doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:27 pm
Kshartle wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
So property is not just a product of our efforts, but of the natural resources around us. These exist independent of our efforts, so our ability to claim them as morally connected to us is questionable, but necessary to survive, and even more to prosper.
So you see, property is not just a moral connection to some amazing thing you created from nothingness, it's an imperfect solution to a moral/ethical dilemma. See more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma
So to respect your individual sovereignty, I have to let you hunt on land that I was hunting on, unless I have some basis to claim that land as my own, and up to this point, I haven't seen you give me a very good layout for what constitutes a valid claim to property. You can't just say "you know you own your clothes." What about land? What about things that existed before we came into being?
So either our moral code is invalid, or we simply have to make the best of these dilemmas that we face because nature put us all on a deserted island together, made it necessary that we eat and take shelter, and said "to hell with your moral code."
Haven't we beat the land thing to death over a dozen pages already? I know we talked about lakes, cabins, farmland etc. in a previous thread. I know you were involved and the answer was not "put a fence around it".
I will look at that thread and see if the entire argument is sufficiently laid out there as it's complex and tiresome.
Moda's point seems to be the crux of the issue.
Kshartle seems to adhere strongly to deontological ethics. He thinks he has locked down an airtight case, but the fact is that his deontological system of morals and ethics receives heavy fire in philosophical circles.
A deontologist is someone who believes that there are certain types of acts that are wrong in themselves and that we have a duty not to do those types of acts. Someone who follows either Kantian ethics or Natural Moral law would be a deontologist. The word ‘deontology’ comes from the Greek deon, meaning duty. Deontologists contrast with teleologists, or consequentialists, who judge the goodness of an action by looking at the consequences that the action brings about. Utilitarians and situation ethicists are teleologists.
A common criticism of deontological moral systems is that they provide no clear way to resolve conflicts between moral duties. a deontological moral system should include both a moral duty not to lie and one to keep others from harm, for example, but in the above situation how is a person to choose between those two moral duties? A popular response to this is to simply choose the "lesser of two evils," but that means relying on which of the two has the least evil consequences and, therefore, the moral choice is being made on a consequentialist rather than a deontological basis.
Some critics argue that deontological moral systems are, in fact, consequentialist moral systems in disguise. According to this argument, duties and obligations which set forth in deontological systems are actually those actions which have been demonstrated over long periods of time to have the best consequences. Eventually, they become enshrined in custom and law and people stop giving them or their consequences much thought — they are simply assumed to be correct. Deontological ethics are thus ethics where the reasons for particular duties have been forgotten, even if things have completely changed.
A second criticism is that deontological moral systems do not readily allow for grey areas where the morality of an action is questionable. They are, rather, systems which are based upon absolutes — absolute principles and absolute conclusions. In real life, however, moral questions more often involve grey areas than absolute black & white choices. We typically have conflicting duties, interests, and issues that make things difficult.
Another common criticism of deontological ethical theories is the question of just which duties qualify as those which we should all follow, regardless of the consequences. Duties which might have been valid in the 18th century are not necessarily valid now, but who is to say which ones should be abandoned and which are still valid? And if any are to be abandoned, how can we say that they really were moral duties back in the 18th century?
If these were duties created by God, how can they possibly stop being duties today? Many attempts to develop deontological systems focus on explaining how and why certain duties are valid at any time or at all times and how we can know that. Religious believers are often in the difficult position of trying to explain what believers of the past treated certain duties as objective, absolute ethical requirements created by God but today they aren't — today we have different absolute, objective ethical requirements created by God. These are all reasons why irreligious atheists rarely subscribe to deontological ethical systems, though it can't be denied that they can at times have ethical insights to offer.