|
|
| Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' (1444720) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 21:08:52 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 14:26:44 2017. So we have completely different goals.I actually agree with your claim that there is always an optimal solution to minimize yields, even if hard to pinpoint. But when you label that morality, I could not help but be unsatisfied since the dictionary definitions of morality that I have been looking through don't mention anything about "getting most people what they want" or anything even close to that. Of course, you and others may tell me "The dictionary has no authority" and maybe that's true, but what was I supposed to do - mind-read your definition of morality? When I hear "morality," I think more of what is objectively right. For you, all that seems objectively right is for governments to locate the perfect "ruleset" for the traffic circle, not to actually make sure that the entire operation of the traffic circle to begin with is actually good for the world. And that may very well be beyond the purview of governments in general (otherwise we risk losing the look of democracy and fast), but then that can simply be a testimony of the limits of any government. "Helping people get what they want" without reflection on whether or not that's any good for them is exactly what leads to government corruption (the government official carries his/her inherited selfism into office) and even the great tragedies of history (those who helped Hitler were helping themselves by keeping him happy). It is not necessarily good for the world for people to get what they want. And since I identify morals with conduct that is objectively good for the world, I hold that any transcendental list of such conduct requires a definition, or at least elaboration, of ultimate, objective goodness. Take quickly your murder case. Yes, between the two parties it's an overall loss since one lost his/her entire life. But there are more than those two people in the world. Was the murder good, overall, for the world? Unanswerable without further info. Once again, I do not condone murder, but my opposition of murder is not philosophically sustainable based only on your systems. |
|
|
|