tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post183097894715980549..comments2015-02-26T15:42:28.753-06:00Comments on Words, Ideas, and Things: Nicomachean Ethics (Pt. 1)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-16760493581928013772012-11-14T20:28:23.661-06:002012-11-14T20:28:23.661-06:00I think that implicit in that Chapter 2 quote is A...I think that implicit in that Chapter 2 quote is Aristotle's main mistake in his ethics - he assumes that all humans have the same nature, which defines the final good. At least, this is how I read him. I suspect humanity is more diverse, that different people have different final ends and trade-offs between values. While a "normal distribution" of values may exist, Aristotle here assumes a single human nature (which he will later identify with reason - another pivotal mistake), with no room for variability; this is just too narrow-minded. It's like the old joke about drowning in a pool that's 1 inch deep on average - no one is Normal, and a theory that doesn't recognize that and appeals to humans in their variety isn't worth much.<br /><br />I do, however, generally agree that instrumental values supercede final value. If someone values bread-making in itself, this just makes bread-making into a final value (for him). If one values bread-making for its culinary experience and feeding the world, however, and one finds better way of doing both, one should stop making bread! (The flip-side is that people aren't that rational, but then again this doesn't mean such irrationality should be taken to be the normative standard.)Yairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-54246742316891148322012-11-13T14:07:09.733-06:002012-11-13T14:07:09.733-06:00As you know, I personally aim for utilitarianism. ...As you know, I personally aim for utilitarianism. In bringing my personal behaviors to this goal, I now donate about 16% of my income to what I consider to be the most effective charities and refrain from eating meat (because of factory farming). I also try to advocate others to do the same.<br /><br />I would agree, however, that strictly speaking, Utilitarianism does not capture all of my values. I do value my family more than that of other people, I do buy toys that maximize my personal utility at the opportunity cost expense of aggregate utility. I think others argue that this is all "psychologically necessary" in order to maximize aggregate utility (especially given burnout), but I'm not sure if it isn't better captured by a multi-faceted value theory.<br /><br />I definitely wouldn't say that *everyone* is a utilitarian, of course. As for what values actually take place among "the folk", I'm a bit clueless as to how it works, and it's certainly incoherent.<br /><br />On the flipside, however, I don't think anything of personal value to me would be lost if I were to live in a world where everyone was ideally utilitarian.Peter Hurfordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-76020958748089263792012-11-13T00:06:39.714-06:002012-11-13T00:06:39.714-06:00How can a value theory be mistaken? Would you agre...How can a value theory be mistaken? Would you agree that one way a <br />value theory can be mistaken is a mismatch between { the values <br />specified or implied by the system } and { what people actually value, <br />plus what's implied by what they actually value }?<br /><br />Don't arguments about ethical systems often fit into this pattern...<br /><br />Critic: "People value X, but your system S doesn't seem to allow for X to be valuable."<br /><br />Defender: "People often value X, but only because X often promotes Y. And S does imply that Y is valuable."<br /> or<br />Defender: "S does imply that X is valuable. It's just not obvious."<br /><br />In<br /> the case of Objectivism, we can say it's mistaken if it doesn't allow <br />for valuing, say, art (and people do value art). Utilitarianism is less <br />obviously mistaken; much that we value can be understood as increasing <br />aggregate happiness.<br /><br />I consider Utilitarianism a much <br />closer match to human values than Objectivism, but what about the times <br />when people value something that results in negative aggregate <br />happiness? I don't want to get tangled up in specifics, so let me know <br />if you don't think that ever happens. On the assumption that it does <br />happen, it seems like we can either say that something is lacking in <br />Utilitarianism or we can insist that Utilitarianism is somehow "right" <br />despite failing to match up with the values people actually have. In the<br /> latter case, I don't know what "right" is supposed to mean. (Without resorting to mysticism anyway.)Garrenhttp://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-70656036190420848362012-11-11T21:16:06.444-06:002012-11-11T21:16:06.444-06:00I don't understand your wariness of single-val...I don't understand your wariness of single-value ethics. I can understand the mistake made by Rand, but can you elaborate on mistakes you think are made by Mill? Also, do you, personally, prefer any moral goal or goals to aim toward?Peter Hurfordnoreply@blogger.com