1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 10, 2025
There is no aspect of life that dictates that no two outcomes may be equal in that sense.
That's what normative systems are *for*. Life doesn't dictate anything except an eventual and inevitable death. The *utilit*arians have specific aspects of value, each with their own given weight, for example. No *two* outcomes, by virtue of being distinct, may be equal by definition: even when you are shopping for a pint of juice, and all pints are identical, you grab the carton that is closer. I'm not a utilitarian, though; I am a kind of Kantian that targets goals and purposes with the categorical imperative, and not actions in themselves. But, any normal person with values can be pressed to put those values in order, and that order dictates the differences between any two outcomes—the arithmetic of ordered values does not simply sum up to *points* of equal merit, which may equal identical sums, and natural (physical/real) things are (conveniently, for me) never identical to anything else.
I would be interested to see what you can offer as a hypothetical scenario, off the top of your head, that would seem to you to show two outcomes that are equal in considered utility. I will, of course, try to show how it would not be equal, without denying anything affirmed in the hypothetical.
And, yes, philosophy is not merely ethics. I would say that ethics is the supreme subdomain of philosophy, though, because Socrates did and I'm a Socrates simp. Kidding. He did champion ethics, though. If we are compelled by our passions, as in Hume's assertions, then it is through ethics that we steel our passions and will ourselves to continue long enough to deal with epistemology, ontology, and the rest. I would also say that human behavior vindicates this hierarchy of philosophical domains: ethics is the fuel of politics. I didn't and still don't intend to assert that philosophy is ethics, but I do assert that a love of wisdom must mean the deepest of concerns, first and foremost, for the ethical.
Comment by Shield_Lyger at 14/02/2025 at 01:39 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I do assert that a love of wisdom must mean the deepest of concerns, first and foremost, for the ethical.
Which is entirely fair. But... I subscribe to a different normative system than you do, one that doesn't privilege ethics in that way. I suspect that you and I could go around and around on this for some time, but to what end?