keeping up promises (pt. 3)

I'm going to be a bit lazy today. If the morality jibber-jabber is not so entertaining and you prefer my pointless postings (isn't it all rather pointless?) skip to part two.

Mr. Hooker has presented his rule-consequentialism thus:

"An act is wrong if it is forbidden by the code of rules whose interalization by the overwhelming majority of everyone everywhere in each new generation has maximum expected value in terms of well-being (with some priority for the worst off). The calculation of a code's expected value includes all costs of getting the code internalized. If in terms of expected value two or more codes are better than the rest but equal to one another, the one closest to conventional morality determines what acts are wrong." (citation of source would go here if I weren't so lazy.)

Follow the link to read all about the new issue I'm grapple-hooking to from across they chasym. It's the first part of trying to understand what all of the above means. Mr. Hooker gives out that he's on the objective list side of things, but with some reservations as to autonomy and fairness... I think...

PART TWO!!!

Today, I saw a woman trying to flag down a bus. She was walking along like she was ready to break out into a run except she was also holding a paper cup with some sort of liquid in her hand and was trying not to spill the contents. Judging by her actions, I can only surmise that the bus driver didn't see her trying to flag him down, becuase she took desperate action. Splashing the water onto the pavement in a flourish and spray, she broke out into a full on sprint.

I'll never know if she made that bus. I was too busy replaying the scenario in my head and laughing about it. I can hear her internal monologue. "Damn it, that bus is gunna leave. I'm gunna spill this water if I go any faster. Awe shit, he's leavin'! Damnit!!! Fuck this!!!" Splashes water and runs.

What a great country we live in. (Party finds you!)

I should get off the promises (part 2)

*****************************
Aisde to "Rebecca" from yesterday's post. Kick it!!! here to find out if she is going to be in your area in the very near (tomorrow night) future.
*****************************
Feeling somewhere between Nostalgia Sickness and Wanderlust today. Must be the weather.

I was going to do an update on my continued peeking into Ideal Code but I was waylaid by some highwaymen (or some extra work at work) and didn't get into the book again like I had planned... ahh plans. What a waste.

Anyway. What's been bothering me about the methodology of Mr. Hooker is the assumption that an ethical code somehow adheres to our already in place ethical code. To me it stinks tautological but I can't quite figure where the source is.

I would like to get #2 (heh heh... stink, number two) out of the way. I have no problems with a theory or system being internally consistent. So I'll grant him that assumption, for now. (I reserve the right to retract that allowance.)

I feel like one and three are coming from the same starting point, which is to say, attractive generalizations about morality and an adherance to our existing moral convictions after careful consideration come from the same yet unidentified base of moral convictions that we (whatever sort of group "we" is) seem to have intuitively. So far, Mr. Hooker either hasn't explained why these assumptions should be granted or I've missed his explanation as to why my general feelings about ethical actions are in some way universal for all people.

So that's what I'm kicking around in my head right now. If I can't find some sort of resolution, I may just have to grant the assumptions (for the sake of moving forward) and ... enough with the fucking smoking, Asshole! I'm tired of your lack of consideration on that point ... sorry, where was I? Nevermind. I'm going to step outside to get away from the bad air.

I should get off the promises (part 1)

Alright... while I would much rather talk about a Frankenstein-ian Horse that eats Zombies and children that can turn into slime a la Wonder Twins hiding from scouting robots, I said I would bore you all with some Philosophy crap I'm sort of working on.

I've been reading this book (well, not really reading as much as hauling around in my backpack and saying to myself I've eventually got to get this done) entitle Ideal Code, Real World by Brad Hooker. I mentioned it back in November (I think. I did a lot of things in November.)

Chapter one breaks down rule-consequentialism eithical theory into a simple form. The ethical code whose collective internalization has the best consequences is the ideal code. There's some psuedo-quantifable way of determining which code (collection of rules that one should feel free to follow) arrives at the best consequences. But before we get to the reasons why this is even worth thinking about, we'll have to justify the method for establishing any metaethical code... so that's were we spend most of our time.

According to Mr. Hooker, there are five points that a moral theory should adhere to in order to be considered worth study.

1. It starts from attractive generalizations about morality.
2. It must be internally consistent.
3. It must cohere with the moral convictions we have after careful reflection.
4. It should identify a fundimental principle that both explains why our more specific considered moral convictions are correct and justifies them from an impartial point of view.
5. It should help us deal with moral questions about which we are not confident, or do not agree.

Supposedly, I'm supposed to agree with everything in that list if I'm going to have a chance of agreeing with anything else Mr. Hooker has to say in the rest of the book. (except for the comment about skeptics which went something like, 'Skeptics are stupid and therefore their opinions don't matter.' "independently credible beliefs need not be certain, or beyond all challenge or revision.")

I've taken yesterday and today to sort of kick this grocery list around and I'm still not satisfied with the requsite qualifications. I'm gunna have to put another couple hours of "free time" into this before I'll get back to it.

Until then, there's always the power of imagination.