tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4690848995371177162..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Presenting DesirismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85106921472197812002016-09-14T09:01:08.785-06:002016-09-14T09:01:08.785-06:00I hate to say this because it is so self-serving ....I hate to say this because it is so self-serving . . . but . . . <br /><br />The best way to get these ideas out there is for people to find the blog posts that they like - that say things that are important - and to make relevant comments elsewhere that directs readers to those posts.<br /><br />For example, perhaps one knows of some atheist groups that should see some of the posts on atheist tribes.<br /><br />Or one encounters a discussion of evolution and morality that could use a link to a relevant post on that subject.<br /><br />I could benefit from the input - even if it is negative.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13168732736816890132016-09-09T16:15:51.692-06:002016-09-09T16:15:51.692-06:00Why don't you try and be a guest on a philosop...Why don't you try and be a guest on a philosophy podcast? Maybe if a fan like myself emails them for you? Philosophy Bites maybe?Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14389298711813091852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61047606912788587702016-09-08T08:24:05.844-06:002016-09-08T08:24:05.844-06:00Shmuel Warshell - I posted a longer response to yo...Shmuel Warshell - I posted a longer response to your Premise 1 on a separate blog post.<br /><br />However, in addition, your Premise 2 is false. The desire to thwart the desires of a minority fulfills no desires. If this desire to thwart the desires of a minority was to vanish - disappear entirely - who will miss it?<br /><br />If a desire to keep promises were to disappear - lots of people would miss it. If the desire to repay debts disappeared, there would be a lot of problems. But, if this desire to thwart the desires of a minority were to disappear, there are a lot of people who would be sad to see it go, but nobody (at least within your assumptions) who would regret the loss.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-15444091429660194682016-09-08T06:15:20.612-06:002016-09-08T06:15:20.612-06:00Shmuel
Desirism is consequentialist but not utili...Shmuel<br /><br />Desirism is consequentialist but not utilitarian, in this scenario this means that the number of holders of a desire are not relevant to the analysis. After all the distribution of different desires in a population is an accident of history and could be different at different places and times, so your argument appears to assume a framework for a moral relativism not desirism?<br /><br />So given (1) we can note the irrelevance of the distribution of these desires and then proceed with Agent A has a desire P to thwart a desire Q of Agent B. We then compare this to the absence of a desire P, whence desire Q is not thwarted. Now the latter tends to bring about more desire fulfilment than the former. So people have reasons to inhibit or discourage P not, as you IMV invalidly conclude to encourage P. Specifically (5) is unsupported. <br />Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28615251585778506092016-09-07T18:42:14.821-06:002016-09-07T18:42:14.821-06:00Here's an argument against desirism.
1. The m...Here's an argument against desirism. <br />1. The majority of people desire to see the desire of a certain minority thwarted.(premise)<br />2.The desire to thwart the desires of the minority tends to fulfill more desires then it thwarts. (from 1-there are more desires that the desires of the minority be thwarted then there are that the desires of the minority not be thwarted.<br />3. The desire to thwart the desires of the minority is a good desire (from 2 and definition of good desire.<br />3. The right act is the one a person with good desires would perform.<br />4. A person with good desires would have the desire to thwart the desires of the minority. (From 2 and 3)<br />5. The right act is to thwart the desires of the minority. (From 3 and 4)<br />I suppose the committed desirist could accept the conclusion, and say that our moral intuitions are wrong in this case.Shaunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09466738560345213952noreply@blogger.com