred anyway. While this is a valid criticism, there is another. The primary function of a moral system is to let a person make choices. Unforeseeable consequences cannot be a factor in making decisions.

Of course, there may still be arguments about what consequences were foreseeable or expected. It may even be that someone is held responsible for not acquiring the information they would have needed to have the right expectations. Intentional ignorance, like intentions, may not be an excuse. But instead of dwelling on the details, I'll leave this version as close enough.

I think that this is intriguing. Is it wrong to accept such limitations? "To err is human" may be a mystical fallacy. Is it possible that with a clear and uncluttered mind, we actually could be infallible, even if not omniscient? Could we not at least minimize errors to being outlier events, rather than the expected norm?

Post 1

Saturday, April 27, 2013 - 2:48am

What consequentialism and Objectivism have in common is that they are not deontological ethics. Consequentialism also doesn't care at all about the particular consequences, whereas for Objectivism, there is a unified consequence that drives ethics. The role of the agent is irrelevant for consequentialism -- thus self-sacrifice is a virtuous consequentialist action. The role of the agent is obviously central to Objectivism. What consequentialism has going for it, relative to deontology, is some notion of causality, which is essential to solving the is/ought problem. That's a very thin similarity to Objectivism.

Post 2

Saturday, April 27, 2013 - 2:49am

Also, I think that we have to keep in mind that there is a conscious goal on one hand and a logical end of road on the other hand. The logical end of road is dictated by the logic and the flow of the ideas held.

Post 3

Sunday, May 5, 2013 - 11:35pm

Thanks Michael M.

You asked: "Is it possible that with a clear and uncluttered mind, we actually could be infallible, even if not omniscient? Could we not at least minimize errors to being outlier events, rather than the expected norm?"

My view is that most knowledge is gained through the process of induction. Induction requires an integration of information. If you lack some important information, it doesn't matter how clear thinking you are, you will arrive at the wrong conclusion. It's unavoidable.

How frequently are mistakes because of insufficient information vs. sloppy thinking? I'm sure that depends on the person. But the more rigorous the thinker, the more likely the lack of sufficient information will be the cause of the mistakes.

This is true with knowledge in general, but it is also true when it comes to moral predictions. In fact, in the area of predictions, lack of information will always be a massive source of error.

Rationalists view deduction as the gold standard of knowledge, and consequently think that rigorous application of logic is enough to guarantee correct conclusions. For them, mistakes are presumed to be moral failures since insufficient information doesn't have the same significance in deductive reasoning.

Michael P, I suspect you have something very specific in mind when you talk about consequentialism, but it isn't clear from you posts.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 9:57pm