logicallypositive:

Ethics will always boil down to some sort of subjective, unfalsifiable judgments. That’s the nature of a judgment. However, we can take steps to make sure that the particular evidence on which be base those judgments is firmly grounded in objective reality, universal and accessible to all. I guess that’s the point I’m trying to make here.

Even taking that premise as given though - that ethical judgments ought to be objective, universally accessible etc - I guess I don’t see how that drives you to consequentialism. Presumably I could be a good little Kantian and still be just as attentive as the utilitarian to whatever the particular facts of a case happen to be, just as commited to objectivity, universality etc. I’d just be drawing different conclusions.

I’m missing the connection between consequentialism and epistemic virtue that you’re drawing.

1. sterwood liked this
2. satans-advocate liked this
3. interruptions reblogged this from logicallypositive and added:

   I simply don’t see how the view that, “Of an action that is conformable to the principle of utility one may always say...

4. shecallsmeartemis liked this
5. themovedmind liked this
6. spatiotemporalcookies liked this
7. logicallypositive reblogged this from interruptions and added:

   The Kantian bases their ethical judgments on a categorical imperative that exists priori to experience. So yes, a good...

8. interruptions liked this
9. nutopiancitizen liked this
10. ama-giallthepeople liked this
11. logicallypositive posted this