Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
You seem to miss that the simplistic concept of right and wrong that was talked about is just a very simplistic concept that cannot be used if you start to think more seriously about how moral theories works and what the words mean. What does it mean for something to be right for example? And so on.
|
I do not miss that this is your contention. Again, simply because I do not agree does not mean I do not understand or that I miss your point. Suggesting such shows you clearly do not understand this most basic concept of intelligent discourse.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tompe
Some people say simplistic things like "killing people is wrong" but when they analyse it they do not mean that. They mean something like "killing people is usually wrong but not in the following cases...". And even that is problematic since most people cannot really specify what they mean by "wrong".
|
Ah see, but this is not what you and Krystian Galaj stated.
I totally agree that some people do not say what they mean. I agree that most people can not properly specify what they mean. I never argued differently.
However, what was stated is that the concepts of right and wrong should not be used as a basis for making decisions. I disagree with that assertion. I contend that assertion is different to asserting most people can't tell you what them mean by right and wrong.
Many people can not explain the concepts of calculus, algebra and other such mathematical things but these concepts(amongst others I'm sure) should still be used when deciding load limits and safety requirements for buildings should they not?
Further, to address your example of killing. Discussing whether killing a person is right or wrong is one thing, deciding whether to actually kill someone is entirely different and would of course depend on the circumstances. As an example I believe most people would decide it is "wrong" to cold bloodedly kill someone in order to steal their wallet. Hence, most people would decide not to do so. On the other hand, killing someone because it was the only way to stop them killing you or your loved ones I believe most people would think is ok and therefore would decide to do so if the situation arose.
Now, you could come up with a whole bunch of variations. In each the person would have to decide what is right or wrong to them. Just because they may not be able to do so in advance and at your request in order to prove to you that they can think of every eventuality, I do not think means they shouldn't make their decision based on right and wrong.
It was further stated that "if one does reason with such, the results of reasoning will be flawed, and usually untrue" and "when applying fixes which are results of such "reasoning", it always turns out society is more complicated, and there are side-effects, or the "fix" makes things worse." Both of which are simply assumptions with no verifiable data or proof. In other words they are simply opinions. Obviously they are opinions I disagree with as well. They are also opinions that go way beyond "people don't say what they mean".
Let me be clear, if your position is simply that most people don't say what they mean and most people can't adequately define what they mean by right and wrong in every conceivable situation in advance then I agree.
If your position is what you actually stated then I disagree.(and note, just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't understand)
Cheers,
PKFFW