Morality: Theory and Practice

JMiller

One of the criteria moral philosophers use to asses the credibility and power of a moral theory is "applicability". That is, how easy is it for humans to implement a moral rule? For example, a rule exists like "donate 23 hours a day to charity" it would be impossible for humans to fulfill the goal.

This lead me to start thinking about whether we want to be able to to pursue "the moral theoretical truth" should such a truth exist, or if we want to find the most applicable and practical set of rules, such that reasonably intramentaly rational (human) agents could figure out what is best in any given situation.

I feel like this is sort of like a map-territory distinction in a loose way. For example, the best thing to do in situation X might be A. A may be so difficult or require so much sacrifice, that B might be preferable, even if the overall outcome is not as good. This reminds me of how Eliezer says that the map is not the territory, but you can't fold the territory and put it in your pocket.

I'd love to be able to understand this issue a little better. If anyone has any thoughts, ideas or evidence, I'd appreciate hearing them.

Thanks,

Jeremy

I'd love to be able to understand this issue a little better. If anyone has any thoughts, ideas or evidence, I'd appreciate hearing them.

Thanks,

Jeremy

I'll make it more explicit with an example: here is a possible moral declaration: "give all your free time to charity". Here is another: "you ought to provide your friend's child with a university education if your friend cannot afford it, but you can, (barely)".

These seem very harsh. Lets consider two scenarios: 1) you can do it, but it would leave you very unhappy and financially or mentally impoverished.

2) you cannot do it, because such demands taken to the logical conclusion results in awful outcomes for you.

If 1, then I suppose that should be considered in the calculation, and so my question is irrelevant to consequentialism.

If 2, then it seems like the best action is impossible. By "B" I meant the second best action, say giving some time to charity, or donating some books to your friend's child.

Do we want to promote a theory that says "the very best thing is right, everything else is wrong", or "the best thing that 'makes sense' is still considered good, even if, were it possible, another action would be better"?

I realize that 'makes sense' carries a ton of baggage and is very vague. I'm having some difficulty articulating my self.

As for applicability, thanks, I will look at those.

Do we want to promote a theory that says "the very best thing is right, everything else is wrong",

No. That just means the better your imagination gets, the less you do.

Consequentialism solves all of this:

Give each possible world a "goodness" or "awesomeness" or "rightness" number (utility)
Figure out the probability distribution over possible outcomes of each action you could take.
Choose the action that has highest mean awesomeness.

If something is impossible, it won't be reachable from the action set and ther... (read more)

3BerryPick613y

Ah, I see. I'm pretty sure you've run up against the "ought implies can" issue, not the issue of demandingness. IIRC, this is a contested principle, but I don't really know much about it other than Kant originally endorsing it. I think the first part of Larks' answer gives you a good idea of what consequentialists would say in response to this issue.

0Larks13y

Consequentialism is a method for choosing an action from the set of possible actions. If "the best action is impossible" it shouldn't have been in the option set in the first place. However, I think you might like to look into scalar consequentialism. [...]