• 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.

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

                    Are you claiming that in a particular physically real situation, the categorical imperative can can tell you the correct course of action with 100% certainty? If so, please explain how that’s possible when your personal certainty of the situation is (necessarily) less than 100%.