tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post3580875103303605292..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: What's wrong with self-effacing moral theories?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-36979596357371636912008-11-21T12:58:00.000-05:002008-11-21T12:58:00.000-05:00Pablo - too true.Brandon - yeah, I like that analo...Pablo - too true.<BR/><BR/>Brandon - yeah, I like that analogy.<BR/><BR/>Stentor - a preference utilitarian can "regret" having to adopt a false moral theory (given that most people would - all else equal - prefer truth/publicness), just as it's regrettable that Jim must kill one person in order to save twenty. You might instead follow Williams in claiming that utilitarianism makes such tradeoffs "too easy", when really we should feel all torn up inside. But note that:<BR/><BR/>(i) This objection is no longer <I>distinctively</I> about self-effacement. Any distasteful outcome would do.<BR/><BR/>(ii) Utilitarianism doesn't imply that <I>we</I> shouldn't "care", feel torn, etc. (To think otherwise is to confuse criteria of rightness and decision procedures.) Maybe we should, if such non-utilitarian character traits would lead to better consequences!Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-40249497974487425612008-11-17T13:10:00.000-05:002008-11-17T13:10:00.000-05:00Good post, especially the point about the continge...Good post, especially the point about the contingency of effacingness.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if something could be salvaged from the effacingness objection by reconstructing it to say utilitarianism is wrong because it doesn't *care* whether it's self-effacing. Utilitarianism doesn't put any direct value on being publicly acknowledged, so it will happily take whichever path maximizes utility. Whereas other theories may put some inherent value on publicness (probably related to a commitment to honesty). So even in the case of the evil demon, the deontologist would at least *regret* having to adopt a false moral theory, whereas the utilitarian would say "cool, this will maximize utility given the constraints of the situation."Stentorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13629599671442149938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-76931272393818374822008-11-16T09:12:00.000-05:002008-11-16T09:12:00.000-05:00I think the idea is supposed to be that there is s...I think the idea is supposed to be that there is something troublesome about the idea that taking a moral theory seriously, even if the moral theory is right, could make you worse morally.<BR/><BR/>Certainly a great many people, including a great many utilitarians, seem to to take it seriously, enough to discuss it at length. I agree, though, that self-effacement is not a good objection to utilitarianism; one might as well dismiss sport science on the basis that if I am continually thinking about muscle movement in a big game rather than the game itself, I'll do badly.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-67682979278822610862008-11-16T02:24:00.000-05:002008-11-16T02:24:00.000-05:00It is, of course, the ultimate irony that while ut...It is, of course, the ultimate irony that while utilitarianism is widely known to be a self-effacing theory and widely criticized for being unique in this regard, only a chosen few are aware that deontology has those same implications.Pablohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10363127923767597327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-57838803334333171032008-11-16T02:08:00.000-05:002008-11-16T02:08:00.000-05:00As usual, utilitarians get the blame simply becaus...As usual, utilitarians get the blame simply because they are clear about the implications of the theory they endorse, and because they endorse a theory with clear implications. By contrast, deontologists tend to bury the disaster-avoidance overrides you mention somewhere in a forgotten footnote, which is not supposed to disrupt the high-sounding prose of inviolable rights and individual liberty. (A question for the thoughtful reader: how many of the standard objections to utilitarianism are not raised against deontology because it's unclear whether they apply rather than because it is clear that they don’t?)Pablohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10363127923767597327noreply@blogger.com