astralcodexten.substack.com
I made this a top level post because I think people here might want to discuss it but you can remove it if it doesn't meet your standards.
Edit: removed my opinion of Scott from the body
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Aside from the strictly amoral or immoral, one of the worst conceptual types is the one who knows a very long list of moral systems, from various flavors of deontology to different types of consequentialism to the ethics of many virtues, and applies the moral justification to fit his situation. In any given instance, he has a perfectly cogent explanation for why his choice was justifiable, and even an argument for why his justification was the best type for the context, and yet the central point of morality was lost along the way--fencing off bad choices from good ones. Different systems will have somewhat different fence patterns, but hotswapping fences to fit your behavior ends up destroying the concept and purpose of the fence.
This does sound like a neat rejection of Scott's deontology in the streets, utilitarianism in the sheets approach.
But I can't think of a coherent way for one to hot swap morality. For anyone's system to be coherent there must ultimately be some moral facts or axioms underlying it that reigns supreme in the meta-morality calculus.
People who think they're doing this are probably just utilitarians who think deontology is nothing more than rule utilitarianism by heuristic.
Committed theists don't have a backup morality for when God tells them to do evil. They either go whole hog or come up with biblical copes.
People who want the hodge podge pick virtue ethics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link