The choice to say, write your name on the moon, does not belong to anyone. Nobody has a "right" to do so, so we not need to protect anyone's ability t...
You've made a category mistake. Making someone else's choice for them, taking it away from them, is bad. It might not always be wrong (for example, ki...
No. I am not claiming any such mechanism. I meant "you don't get to" in the sense that it is morally bad for you to make my choices for me. Is it? Aga...
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Again, the goalposts are where they always are. I'm not sure what you think I am turning around here. Is it "you g...
I doesn't imply that at all. Motivation is not important in FC. I certainly didn't suggest that any choices one makes that in any way involve things t...
You are confusing the motivation for the act with the act itself. Your stealing my car is very much about what happens to my car. I only don't believe...
I'm fairly sure I didn't propose any of that. I think I pointed out that choosing to steal my car is a choice of what to do with my car, not your body...
Self reference does not, in-itself make for circularity. Eg, the moral relativist might coherently say that there are no objective normative truths an...
First, it isn't circular to suggest that the limits of rights (or freedoms) should be where they abut upon those same rights (or freedoms) of another....
Do you really want me to explain why stealing my car prevents me from being able to make choices about what to do with my stuff, but beating me in a c...
I have explained why the choices to be protected should be restricted to one's own choices. I don't think it is vague to say you get to decide what to...
The choice to have ones organs crushed (as in your example of being hit my a car) belongs to me, and by taking the ability to make that away from me, ...
Yes, in the sense that it has higher moral value than some other set of consequences that could have occurred. Consequentialism is all about judging t...
I mean yeah, those consequences can still be judged for moral value in the sense that they can be consequences that are morally good. It doesn't make ...
No, the moral value in the consequences does not require intent. This is very much the point of consequentialism. Whether you meant to push the kid ou...
When judging the consequences of an action, you can say they are good or bad in a moral sense there something morally valuable being increased/decreas...
No, it is a good outcome in the sense of a morally good outcome. One we should aim to acheive. If we could have turned the tornado, we should have. Co...
I would say the correct moral theory is the one that's true. I was using "correct" to mean true. Happy to sub in the word "true" there if you prefer. ...
A good candidate for a measure of value is one that is likely to be correct. In order to consider what is most likely to be correct, we make some assu...
As I have said, I am happy to answer why I think that is the best candidate for moral value, but I would like to ensure we are on the same page first ...
No, I would say that we should judge the morality of choices by reference to their consequences and that the measure of goodness/badness of those cons...
I would say that morality is about how persons ought to be or act in a universal and objective sense, though I would concede that if you wanted to use...
In your temperature analogy, the ability of persons to understand and make their own choices is not like the boiling point of water or the freezing po...
Are you assuming that morality aims at humanity's goal, role, purpose, or telos generally? Or are you assuming that consequentialism requires the star...
I'm not sure what you mean by relative in this context. Relative to what? Also, I'm not sure I'd describe freedom as an attribute. It's not necessaril...
The ability to make those choices is the measure of value that determines whether actions are right or wrong. That isn't the same as those being the "...
No it isn't. The whole idea of these choices being "the ideal type" is an invention of yours. It is not reflected in anything I have said. I suggest t...
One's own choices often aren't really good or bad. If I choose to key my own car, that isn't good or bad, it just is. These choices certainly aren't "...
There isn't two scales or value systems. The thing which makes any action good or bad is the extent to which is protects or violates the ability of pe...
No, the goodness and badness of an action are determined by the extent to which that action protects persons' ability to understand and make their own...
It is the measure of moral value, the goodness or badness of this choice is precisely because of how it affects persons' ability to understand and mak...
At no point am I saying that their choices are themselves morally valuable, I am saying that they can be good or bad because they produce consequences...
It's not contradictory at all. Moral objectivism vs subjectivism vs whatever else is about what kind of things moral facts are. To be a moral objectiv...
It's been moral value all along. What is morally valuable (or rather what is the measure of moral value) is persons' ability to understand and make th...
The position is that moral facts are objective facts. That leaves open the possibility of moral realism or moral error theory. It may be that there ar...
You surely can't only be realizing that I'm an objectivist now. And less yelling into the aether and more determining what moral truths if any there a...
First of all, it isn't a matter of what is of moral value "to you" it is a matter of what is of moral value. Second, I very much restricted it to only...
No, everything you just said is incorrect. There aren't two systems of value at all. I think you have gotten very much the wrong end of the stick agai...
1: In the example given not the chooser, just a person. But it doesn't make any difference which person it is. Any one of the subjects is a fine answe...
I think there is basically some ambiguity in the term "moral value" as it is being used here. So I'll try to be as clear about what I mean as possible...
Yes, the person's ability to make this decision is not inherently valuable. However, the value is in the choices that belong to the people who may los...
No I mean, the choice that belongs to the people whose eyes and lives are at stake is valuable because their eyes and lives belong to them. At no poin...
I'm not quite sure where to begin with your first question. Imagine asking the same question of a utilitarian only pointing out that making the choice...
A person's eyes are something that belong to them, as is a person's life. Of course neither belong to the person making the decision, though I think y...
No I don't think someone else influencing my choice makes it no longer mine. But to your core question of how this could be an issue, let's return to ...
The issue isn't with determining which freedom of an individual that individual should value over any other. The issue is with deciding how to balance...
No, it is freedom of choice, rather than rights, as I've already explained many times. Yeah, I agree that it is very easy to resolve conflicts between...
I'm not being deceptive, I'm simply using a term in a way you don't seem not to approve of. Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that people aren't allow...
Again, you are demanding more of "understanding" than I am. I am simply requiring that a person knows what choice they are making and what it means to...
In the case of deception, it's about what the person is being decieved about. Being able to "understand' one's choices is a fairly low bar to clear, b...
Comments