• Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Yes, that’s the point; if we can’t tolerate any uncertainty, then in essence nothing is provable and there’s nothing to do. It’s inconsistent to assert that I must have perfect knowledge about something while acting as though I exist when you have no way of verifying that.

    When you say that you have a degree, you mean specifically in philosophy, correct?

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s inconsistent to assert that I must have perfect knowledge about something while acting as though I exist when you have no way of verifying that.

      there are ethical systems that can exist even if we don’t. kantian ethics require only that you decide what should be universal law and act accordingly. that doesn’t require that you know anything outside of yourself. by contrast, utilitarianism is fraught with epistemic problems.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Every set of axioms is independent of reality by definition. Deontology isn’t special in that way; consequentialist systems are also axiom sets. Furthermore, every ethical system has the same problem when putting it into practice; if you don’t know anything about the world, your ethics system might as well be empty.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          if you don’t know anything about the world, your ethics system might as well be empty.

          i suppose so, but if your axioms depend on the future, which by definition is unknowable, then it is empty.

          • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Consequentialist axioms impose an ordering on world-states, almost all of which will never exist. I don’t understand how you can think the axioms themselves depend on future events; by definition they wouldn’t be axioms.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              if you must do what will cause the most pleasure (or least displeasure), then your axiom depends on knowing the future.

                  • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Every ethical system requires knowledge of the world.

                    Knowledge of the world includes knowledge of the probability of future world states.

                    Future world states are subject to doubt.

                    Present world states are also subject to doubt.

                    There is no fundamental difference between the degrees of uncertainty about present and future events.

                    We can know with a high degree of certainty that without intervention, the sun will be destroyed. I can know with a high degree of certainty that your arguments come from a mind that is not part of a mind that I am part of. I can know with a high degree of certainty that the place I am currently located will not be subject to an event that will destroy me.

                    Privileging the certainty of nearer-term events is fallacious. It is true that any particular chosen event becomes more probable as its proximity to us increases, because there are fewer ways to avert it, but that does not mean all further-future events are less probable than all nearer-future events.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      you have a degree, you mean specifically in philosophy

      my focus was logic and scientific reasoning but the undergrad requirements covered ethics