Arbitrary Parameters and Rules
Would a rule selected in accordance with arbitrary parameters from a set of predetermined rules be dependent upon those arbitrary parameters in its application after being selected? Further: is the rule itself arbitrary after being selected? I'm inclined to think not since it was part of a set of predetermined rules.
Comments (9)
Quoting tim wood
I really mean the rule is selected based on certain subjective parameters, or values, only insofar as they determine what rule should be selected that supports those same parameters or values. But is the rule itself subjective because the input is? Or is it mind-independent and free of subjectivity because it has a purpose that appears to be mind-independent and free of subjectivity?
Quoting tim wood
But which rule is selected is the result of a value judgement much of the time - especially with respect to moral rules. In fact, which rule is selected is a causal relation in this context; it is objectively true that certain rules will help support certain values more than other rules. So maybe a rule exists in the set, but it doesn't become a moral rule until it is selected for upholding certain values, if one says that moral rules flow from values.
Quoting tim wood
People's values can be described objectively, and, if a moral rule is selected only insofar as it upholds those values, I think the rule is nonarbitrary and objective as a function of a fact - people's intersubjective values. This follows if, once again, one claims that morals flow from values, values that can also be both subjective and reasoned themselves.
That'd depend on your meta-rule which governs selecting the rule. If your meta-rule says to change rules according to circumstance, then the current rule depends on circumstance.
The rule chosen will always be based on the arbitrary parameters insofar as the parameter caused the rule to be selected.
Quoting ToothyMaw
The behaviour based on the rule would be arbitrary. The parameters don't technically change the rule (unless they're also a variable within the rule).
Quoting ToothyMaw
I think this only seems plausible if you imagine having a small number of rules. But if you had 5.000 different rules, and selected one, it'd be hard to argue the result isn't arbitrary.
Quoting ToothyMaw
I am not sure how a rule could possibly mind-indendent. Rules are a mental phenomenon.
Quoting Echarmion
What if the meta-rule were to select a rule via evaluation of a plurality of people's subjective/intersubjective values into which the circumstance is stipulated, along with another stipulation that the actor doesn't matter, that supports those same values? I suppose the meta-rule might be considered relative, however, to the intersubjective values of the plurality.
Quoting Echarmion
But if a rule is selected that only exists to support values, and is derived from descriptive facts about people's values, it seems to be absent any arbitrary or subjective content to me. Formally I would frame it like this: "if we have value 'x', then moral rule 'y' supporting it follows." The content of the rule is derived from facts about arbitrary/subjective values, and exists only to further those values.
Quoting Echarmion
Once again, what if the rules are for very specific circumstances? Not to mention if they are part of a set, I don't see how they couldn't be distinct.
Or am I getting my math mixed up with my metaphysics?
Quoting Echarmion
Yeah, you're probably right on that one.
Sorry, forgot to tag you, I just responded to your post.
More like different, measurable rules are prepared for evaluation when they are needed proximately, and a selection process...selects...certain rules according to parameters. Their usefulness, if meant to create certain outcomes, can be measured and the rule can be modified, something that is an objective endeavor.
Quoting tim wood
I'm proposing creating a set of rules that can then be selected from temporally close to when they would be needed, and then selecting from that set based on certain conditions. As for refinement - there is no reason these rules couldn't be measured and improved before being instituted imo. Maybe even science could give us an idea of which rules would work better.
Quoting tim wood
I think you are imagining a larger space where there is none; nothing save god can provide the kind of morally universalistic obligations most people crave.