Is there room for a middle ground between the two? It seems to me either people accept no reasons or they accept some reasons. Is there something between “none” and “some”? (Not a rhetorical or snide question, I actually want to know if I’m looking at this correctly or not.)
As regards consequentialism and non-consequentialism, consider this scenario:
Pure Consequentialist A tells lies sometimes, when he thinks the ends justify the means.
Pure Consequentialist B never tells lies, because he believes honesty is the best policy for achieving positive outcomes, and he also feels better about himself that way (another positive consequence). He thinks lying is “wrong,” but only in the sense that it is always detrimental. He may even say, “I can’t know how my lie might hurt people in unforeseen ways, so I refuse to lie.”
Pure Deontologist C never tells lies, because he believes lies are “wrong” no matter what the consequences. “Lying is wrong and that is that.”
How different are Pure Consequentialist B and Pure Deontologist C? Or, how does the pure deontologist defend her stance that, essentially, “facts are facts” - or am I strawmanning pure deontologists? (I realize there is also virtue ethics, etc. but to keep it simple let’s stick to these two.)
Why can’t there be?
I’m not saying there isn’t, I’m asking if there is.
One can certainly admit that natural rights are a good in themselves but also that they bring about a social good by their enaction.
Good point. If someone said that to me, I would then like to know in what sense natural rights can be “a good” in themselves apart from bringing about positive consequences (defined in the very broadest sense, including religious, indirect, emotional, psychic, metaphysical, and material consequences). In other words, why adopt deontology if not for the purpose of bringing about positive consequences (including some metaphysical “good”)? In other other words, aren’t deontologists really only interested in consequences for themselves (just like everyone is)? I am curious, partly because I have not read about these concepts in depth.
Perhaps I like non-violence simply because I am disinclined to confrontation.
Aristotle stated: “But that perfect happiness is a contemplative activity…” I would not confuse happiness as a heart activity only. Happiness is an experience in intellect and demonstrable in action, too.
I don’t agree with Aristotle that the “perfect happiness”, meaning the best kind of happiness is found in contemplative activity. I find happiness in various actions to be noble and difficult to impossible to compare if contemplating is better than playing with my son. I’d rather play with my son. It did take a contemplative action to decide this which only goes to show that human action can’t be parsed and some actions dismissed. Humans are very flexible in the joys we can participate in.
You are merely finding your eudiamonia.
To find happiness is purpose. Eudaimonia is teleological.
Well so do I, because I am also disinclined to confrontation, but it doesn’t really address my question. To clarify, I do like the non-aggression principle as the basis for law enforcement.
What are you trying to get at?
\
We were talking about liking natural law for its own sake and no for its consequences. Therefore I like natural law for the sake I don’t like violence.
I’m thinking the same thing [:)].
You said, “No. The purpose is logic…” Then you said to me that I am, “merely finding my eudaimonia”.
I was pointing out above that eudaimonia is a purpose. I’m not saying logic isn’t a purpose, but excellent logic is noble, which is the same as saying a happy logic.
But my reasons for liking Lockean homesteading principles is not because it makes me happy.
Happy in the heartfelt sense? Cause that’s not the restrictions of eudaimonia. Eudaimonia has to do with excellence, what is good and noble. As Aristotle said he thought contemplating was perfect happiness due to all the goodness that a good, noble intellect leads to. Plauche discussed how eudaimonia means flourishing, well-being, happiness. Well-being not only in health but in the integrity of any object including an intellectual understanding. Happiness in the eudaimonia sense is very intellectual and is intellectually the same as saying good, thus, happy-logic. It is demonstrably thus the highest virtue. Are you saying you’re not trying to consider eudaimonia, which is fine then I’ll drop this, or are you saying you thought it meant only heartfelt joy/happiness?
"But my reasons for [liking] Lockean homesteading principles is not because it makes me [happy].
Pointing out emotional terms in my sentence isn’t going to change the reasons for why I value something.
May we substitute “value” for “like” in your statement?
I would say ‘flourshing’ but that is just a nitpicking comment.
I’m stating that eudaimonia is a state of mind that we strive to achieve and if so achieve strive to sustain. It is me being satiated with progressing the intellectual pursuit of Anarchism. Could you say that 'well Lockean principle is a constitutive means to achieving eudiamonia if my flourishing is through Anarchism…well perhaps. Perhaps I will always use Lockean homesteading through my life because it remains logic towards my ideology but what if something better were to come my way? And can we really consider that Lockean homesteading is only for Anarchism?