tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8816744352726176840..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: MajoritarianismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48714678648718136662010-01-25T09:15:02.008-07:002010-01-25T09:15:02.008-07:00Bogdan - this post might be useful.Bogdan - <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/09/ethics-of-torture.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> might be useful.Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39222968041868404732010-01-25T00:22:48.622-07:002010-01-25T00:22:48.622-07:00Alonso, I've been reading your posts on Common...Alonso, I've been reading your posts on Common Sense Atheism and I am rather new to this ethical theory so please excuse me if my questions are not new to you. After reading this post I started to wonder if it is ethical, according to Desire Utilitarianism, to torture a terrorist with fundamentalist convictions bent on destroying the planet if he activated a weapon so powerful as to put an end to all life on Earth and he’s the only one who can disarm it? Because of his convictions all attempts of persuasion have failed and torture remains the last resort. How would you answer this?Bogdanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15449119709471870254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19852832661511155772010-01-22T11:48:54.252-07:002010-01-22T11:48:54.252-07:00I thought atheists basically just believed that it...<i>I thought atheists basically just believed that it was not possible to prove or disprove God</i>.<br /><br />Depends on the atheist. :) I take a stronger position.<br /><br /><i>You seem a step further, anybody who disagrees with you is believing a falsehood, or at least has not found the truth yet</i>.<br /><br />Yes (on the issue of a god's existence anyway, not on all issues). Specifically because I hold that anyone who sincerely cares about the truth doesn't simply want "the answer", she also wants to know <b>how</b> she can be confident that this knowledge is correct. When the reasons given for the existence of a god are examined, they are found to be of no better quality than the reasons given for believing in UFO abductions or scientology, and are properly dismissed the same way those other beliefs are. Conversely, when the reasons for the non-existence of a personal god are given, they are at the least plausible.<br /><br />This is why I feel any honest search for truth will lead to weak agnosticism (at least).<br /><br /><i>Sounds like nothing could ever prove to you that God exists</i>.<br /><br />That's only half-correct. It is true that no SINGLE thing could ever prove to me that God exists. But no single thing could ever prove to me that atoms exist either. For any single phenomenon there's always an alternate explanation, which could take many possible forms. But knowledge is rarely gained from a single phenomenon. It is hammered home through thousands of disparate yet reinforcing observed, repeatable, real events.<br /><br />Therefore if there was as much good evidence for god as there was for atomic theory I would of course believe. I might not worship, but I would believe. However that much evidence doesn't appear overnight, it would require years of research by humanity's top minds. And yes, that includes even if God himself started walking around on earth and moving the stars every night. I could certainly be convinced this was god, but not instantly.Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-86630357033889403312010-01-22T11:03:40.774-07:002010-01-22T11:03:40.774-07:00TGP, how about a tougher hypothetical? The That...TGP, how about a tougher hypothetical? The That's like asking would you rather have a million dollars or genital warts? How about if it was possible to save only her or three other people in a burning building. Or ten others? <br /><br />Besides, the hypo about the niece is only thrown out there to try to prove or disprove desirism, and I frankly have no desire (pun intended) to do either. I've already said I that it appears to me that DU is a contrivance to help atheists arrive at "the correct moral positions" with the help of fancy sounding words and logic and reason. It won't work on those who reject the logic of what is best to fulfill the many, and it isn't necessary for the majority of Americans (assuming we are still a majority Christian nation). I probably view it as you do my references to the Bible, oh how quaint and not really necessary. <br /><br />I beg to differ about me "retreating" into God and the Bible. I just don't run from them, either. It's like the weather--it is how it is. I don't feel the need to avoid discussing them. <br /><br />I only call names in response, and I have a short memory, so no problem there either. <br /><br />Eneasz, thanks for the honest response. I have nothing against you, but as you can see, I don't take any shit when somebody gives me shit, either. I honestly wondered whether you were such a rabid atheist that nothing else mattered. Obviously, I was wrong. That wasn't a slam--I'm such a rabid Christian that I would rather my neice become a Christian asshole than a wonderful atheist. But hopefully you at least understand why. <br /><br /> But your last comment made me wonder: I thought atheists basically just believed that it was not possible to prove or disprove God. You seem a step further, anybody who disagrees with you is believing a falsehood, or at least has not found the truth yet. Sounds like nothing could ever prove to you that God exists.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13201503785417848382010-01-22T09:58:50.729-07:002010-01-22T09:58:50.729-07:00would you rather she be an atheist and grow up to ...<i>would you rather she be an atheist and grow up to be an amoral asshole, or a narrow-minded Christian who grew up to be a wonderful person who desired to do the right thing as often as possible? Assume for the moment that she was statistically more likely to grow up to desire to do the right thing more often if she was a Christian than if she was an atheist</i>.<br /><br />I debated for quite a while whether I should reply or not. I really mistrust any attempt you make to engage me. But you claim it's an honest question.<br /><br />The question is ridiculously easy, if we grant your assumption. Obviously I'd rather that she became a good Christian. I'm a big fan of <a href="http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/01/dear-pat-robertson-stfu.html" rel="nofollow">Fred Clark</a>. Morality trumps ideology, hands-down, no contest.<br /><br />But, of course, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbef07aQtB8" rel="nofollow">your assumption is incorrect</a>. (please note that while the video is factually accurate, I disagree with its implied message.)<br /><br />Besides, given that a good person would have a strong desire for truth, she would likely eventually drop christianity anyway.Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-22083949617992806962010-01-22T07:56:20.896-07:002010-01-22T07:56:20.896-07:00John Doe,
You're not interacting with me. Y...John Doe, <br /><br />You're not interacting with me. You're retreating back to either "God" or "The Bible." <br /><br />You want to show your work? Explain to me why it's bad to kill Eneasz's niece. That's an example others are working on in this same thread. <br /><br />Also, let's have a moratorium on the name-calling. I don't think it's constructive for any of us as it degrades the clarity of our arguments.dbonfittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08787420987976232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71926241239187014902010-01-22T07:46:55.469-07:002010-01-22T07:46:55.469-07:00From what little I know about the topic, I believe...From what little I know about the topic, I believe desirism does not take into account enough of other influences on our actions. Temperment, self-discipline, background, genetics, personality types, emotional make-up and history, etc. all have much effect on a person's actions. <br /><br />Many "bad" persons likely have the best of intentions but lack the self-control and self-discipline to act on their good desires and refrain from their bad-desires. Conversely, many of those who are considered "good" because of their actions may not deserve nearly as much credit as they get because they were born even-tempered, and self-disciplined, etc. Very few of us, er I youse guys, are emotionally stable and completely logical Vulcans.John Dr. McCoy Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-51604682491335183812010-01-21T21:17:58.961-07:002010-01-21T21:17:58.961-07:00Like TGP says, that would be a bad desire. Anyone...Like TGP says, that would be a bad desire. Anyone who knows my niece (or the people who love her) would have reasons to replace that desire with a more general "don't kill" desire.<br /><br />Perhaps the confusion arises because people have both good and bad desires, but we generally call someone good or bad on the whole based on their relative number/strength? Which leads to situations like "He's really a great guy, aside from being a bit racist."<br /><br />A hypothetical Good Agent would be one that has desires we all wish to promote generally, and doesn't have any that we wish to eliminate generally. So I don't think the robot would qualify.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-70919411149559990752010-01-21T18:32:55.691-07:002010-01-21T18:32:55.691-07:00TGP, please be specific. On what topic do you want...TGP, please be specific. On what topic do you want me to "Show my work?" You obviously have a stunted view of Christians if you think that all we can do is say "god said so." I am enjoying interacting with you, don't spoil it by acting like your intelligence is as low as Eneasz'.<br /><br />And while we are on the topic of your wonderful neice, would you rather she be an atheist and grow up to be an amoral asshole, or a narrow-minded Christian who grew up to be a wonderful person who desired to do the right thing as often as possible? Assume for the moment that she was statistically more likely to grow up to desire to do the right thing more often if she was a Christian than if she was an atheist. Honest question. I'm wondering what is more important to you, that your niece grow up to believe what you think is true, or to grow up to be in the final analysis "moral" as you define moral.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40631331645101423462010-01-21T13:29:42.929-07:002010-01-21T13:29:42.929-07:00Doug S.,
I think that "bug" is Robotes...Doug S., <br /><br />I think that "bug" is Robotese for "bad desire."dbonfittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08787420987976232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74055946200633128822010-01-21T13:16:17.229-07:002010-01-21T13:16:17.229-07:00John Doe,
Please show your work.
"God says...John Doe, <br /><br />Please show your work.<br /><br />"God says so," is the equivalent of looking in the back of the book. There is no reason to believe that those answers are valid.dbonfittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08787420987976232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67102276432748647902010-01-21T13:02:32.073-07:002010-01-21T13:02:32.073-07:00I don't know if I can make killing your niece ...I don't know if I can make killing your niece a good act, but I can make it a "desirism_right" act. (Of course, *not* killing her would also be a "desirism_right" act.) <br /><br />Imagine a robot that, under almost all circumstances, will do things that we agree are generally desire fulfilling. However, due to a bug in its programming, if it sees your niece [where she currently is] between [five minutes ago] and [five minutes from now], it will try to kill her. Aside from that bug, it'll be a perfect desirism_moral agent. Now, because you can put that robot just about anywhere and anywhen and its desires will have good results, it's an agent with desirism_good desires that will, nevertheless, "kill your niece right now". Because any act that <i>some</i> agent with good desires would perform is a desirism_right act, "kill your niece right now" is a desirism_right act. (As is not killing your niece right now.)<br /><br />(Let's be clear, though: this definitely isn't an argument that says that <b>you</b> ought to kill your niece! Doing that would certainly thwart more of your desires than it fulfills. ^_^)Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19922691060967289622010-01-21T12:01:34.185-07:002010-01-21T12:01:34.185-07:00TGP, I'd venture to bet that I can "show ...TGP, I'd venture to bet that I can "show my work" and arrive at the correct moral conclusion better than any of the atheists whose writings I've seen here. <br /><br />In fact, one of my biggest problems with desire utilitarianism is that it appears to be a convoluted and contrived method of coming to the same correct conclusions that are already contained in the New Testament. It's seems as though a moral person, with the same general beliefs of what is moral and just as are contained in the Bible, but who did not actually believe in God, was trying to get to the correct conclusions by some other means. "Can't just say it is correct because God said it, have to come up with some other rationalization that leads to the same conclusion while leaving God out of it." <br /><br />IMO, the biggest problem of desire utilitarianism is contained within the general nature of humans. Most people are not born "good." Kids are born selfish and grow up to be mean. Power and money corrupts. Trying to "reason" persons into doing what Alphonzo, er I mean what a "person with good desires, would do" in like circumstances won't fly with too many people. <br /><br /> The typical response, I can imagine, is probably: "Who the hell is Alonzo and why should I care what he thinks? I don't care about what good people will do, I care about what I want to do. Yeah, I don't want others to steal from me, but that won't stop me from stealing from others."John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-54361345806736897652010-01-21T09:26:59.563-07:002010-01-21T09:26:59.563-07:00Hiya Doug. Interesting discussion. :)
So, if &quo...Hiya Doug. Interesting discussion. :)<br /><br /><i>So, if "don't murder anyone" is a good desire, then "don't murder anyone, except under this extremely constrained situation that almost nobody will ever encounter" should also be a good desire</i>.<br /><br />If people actually have reasons to promote that desire in others, then yes.<br /><br /><i>Since I can do this for any act at all, that means that every possible act has at least one possible agent with good desires which will perform that act</i>.<br /><br />Actually, I don't think you can do this for any act at all. I have an adorable niece that just celebrated her first birthday. Can you make killing her right now a good act?<br /><br />Please keep in mind that any hypothetical that requires omniscience is not applicable to the real world.Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-15868207310963358742010-01-21T06:54:24.757-07:002010-01-21T06:54:24.757-07:00John Doe said:
Finally, Alonzo's conclusions a...John Doe said:<br /><i>Finally, Alonzo's conclusions about nudging hearts to do the right thing is not far from Christianity. He does it because he wants them to do the right thing, and Christians believe God wants them to do the right thing. Even people who come at problems from diametrically opposed viewpoints can occasionally reach the same conclusions.</i><br /><br />I think you're missing the point, John Doe. Christianity, and other morally prescriptive religions, want you to do the right thing based on the answers in the back of the book. Often these answers are correct, but we have no way of verifying them, and so must trust that whoever wrote them down was correct. An atheistic morality requires instead that you learn to do the math and be able to show your work. That way, you can check against the answer key. <br /><br />Alonzo, and by extension most atheistic theories of morality, doesn't want you to do the right thing. He wants you to be able to figure out what the right thing to do from scratch and apply it.dbonfittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08787420987976232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-70743298494948619672010-01-21T01:17:36.041-07:002010-01-21T01:17:36.041-07:00The reason I'm bringing this up is that I thin...The reason I'm bringing this up is that I think I've found a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> of desirism. <br /><br />According to desirism, as I understand it, an act is a right act if there is at least one possible agent with good desires that would do that act. However, I think that I can come up with such an agent for <i>any</i> possible act. It is self-evident that not all acts are right acts, so if I really can do so, then there is something wrong with desirism.<br /><br />Again, if my understanding is correct, a desire is good if it tends to cause more desire fulfillment than desire thwarting. If a desire backfires in unusual circumstances, that's okay, as long as, in general, it meets those standards.<br /><br />So, assuming that X is a sufficiently good desire, then "X, except in some over-specified, rare situation that most people won't ever be in, in which case Y" should also be a good desire, because it's still good "in general". So, if "don't murder anyone" is a good desire, then "don't murder anyone, except under this extremely constrained situation that almost nobody will ever encounter" should also be a good desire. <br /><br />Every possible act in the real world happens at a specific place and time. So, by simply specifying that place and time precisely enough, I can take any desire, add a sufficiently narrow exception, and still have a good desire. Therefore I can take any agent with good desires, change those desires by adding a narrow exception, and end up with an agent with good desires that will performs the act I specified. Since I can do this for any act at all, that means that every possible act has at least one possible agent with good desires which will perform that act. So all acts are right acts. <br /><br />(I really hope that made sense!)<br /><br />Either something is wrong with my reasoning, or something is wrong with desirism as it was explained to me. (As it stands, desirism doesn't penalize desires for being complicated.)Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11478140529108408362010-01-20T09:22:22.110-07:002010-01-20T09:22:22.110-07:001) Is that really true?
If I told you that I have...<i>1) Is that really true?<br /><br />If I told you that I have a desire to not lie except when playing Diplomacy, would you say that no, I don't have such a desire because it would be too specific? What if I said that I hate to tell lies except on April Fool's Day</i>?<br /><br />Actually I don't think these apply because a desire to not lie isn't just simply "never say something that's factually wrong". It's more like "don't sabotage other people's map of reality". Both the examples you gave are recognized as games where both parties know (or are expected to know) that the information conveyed is for play and not a representation of reality.<br /><br /><i>2) Even if you're right, so what?<br /><br />Even if human brains as they currently exist can't hold a desire like that, there's nothing in the laws of physics that prevents stops a brain that is capable of having such a desire from existing</i>.<br /><br />Well I assumed the question was an objection to actual morality as it exists, not hypothetical alien morality. It's not an objection to actual human morality if it doesn't apply to humans.<br /><br />But as a hypothetical, you have a very good point. I expect that many desires will become more malleable (and previously fixed desires will become malleable) in the future as our knowledge and technology grow. I'm sure many new questions on "what is moral" will arise, and I certainly haven't thought through all of them. It could be a fun exercise tho, and potentially enlightening.<br /><br />As for "A desire to not lie except on 4/7/15 while wearing green", I imagine this would basically turn 4/7/15 into another April Fool's Day, so I guess it'd be neutral. Altho personally I hate that you can't trust anything you hear on April Fool's Day. /sighEneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-56883757302968345072010-01-20T07:05:09.716-07:002010-01-20T07:05:09.716-07:00Marc, THANKS for the help. Ok, I think I get it, ...Marc, THANKS for the help. Ok, I think I get it, we estimate what a person with good desires would do under the circumstances. We can never know for sure, but we do the best we can, and we realize that inevitably there will still be areas where reasonable minds can disagree. [I still have this vague feeling that all this fancy theory is a way of dressing up morality in fancy talk--why not just say "I think this is moral, and this isn't, and set forth your reasons X, Y and Z. This theory seems to me an attempt to make scientific and to encapsulate in a theory something that is not scientific.]<br /><br />And that article that you pointed to made more questions in my mind. I don't see how "desires are the only reasons for action that exist." People often can and do act contrary to their desires. They are negligent. People don't try to rear-end the car in front of them. They are forgetful. They don't mean to miss that loved one's birthday. And they just drift, e.g., in a boat or while walking through some unknown woods. Sure, they desired generally to be in a boat or in the woods, but where specifically they went was left to chance. And sure, often times just drifting does not cause important consequences, but sometimes it does, if for instance they drift too far out to sea and die. <br /><br />I am not sure either how Alphonzo's theory addresses those who desire to do the right thing, but who nevertheless do the wrong thing. I'm pretty sure that some [many?] theives, murderers and rapists out there wish they did not give in to their improper and illegal urges. <br /><br />Finally, Alonzo's conclusions about nudging hearts to do the right thing is not far from Christianity. He does it because he wants them to do the right thing, and Christians believe God wants them to do the right thing. Even people who come at problems from diametrically opposed viewpoints can occasionally reach the same conclusions.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74860402925431329582010-01-20T06:56:22.191-07:002010-01-20T06:56:22.191-07:00John Doe, regarding the "high fallutin'&q...John Doe, regarding the "high fallutin'" tone of this blog: Alonzo is trying to formulate a formal moral theory. That requires quite a bit of abstract expression and generalization. Yeah, sometimes it gets a bit dense, but he's trying to be thorough. As far as 'particulars' go, one of the reasons I keep coming back to this blog is his excellent use of analogy and hypothetical examples to express those dense, abstract concepts from the formal theory.dbonfittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08787420987976232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66280433054649575062010-01-20T05:08:14.066-07:002010-01-20T05:08:14.066-07:00Josef
The objection that you raise is that of Rob...<b>Josef</b><br /><br />The objection that you raise is that of Robert Nozick's Utility Monster.<br /><br />Which I address in a post called <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/01/robert-nozicks-utility-monster.html" rel="nofollow">Robert Nozick's Utility Monster</a>Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-33045009348722488132010-01-20T02:08:57.674-07:002010-01-20T02:08:57.674-07:00@John Doe
I think Alonzo adresses your point best ...@John Doe<br />I think Alonzo adresses your point best in this post: <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/04/desire-utilitarianism-and-moral.html" rel="nofollow">cllllick</a><br /><br />Searching for 'moral calculus' brings up some related posts.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729858603831755459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49443599713645529222010-01-19T18:23:37.118-07:002010-01-19T18:23:37.118-07:00The example you gave is (I believe) the classic re...<i>The example you gave is (I believe) the classic refutation of rule utilitarianism. </i><br /><br />Cool! I reproduced a classic refutation all by myself!<br /><br /><i>It doesn't apply to desirism because it is not possible for a desire to be so specific. You can have a desire to lie, or not to lie, but you can't have a "desire to lie except on 4/7/15 while wearing green." Human brains are incapable of producing such finely-tuned desires.</i><br /><br />I have two objections. <br /><br />1) Is that really true?<br /><br />If I told you that I have a desire to not lie except when playing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_%28game%29" rel="nofollow">Diplomacy</a>, would you say that no, I don't have such a desire because it would be too specific? What if I said that I hate to tell lies except on April Fool's Day?<br /><br />2) Even if you're right, so what?<br /><br />Even if human brains as they currently exist can't hold a desire like that, there's nothing in the laws of physics that prevents stops a brain that is capable of having such a desire from existing. I can easily imagine an artificial intelligence or a space alien that has a mind capable of having finely tuned desires. Furthermore, nobody here has ever claimed that desires don't become good or bad until they are actually implemented in some brain.Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79905530376952395742010-01-19T17:49:11.032-07:002010-01-19T17:49:11.032-07:00At the risk of incurring Eneasz' wrath, I have...At the risk of incurring Eneasz' wrath, I have been trying to bone up on Alonzo's theory, and I have some comments. I get that his theory differs from moral relativism (thank God), but to me it still is relativism. Instead of leaving each question to the individual, it seems to leave each question to the subjective desires of the majority. <br /><br />I believe that the rebuttal from Alonzo's camp (if they deign to answer me) will be that no, it does not leave what is moral to the majority, but rather leaves it to what "a person with good desires" would do even if the majority would not desire the right thing. <br /><br />The problem, if I am correct in my guess at what the reply will be, is that it still devolves into a pissing contest over what a "person with good desires" would choose in each particular instance. <br /><br />It's easy to sit back and sound all high-minded when you aren't talking about particulars. Let's say you are Pres Truman, and you have to decide whether to drop The Bomb or to instead order the troops to invade Japan. After just seeing how fanatical the Japs were in defending what they considered their homeland, in Okinawa. We can quibble about the numbers, but invading the homeland would cost American G.I. lives. What would "a person with good desires" choose to do? Sure, tens of thousands will die either way. Come on, person with good desires, what do you do? Either way, innocent persons will die. <br /><br />To me, and I truly am not just being cynical, this just sounds like a system to dress up what you want to be the correct answer in fancy clothes and high-fallutin language. For instance, you want people to agree that man's activities are causing global warming. You want people to conclude that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Instead of just saying that is your opinion, you dress it up with "a person who has good desires" would come to the same conclusion. <br /><br />And to those of you who whine that I am constructing a straw man, no I am not. If I am wrong, it is an innocent mistake, and I will gladly listen to those who calmly point out how I am mistaken. I'm not trying to be a troll, and I am not trying to be contentious. I am stating my understanding of the theory, and am ready to admit if I have just misunderstood it. I come here to dialogue, and to understand, not to further any agenda of mine. <br /><br />Personally, I could give a shit what anybody here thinks, I just want to understand the theory, and then determine whether I agree with it. For all I know, it might be the secret to wealth and happpiness.John "grasshopper" Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75456810183660960272010-01-19T17:14:06.464-07:002010-01-19T17:14:06.464-07:00Doug S -
The example you gave is (I believe) the ...Doug S -<br /><br />The example you gave is (I believe) the classic refutation of rule utilitarianism. It doesn't apply to desirism because it is not possible for a desire to be so specific. You can have a desire to lie, or not to lie, but you can't have a "desire to lie except on 4/7/15 while wearing green." Human brains are incapable of producing such finely-tuned desires.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61568818626753785642010-01-19T15:07:54.442-07:002010-01-19T15:07:54.442-07:00One criticism I frequently make of Alonzo is that ...One criticism I frequently make of Alonzo is that he has not presented an adequate algorithm for determining whether a desire is a good desire or not. Alonzo, could you, if you wanted to, describe a computer program that could tell whether or not a desire is good? <br /><br />For example, we may very well agree that "I desire that I am not telling a lie" is a good desire. Is "I desire that I am not telling a lie, except when the date is April 7, 2015 and I am wearing a green shirt, in which case I desire that I am telling a lie" a good desire? I could easily claim that it is, because most of the time it's not April 7, 2015 and I hardly ever wear green shirts. <br /><br />If you could describe such a program, then we could attempt to settle the question.Doug S.noreply@blogger.com