View Single Post
Old 10-08-2010, 07:11 AM   #17
perhilzit

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
368
Senior Member
Default
You missed something:

Of course, this is by it's nature a hindsight system and the idea of happiness having intrinsic value and being something to be aspired to is arbitrary as well. Also problematic is the fact that humans are dealing with uncertain futures and are resource-constrained which prevents an accurate appraisal of the consequences of any particular ethical action. So Kuci's crap is fundamentally flawed as well.
Concisely: no, it's not arbitary. If you approach ethics scientifically as the question of finding the smallest set of axioms that best explains our moral sentiments (with the tradeoff between simplicity and accuracy being handled in the usual Kolmogorov sense) then you should conclude that rule consequentialism (and, particularly, maximizing the happiness of a certain group of people) thoroughly explains almost all of our sentiments.
perhilzit is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity