Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Callous vs. Caring Consequentialists

While I don't reject utilitarian thinking across t...

2009-10-06T09:51:03.486-04:00

While I don't reject utilitarian thinking across the board, I don't think you can chart out "action-rules" for all situations --are you discussing how rational agents should act at the grocery store or mall, or say during a riot, or in New Orleans after Katrina? It's completely context-less.

Even most rule-U. types agree to the rule about breaking rules--rules are a subset of acts, or something. I would say the same holds re "dispositions", whether desire, or rational-based (rules of thumb either way).

I sort of see what your attempting to do via rationality, but I don't think you can establish that via the agent, or really anything except subjective desire-based values, which can be altered as needed. A contractualist like Rawls does at least suggest a way around the subjective impasse by means of the Veil of Ignorance--not that the VoI would be of much avail after a Katrina...

J - I'm just not addressing that question. It's a...

2009-10-05T12:06:51.158-04:00

J - I'm just not addressing that question. It's assumed for sake of argument. You might be more interested in that prior question than you are in the question I'm addressing in this post. Nonetheless, if you wish to engage with this post, you need focus on the precise issue I'm tackling, not the prior issues of whether you accept utilitarianism and moral rationalism. (Importantly, the structural point I'm making doesn't really rely on either of those assumptions -- they just make it easier to state. But you could easily replace the general rule I've given as an example with any other general rule you personally accept, or you could replace any mention of 'rationality' with the notion of an 'evidence-relative moral obligation'. By focusing on these simplifying assumptions, you end up missing the point.)

""This transmission principle holds only when the ...

2009-10-05T10:57:45.250-04:00

""This transmission principle holds only when the 'rationality-enhancing' disposition serves as a generally reliable 'rule of thumb', like the rule against killing people even when murder might (prima facie) seem to promote utility.""

You're begging the question on obligation, again--some might agree to that "rule"; some might not. Not to say assuming that ethics has something to do with rationality--even utilitarians said otherwise.