tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3263529353660258683.post2671299339047814031..comments2023-10-29T05:06:54.465-04:00Comments on dig it.: For the sake of not having to text message the whole damn thing to JasperJasper Yatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03361411725325420424noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3263529353660258683.post-16157029920380047612007-12-02T16:54:00.000-05:002007-12-02T16:54:00.000-05:00im gonna sprinkle in some philosophy-writing notes...im gonna sprinkle in some philosophy-writing notes <BR/><BR/>i wouldnt mention plato up with mill. it creates confusion when it comes out of the blue, especially when mill wasnt any sort of platonist. you used 'ultimate' later on. keep the same term, and uneducated reader wont think of making the connection between whatever they fathom to be the platonic good and your later mention of the ultimate good. and you should probably put full names when you first mention mill and kant, many people may not know who they are (not that first names would help, but you know)<BR/><BR/>"And if governments are promoting these lesser forms of pleasure, they are really promoting a form of pain, and thus are incapable of morals from a Utilitarian standpoint."<BR/><BR/>if your thesis is that if a government has the capacity to then it can be judged as an individual morally, then i would say that if it shows the ability to hinder happiness then it has the capacity to augment it as well. and further more along those lines, if there is a body of law/people which has consensual or non-consensual rule over a population, which means that it has the ability to affect each and every life, then it clearly has the capacity to promote good or to hinder good; i think this definition is far to good. my bed promoted good because when people sleep in it they become rejuvinated the next day, it promotes good health of body and mind, and it was made for that purpose just as a government is made for a similar purpose to promote good. you casually used the word 'be' in the phrase "capacity for something to be good". this makes it a different story. this now becomes a metaphysical issue, as you've given no clear definition of what being is. if a rock is, then it can be, and if it can be then at some point (with such loose definitions of good and be) if i used a rock to bash an assailant over the head in order that i escape harm, that rock would clearly be good, in that it is (and was at the time of the attack), and it promoted my own good, that is, it promoted that i not be harmed by an assailant. my example does cross into the argument of human rights, but both sides of formalists and utilitarians would agree that self defense against someone aiming to violate an individuals rights is wholly acceptable, and so we can dismiss any quibbling about the good for the offender.<BR/><BR/>so i think you can still make your argument, but wither youll have to steer clear of words such as be, or youll have to extensively define what it is to be, which may end up being unavoidable, in that the essence of being may be thought of as the ability to be moral, and that essence may only belong to a human being. im not very familiar with this, though, so thats what i have to say. just food for thought.<BR/><BR/>throw formalism in there instead of kantian i think. its a broader outlook and less specific to a single opinion, and it is appropriate because to some degree formalism is to kant as utilitarianism is to mill (though utilitarianism was more fully developed for a longer time before mill came, he was just so smart that when he dedicated himself to it he was bound to clarify some shit.)<BR/><BR/>an interesting point is that under a formalist system, an absolute monarch would probably never be allowed, because of the probability for greed and whatnot, though it is the school that favors that that seems to be the way that a government can be moral, while utilitarians would be the school to say that one supremely moral and saintly person needs to be at the helm and we need to follow her/him, but they seem to be thouroughly convinced that no people like that exist, and if they do they certainly dont want to rule people. so thats something to think about i havent really taken the time yet.<BR/><BR/>i find it strange that you chose three people from differeng eras and then put them chronologically backwards, is there a method to your madness there, i dont see it if there is...<BR/><BR/>oh and the other question/comment, was that if a monarch was the government, his actions would still semmingly extend beyond himself, that is, if he declares that people wearing purple are to be killed, he wont be killing all the people wearing purple, executioners will be, whether it be a person saying laws or a constitution dictating them, i think the only way the actions of a government can be judged as moral would be if a single person imposed alljustices and punshments.<BR/><BR/>hah i just had a funny idea. maybe all the supreme court justices or the president or whoever shoul have to be present at every governmental execution and should have to look at the person in the eye while theyre being killed. you know, whoever made the decision. it would get the issue seriously reconsidered, although it may not need to be...<BR/><BR/>if youre interested. rawls trying to blend utilitarianism and formalism:<BR/>http://www.hist-analytic.org/Rawlsonrules.htmJasper Yatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03361411725325420424noreply@blogger.com