tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4823031181260355673..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: The coincidence between the right and the beneficialAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-24373831348420860702020-08-28T14:36:49.473-05:002020-08-28T14:36:49.473-05:00It is true that doing the right thing is always go...It is true that doing the right thing is always good for us. But it is good for us *morally*. It might, however, be unhealthy, unpleasant, etc., and hence bad for us in other ways than morally. <br /><br />Our various ends do in fact conflict. But not much! And that's what makes me think theism is needed. If there was zero conflict, it would be reasonable to say that some sort of logic of natures forbids conflict. But there is some.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-27167599996170870532020-08-28T12:10:14.114-05:002020-08-28T12:10:14.114-05:00> Doing the right thing is sometimes bad for yo...> Doing the right thing is sometimes bad for you (in non-moral ways).<br /><br />Presumably it would be more accurate to say that doing the right thing may have bad effects? I'm thinking in natural theoretic terms, specifically the principle of double effect. Following that reasoning, we must conclude that if any given act is ever the right thing to do, then it must also be good for us (or neutral), even if that good is not knowable through unaided reason. Otherwise, we would have no reason to believe that such an act is morally justified.<br /><br />Given all that, if a nature entailed ends contrary to the good of the thing instantiating it, it would indeed introduce a disharmony into the thing. In some sense, vis-a-vis the good, it seems it would also be a vain end. <br /><br />So could an argument be made that appeals to some contradiction between the good of the thing and the end opposed to it? I.e., could a nature even exist in the first place that contained such a contradiction? If we could make such an argument, it would seem that we wouldn't need to make direct appeals to God as guarantor of said harmony. danielmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02211024188318637871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-39096120926556867642020-08-28T10:19:08.648-05:002020-08-28T10:19:08.648-05:00Good points!
Regarding (1), it's not clear to...Good points!<br /><br />Regarding (1), it's not clear to me that we should expect social animals to have a correlation between their own happiness and their promotion of the happiness of others, apart from some sort of a reward mechanism, whether social or evolutionary as per point (2). So I think (1) depends on something like (2).<br /><br />I think both points depend on a connection between happiness and the right. On utilitarianism or rational egoism that connection is not at all surprising, but those theories are also clearly wrong. :-) But there are other, more plausible theories where that connection may not be that surprising.<br /><br />I am personally inclined to find five moral theories most plausible: Kantianism, brute moral truths, atheistic natural law, theistic natural law, and divine command. Of these, the first three have trouble explaining the happiness-right connection. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-26728180016505777122020-08-27T15:08:33.880-05:002020-08-27T15:08:33.880-05:00Two vague thoughts that we could have before we pi...Two vague thoughts that we could have before we pin down the specific moral system we are working in: <br /><br />(1) It seems like morality (somehow) requires us to promote the happiness, either of other human beings or of our community or our own individual happiness. (Something like this seems to be held by most moral systems.) And since we are social animals, it should not be too surprising that the promotion of the kind of happiness we are required to promote is positively correlated with our own individual happiness. <br /><br />(2) Most people seem to want there to be a positive correlation between doing the right thing and being rewarded for it. And human institutions are shaped, in large part, by what people want. So it should not be too surprising if the human institutions that develop over time tend to result in this positive correlation. SMatthewStoltehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06632670946997680263noreply@blogger.com