tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post2965122604320646008..comments2023-04-13T02:45:50.515-07:00Comments on The Ends of Thought: Should Ethics Tell Us What to Do?Roman Altshulerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06570099479055051251noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-60585674522176991092007-12-06T18:57:00.000-08:002007-12-06T18:57:00.000-08:00Hey Multiple Needle person,Sorry I didn't reply ea...Hey Multiple Needle person,<BR/><BR/>Sorry I didn't reply earlier; I missed your comment somehow. I do like Moore, but am (obviously) a bigger fan of Kant. One reason is that I think Kant can do the same things we get from Moore, but better. For one, it's just not true that "Kant gives no attention to ends or intrinsic values at all." It is true that Kant does not believe there are any intrinsic values--value, on his account, is accorded by practical reason, and so it cannot be intrinsic. (But he does give attention to this point!)<BR/><BR/>As for ends, on the other hand, Kant actually states that "ethics can also be defined as the system of the <I>ends</I> of pure practical reason." There is a duty to pursue two ends in particular: one's own perfection and the happiness of others.<BR/><BR/>The problem with intuitionism ("self evident" ends and such) is just that nothing grounds intrinsic values. Kant gives us a way to keep more or less the same "self evident" ends, but without giving up on showing what makes those ends valuable. That seems to give his account a serious advantage.Roman Altshulerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06570099479055051251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-16648666472872098362007-11-23T19:45:00.000-08:002007-11-23T19:45:00.000-08:00I believe G.E. Moore had it the closest with his "...I believe G.E. Moore had it the closest with his "ideal" utilitarianism. The problem still lies in the complexity of the calculations, but at least a viable method of determining the greatest "end value" exists in that. Kant gives no attention to ends or intrinsic values at all. The standard utilitarian places all their focus in an end that cannot be calculated, but at least Moore could appeal to the "self evidence" of intrinsic value and though this is not a popular doctrine, I like it because it does not try to make an exact science out of something that is not quite concrete and empirical.1000 Needleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03959135883025933357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-42610637394393610422007-11-16T15:25:00.000-08:002007-11-16T15:25:00.000-08:00Maybe I should elaborate. "Social progression" is...Maybe I should elaborate. "Social progression" is a term that I recently found in a book on screenwriting and happened to like ... "Let your story begin intimately, involving only a few principal characters. But as the telling moves forward, allow their actions to ramify outward into the world around them, touching and changing the lives of more and more people ... "Men in Black": A chance encounter between a farmer and a fugitive alien searching for a rare gem slowly ramifies outward to jeopardize all of creation." (Robert McKee, _Story_).<BR/><BR/>More later!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-54526203367373890012007-11-15T16:45:00.000-08:002007-11-15T16:45:00.000-08:00I think the nice thing about Kant, and something u...I think the nice thing about Kant, and something usually missed by those who don't read past the Groundwork, is the importance he accords to casuistry (a feature shared by some utilitarians, like Moore). It is, obviously, not the whole of ethics--that would simply eliminate ethics. But it is unavoidable. The anthropology is important, but I think the casuistic reflections in the Doctrine of Virtue bring out the element of contingency involved in applying the moral law to concrete cases.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what your first paragraph is getting at, though...Roman Altshulerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06570099479055051251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-44943926252208464432007-11-15T16:12:00.000-08:002007-11-15T16:12:00.000-08:00Being what they are, the maxims have to be maximiz...Being what they are, the maxims have to be maximized. I think this means social progression: Inquiry into how it is that we have families and careers that conflict. (We have to imagine, when we think morally, that we are making a world!)<BR/><BR/>Reducing ethics to casuistry is not only reactionary (which would disturb only some of us), it is also un-Kantian.<BR/><BR/>(But didn't Kant himself ... ? Yes, but mainly in cases where he was sure -- lying, for instance. He makes it pretty clear that to really work out an ethics you need to get your anthro straight first -- empirical research! --, and that's what distinguishes his enterprise from others who can, or believe they can, deduce it _a_priori_. (You have met them.))gabirolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18419084027503589453noreply@blogger.com