Academic Philosophy

[ivar]

This thread is a discussion about topics in academic philosophy. Non-academic philosophy is off-topic. I understand academic philosophy is an ivory tower circle jerk--but if you're not interested, then do not participate. As well, if you think the entire tradition of academic philosophy is pointless, please keep it to yourself.

If you do plan on participating, you should have some background in philosophy, i.e. knowledge about philosophical texts, preferably at a university level or higher. Confident and erudite high school students are welcome as well.

Certain philosophical issues, such as the nature of free will, might seem approachable by a laymen, but this thread's express purpose is the discussion of philosophical issues within the tradition of academia. I don't want to see posts like this: "well i havent really studied philosophy but free will is true because...." You may have a valid point; I just don't want the discussion to steer away from academic philosophy.

Philosophical issues, such as metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics and so forth are the "talking points" of this thread. References to the works of philosophers is highly encouraged.

 

[ivar]

The suggested topic of debate, to begin, is deontological ethics vs. utilitarianism. I'll post my thoughts once I gauge the interest people take in this thread and this particular "talking point".

edit: I realize this thread is likely to be very inactive. But if active, it could be interesting. As for TIK, I urge you to reread the OP, check that you're not in firebot, and delete/edit out your post. Do not derail this thread.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

This is pretty boring I doubt you will attract anyone

 

[MrIndigo]

I doubt enough people have read any philosophers in the level of academia or detail needed to be relevant.

I don't really understand the fascination philosophers have with only using existing schools of thought, though. Without having looked into it more than as is cursorily part of my legal scholarship, it seems like a lot of philosophy is appeal to authority.

 

[Gabe]

I've read stuff by Camus, Descartes, Peirce, ect. But pursuing philosophy academically seems worthless to me.

 

[cantab]

Well...I, like most, can't really contribute much. But I will ask two questions, that I hope the answer to will be of general interest:

What do you mean by "academic philosophy" and "non-academic philosophy"?

What would you recommend as introductions to "deontological ethics" and "utilitarianism".

 

[Morm]

At most I would suggest that anything about religion, exept its history, be disallowed from any discussion as it is NOT academic by definition: science studies the natural world and anything supernatural cannot be studied by science. Ergo, invoking a supernatural creator and then pleading to academia is perverse. A reminder: academia is a peer review process built on science. Anyone who disagrees likely goes to a school which isn't accreditted or doesn't go to a school to begin with.

 

[mtr]

I've read Kant, Descartes, and Nietzsche (I'm a history major), but honestly that's about it, and it was some time back. Kant was interesting, but I found him unconvincing: I reject deontological ethics and prefer more utilitarian ones.

 

[cantab]

academia is a peer review process built on science.

Not necessarily. Academia is not the same thing as science; perhaps half or more of academia is NOT science.

And theology is a perfectly valid academic study. It may generally rely on certain assumptions that have no evidence in their favour, but if those assumptions are taken as true then what follows is valid. (Admittedly, when listening in on theological debates, often I'm struck by how all the problems go away if you just assume God does not exist!)

 

[MrIndigo]

Is theology a study of scriptures?

 

[JimBob]

Theology is the study of religion. That can include scriptures, but I doubt that is all they study.

 

[Surgo]

I feel as though utilitarianism is the only philosophy. This is because it's the only such philosophy you can assign a metric to, and be able to quantify the effects of various actions.

If this thread gets shit on I will kill you.

 

[ivar]

I've read stuff by Camus, Descartes, Peirce, ect. But pursuing philosophy academically seems worthless to me.

As I said in the OP, if you feel that the tradition of academic philosophy is pointless, please keep it to yourself. I don't want this thread to be littered with pointless commentary; I want some argumentative substance.

Well...I, like most, can't really contribute much. But I will ask two questions, that I hope the answer to will be of general interest:

What do you mean by "academic philosophy" and "non-academic philosophy"?

What would you recommend as introductions to "deontological ethics" and "utilitarianism".

It's difficult to isolate and define academic philosophy, but the distinction is obvious when you're entrenched in the tradition. I'll try my best to clarify. Academic philosophy is the sort of philosophy you'll discuss in university and post-university settings. There are common issues, terminology and philosophers that are studied. A lot of academic philosophy involves a response to some other philosopher's work or theory. Think of pokemon battling. I can put together any team and technically engage in a pokemon battle, but normal pokemon battles differ from shoddy battles because there is a metagame. There are common strategies (stall), terminology (skarmbliss) and battlers (kevin garnett). Similarly, a layman's philosophy differs from academic philosophy in that there is no structure, and the history of philosophical development is ignored. That's why I am interested in academic philosophy: the arguments a layman might have about free will often have been addressed by some philosopher who did a superior job. It's annoying to weed through the ignorance. And when I use the word "ignorance", I mean it as literally as possible--not the negative connotation it has in modern usage. Think of pokemon battling with your pre-smogon self. It would suck because you were clueless about good strategy.

A good book on deontology is Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals" and for utilitarianism John Stuart Mill's aptly named "Utilitarianism".

I doubt enough people have read any philosophers in the level of academia or detail needed to be relevant.

I don't really understand the fascination philosophers have with only using existing schools of thought, though. Without having looked into it more than as is cursorily part of my legal scholarship, it seems like a lot of philosophy is appeal to authority.

That's an overly reductionist view of academic philosophy. Philosophers use existing schools of thought for the same reason that pokemon battlers use existing schools of thought, like stall: there is substance in those existing schools of thought. It's an aspect of human nature to develop a metagame, and schools of thought are natural consequences of such a human tendency. And I guarantee that little appeal to authority is made. Philosophers focus on argumentation, hence they avoid dubious logical fallacies like "appeals to authority". Nobody is perfect, but I can guarantee you that appealing to authority is not some rampant issue.

My thoughts on the debate will provided on the next post.

 

[ivar]

I feel as though utilitarianism is the only philosophy. This is because it's the only such philosophy you can assign a metric to, and be able to quantify the effects of various actions.

This is an interesting point. I disagree that utilitarianism is the only philosophy period, but I'll save that debate for another day.

Deonotology is the moral theory that ascribes moral value according to moral obligation. It is your moral obligation to be a good Samaritan, despite the results of you being a good Samaritan. The means to an action are favoured. Utilitarianism is the moral theory that ascribes moral value according to the moral value of a calculated outcome. If action A saves 100 lives, it is better than action B, which saves 99 lives--regardless of the means of achieving action A. The ends of an action are favoured.

Based on the above description, it seems clear that the two ethical systems are in direct conflict. The truth of either appears incompatible with the truth of the other. Yet, I contend that both are true. In the antinomies of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant discusses the dyanmical antinomies, whereby a thesis and antithesis, in seeming conflict, can actually be reconciled. One such example is the antimony of freedom and natural determinism. Freedom, the thesis, posits that given the chain of temporally successive sequences, there must be some uncaused free act that began the chain. Hence, there is freedom in general. Natural determinism posits that the uncaused free act is only possible if there are interruptions in the causal order, yet interruptions in the causal order preclude knowledge about causal order. Hence, there can be no uncaused free act.

However, if freedom is in the realm of noumenon, freedom does not have the obey the same causal reasoning as natural determinism has to obey in the realm of phenomenon. Freedom can exist outside the chain of temporally successive sequences of events, and influence an event outside the chain of causation. Hence, the possibility of freedom and the necessity of natural determinism can be reconciled.

If you're confused, that's okay. But the most pertinent point is that freedom and natural determinism can be reconciled, even if they are in apparent conflict. Similarly, deontology and utilitarianism can be reconciled, as I argue, even if they are in apparent conflict. Under the interpretation that morality should calculated as a metric, utilitarianism is the correct moral system. And under the interpretation that morality should be duty-based, deontology is the correct moral system. This might seem like a trivial point to make, but my grander point is that neither interpretation infringes upon the strength of the other. They are mutually exclusive interpretations, but by virtue of mutually exclusivity, it does not follow that one is correct and the other is false. This is similar to a Hegelian dialect, whereby a thesis and antithesis result in a synthesis that does not infringe upon the thesis or the antithesis.

 

[vonFiedler]

They are not mutually exclusive in the sense that you should always want both good ends and good means. However, choosing between the two in practice is so common it is cliche. I find alot of reasons not to take the utilitarianism route when the two do come into conflict. For one thing, "the ends justify the means" just gives someone a blank check to do as much wrong as they see fit and yet their conscience will absolved because their actions were "for the greater good". This also brings up the problem of diminished returns when people do things such as wage war for what they think is right in the end. Whereas in an obligation based morality system, you do what is right and nothing less, and there's no solace for your conscience when you achieve less than the utilitarianist. And that later part is fine, no system of morality requires a man to feel good about himself, though it is a nice side effect most of the time.

Keep in mind that either way a person could have morals you don't agree with anyway, which they will perpetrate regardless of whether they are utilitarian or deontological. It's just that in the former they will also be doing things even they think are wrong.

 

[ivar]

They are not mutually exclusive in the sense that you should always want both good ends and good means.

Deontology and utilitarianism are mutually exclusive options in every coherent interpretation. Neither deonotology nor utilitarianism posit that good ends and good means are maximally moral. In fact, deontology argues specifically that the ends are absolutely irrelevant, while utilitarianism posits that the means are equally irrelevant.

You might object with both theories on this account--and that is a fair observation to make. However, they are not inclusive in the sense that they both advocate good ends and good means. You have simply misinterpreted the theses of deontology and utilitarianism respectively.

 

[Morm]

Not necessarily. Academia is not the same thing as science; perhaps half or more of academia is NOT science.

And then people ask why I avoid academia.

 

[vonFiedler]

I don't see it that way because in practice, any deontologist would desire good ends (they certainly wouldn't desire bad ends). They aren't exactly opposites in the sense that a utilitarian doesn't necessarily want good means, and is probably very indifferent to the matter. In theory they may have nothing to do with each other, and that means nothing when in practice means and ends are always intertwined. In theory theory you can be a deontologist and a utilitarian and if those never conflicted the world would be such a nicer place. In practice, they do conflict from time to time. You cannot always hold them both to equal importance.

You brought up the question of this vs. that. I realize you just wanted to talk about your theory on the matter, but if the original debate is worth bringing up at all how am I misinterpreting them when I prefer one over the other?

 

[ivar]

I don't see it that way because in practice, any deontologist would desire good ends (they certainly wouldn't desire bad ends). They aren't exactly opposites in the sense that a utilitarian doesn't necessarily want good means, and is probably very indifferent to the matter. In theory they may have nothing to do with each other, and that means nothing when in practice means and ends are always intertwined. In theory theory you can be a deontologist and a utilitarian and if those never conflicted the world would be such a nicer place. In practice, they do conflict from time to time. You cannot always hold them both to equal importance.

You brought up the question of this vs. that. I realize you just wanted to talk about your theory on the matter, but if the original debate is worth bringing up at all how am I misinterpreting them when I prefer one over the other?

I am not favouring my theory as the only appropriate "talking point". I brought it up to spark debate. And it did, because you made an objection. I made a counter-objection. That's how these things go.

You mentioned that any deontologist would desire good ends. This is the source of your misinterpretation. Deontologists argue that ends are completely irrelevant, while utilitarians argue the means are completely irrelevant. The ends are not worthy of philosophical discussion, according to deontologists. Hence, a deontologist does not care, at all, about the ends. In fact, a deonotologist does not consider ends as either good or bad: they have zero moral value. Only the means have any moral value. Deontologists hold this true even in practice, as they do not distinguish between moral theory and moral practice. Thus, you are wrong.

You can favour one over the other, but that was not my point of contention. My point of contention was your misinterpretation of deontology and utilitarianism.

 

[umbarsc]

While I generally don't care about academic philosophy, if 4 years of high school LD debate taught me anything (which it didn't), it was about the deont v util debate.

Note: don't confuse utilitarianism and consequentialism. Utilitarianism is a subset of consequentialism that broadly says we should seek the outcome that produces more happiness (or just general 'good', however defined). There are some technical variations (act v rule, average v total, etc), but it's all pretty much the same. Consequentialism broadly says that the outcome of an act determines the rightness of the act. It doesn't matter much because 99% of consequentialism is utilitarianism, but that comes up so much that it's worth noting.

The theory that makes the most sense in practice is rule utilitarianism, which gives steadfast rules, and says that the rightness of the rule is determined by how much good it brings when followed. For example, if you're looking at an individual act, killing one person and harvesting his organs to save 5 lives would create more "good" with that very limited perspective. However, we'd be fucked if every hospital in the country did that. Therefore, rule utilitarianism reconciles util and deont by giving guidelines for prescribing action while not having to care about nonsense like human dignity or autonomy or whatever else deontology claims to care about.

In general, utilitarianism makes more sense than deontology. Ask a deontologist "What's worse: [committing some violation of the deontologic ethic system], or human extinction?" If he says it's the former, he's lying. That doesn't mean that deontology is necessarily wrong or inconsistent or anything, it just means that utilitarianism is more intuitive and reasonable than strict deontology.

 

[vonFiedler]

Show me one deontologist in practice ivar who doesn't care about the ends of their actions. Show me one, and I'll show you a half-assed nihilist.

All I can really think of is those religious beliefs where the ends on earth are irrelevant, as the moral means will grant you heaven, enlightenment, etc. This is STILL an end however.

And umbarsc, what possible situation outside of comics/anime, would you be given the choice between doing wrong and extinction? I know in Star Trek they talk about letting worlds die because of the prime directive, but I wouldn't let that happen because I don't think the means discussed are wrong to begin with. Whereas having to do bad things for a greater good is an everyday occurrence. Hell, teachers taught us elementary school that sometimes a little white lie is good (and I disagree, but its a common example).

 

[umbarsc]

Under some deontologic ethical theory, murder is wrong. You're locked in a room with another person. This person has a device that controls access to the US' entire stock of nuclear weapons, and you have a loaded handgun. If you do nothing, he is going to launch every nuke simultaneously. Your options are to commit murder (which is always wrong), or allow nuclear annihilation to occur.

That's a scenario. It's a thought experiment, it doesn't have a to be a plausible scenario.

The only way to get around this is by claiming that the act-omission distinction doesn't apply to deontologic ethics, but then you're pretty much collapsing into rule utilitarianism. At least I think, I'll have to think about it and make sure it makes sense.

 

[vonFiedler]

I'd consider that self-defense. Regrettable, probably wouldn't be easy having killed a man. However, not wrong. Then again, some might, and in that extreme comic book situation, they should probably do a wrong to save the world. This doesn't change what I said about people doing more mundane utilitarian things every day and that being unnecessary, or the fact that certain utilitarian actions have far diminished returns over your comic book scenario (waging war for land/resources, etc.).

 

[mtr]

One of the points that deontologists make is that if you go against what is "right", then you become an agent in the state of affairs. For example, let's go to the case that Kant presents in "On a Supposed Right to Lie": there is a murderer who wants to butcher your friend, and knocks on your door asking if your friend is in the house. Kant claims that if you lie and say that he isn't in the house, it makes you responsible for what happens next. What if, for example, the murderer kills another family, or your friend actually DID escape out a window, and dies anyways?

Unfortunately, the unconvincing part of this argument is that it's impossible to know such things, and you cannot be faulted for acting to the best of your ability on the limited information you possess.

Still, though, it's an interesting point.

 

[vonFiedler]

If someone asked me where my friend lived so that he could murder him, I'd slam the fucking door shut and call the cops. That's the right means in my eyes. A better question doesn't have to be so dramatic. Go back the little white lie we've all heard. If your wife is pregnant and she asks if she's beautiful, you'd lie and say she is beautiful. That's the idea, to not hurt her feelings. Good ends. Only why the fuck would you not think your pregnant wife is beautiful? So I still wouldn't be lying. Almost any time you have a reason to lie it's a thinly veiled excuse.

And I wouldn't even say I dislike lying out of a sense of morality, but it's a triviality and I like to find reasons not to lie and not the other way around.