My last post observed that we seem to have a meta-norm that norm application should be automatic and obvious. We are to just know easily and surely which actions violate norms, without needing to reflect on or discuss the matter. We are to presume that framing effects are unimportant, and that everyone agrees on the relevant norms and how they are to be applied. If true, this has many implications:
That means no driving, no meat consumption, no use of any electrical energy generated by fossil fuels, no wood burning stoves, no plastics, no land ownership...ect
To not be a "selfish ass" is not possible if you are alive, and suicide (or indeed death by any other action) is also selfish by the emotional harm to to others; to not be selfish is incompatible with having existed.
I think this is an example of inconsistent norms: my norm about being selfish is a literal application of tangible harm to others, your's (I can only conclude) is by harm that you, the causer of the harm, cannot avoid seeing.
Edit:Of course my assumption of how your norm is applied is then, in all likelihood, again due to sets of norms.Does that make any sense at all, or am I completely incoherent?
Logical implication is rare enough in the real world that my default sense of "imply" isn't logical, but an uncertain inference. Yes, the crime is people's eyes is your not feeling sure you know.
When you say that X implies Y, as in automatic norms imply these ten things, do you mean it in strong form (if X then Y) or do you mean this in weak form as a thought experiment where if X was the primary or only motivation behind actions, then Y, or alternatively that X raises the probability/importance/size of effect Y?
In this case, the thought experiment seems right and interesting enough to consider writing about it, but this is not at all my default parsing of 'imply' and I want to make sure I understand and properly state your claims.
In general, I see these situations of automatic norms as people not being angry about the behavior itself, but instead as taking the behavior, including the amount of analysis you used, as evidence for what your true motivations, norms and loyalties are. Thus, they're outraged that you're a person who would think about such a question, rather than being mad about the actual thinking. Not knowing not only isn't an excuse, it's actually the crime itself.
Robert's decision was one of ordinary morality. Some professional ethics are like that. In law, for example, you're not supposed to steal from your clients. ( See also "What happened to lawyers’ amoral ethical role?" - http://kanbaroo.blogspot.co... )
You mention in another post that professional ethics are often designed to prevent professional competition. In that realm, deliberate decisions look better when the conclusion is correct.
You're overgeneralizing in speaking of "norms." As naive moral realists http://juridicalcoherence.b... ), we incline to think moral norms are self-evidently true. The role of forethought follows from that. But where humans don't see the norms as being somehow true, as in the case of social manners, we think of the impulsive faux pas as less culpable.
Also, we don't think the norms governing specific professions should be automatic. Law students are taught in their legal ethics courses that legal ethics requires that lawyers think carefully about their conduct.
This reminds me of the outrage I see when someone suggests that the rules around sexual harassment and consent are too vague to be useful except as a weapon...
"Don't be a troll"
That means no driving, no meat consumption, no use of any electrical energy generated by fossil fuels, no wood burning stoves, no plastics, no land ownership...ect
To not be a "selfish ass" is not possible if you are alive, and suicide (or indeed death by any other action) is also selfish by the emotional harm to to others; to not be selfish is incompatible with having existed.
I think this is an example of inconsistent norms: my norm about being selfish is a literal application of tangible harm to others, your's (I can only conclude) is by harm that you, the causer of the harm, cannot avoid seeing.
Edit:Of course my assumption of how your norm is applied is then, in all likelihood, again due to sets of norms.Does that make any sense at all, or am I completely incoherent?
You mention in another post...
I misread #10; actually, you were saying rather the opposite of my interpretation.
Logical implication is rare enough in the real world that my default sense of "imply" isn't logical, but an uncertain inference. Yes, the crime is people's eyes is your not feeling sure you know.
Easy stuff, don't be a selfish ass. Ethics aren't that hard. If what you do harms someone else in a tangible way, don't freakin' do it
When you say that X implies Y, as in automatic norms imply these ten things, do you mean it in strong form (if X then Y) or do you mean this in weak form as a thought experiment where if X was the primary or only motivation behind actions, then Y, or alternatively that X raises the probability/importance/size of effect Y?
In this case, the thought experiment seems right and interesting enough to consider writing about it, but this is not at all my default parsing of 'imply' and I want to make sure I understand and properly state your claims.
In general, I see these situations of automatic norms as people not being angry about the behavior itself, but instead as taking the behavior, including the amount of analysis you used, as evidence for what your true motivations, norms and loyalties are. Thus, they're outraged that you're a person who would think about such a question, rather than being mad about the actual thinking. Not knowing not only isn't an excuse, it's actually the crime itself.
Robert's decision was one of ordinary morality. Some professional ethics are like that. In law, for example, you're not supposed to steal from your clients. ( See also "What happened to lawyers’ amoral ethical role?" - http://kanbaroo.blogspot.co... )
You mention in another post that professional ethics are often designed to prevent professional competition. In that realm, deliberate decisions look better when the conclusion is correct.
In the main example of the last post, Robert was a professional acting in his professional capacity.
You're overgeneralizing in speaking of "norms." As naive moral realists http://juridicalcoherence.b... ), we incline to think moral norms are self-evidently true. The role of forethought follows from that. But where humans don't see the norms as being somehow true, as in the case of social manners, we think of the impulsive faux pas as less culpable.
Also, we don't think the norms governing specific professions should be automatic. Law students are taught in their legal ethics courses that legal ethics requires that lawyers think carefully about their conduct.
This reminds me of the outrage I see when someone suggests that the rules around sexual harassment and consent are too vague to be useful except as a weapon...