People also forget to distinguish principled-morality-in-perfect-company vs principled-morality-when-surrounded-by-limited-entities. In fact, every “principled” analysis (and note that i object to the term—real-world is messier and more complex, but not unprincipled) is actually a modeling choice of what things to assume away. It’s never “morality about a point-mass”, it’s about choices within some constraints.
Principled vs. pragmatic morality is definitely closer to a spectrum than a dichotomy.
“It’s never “morality about a point-mass”, it’s about choices within some constraints”—Is it? Some people do make moral claims like, “Murder is unconditionally wrong”. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are saying clearly.
“Murder is unconditionally wrong” puts the human choices under constraints into the definition of murder (or lack thereof—often they mean “killing that I object to”). There’s not much value in the abstraction, as all the details come back when you dig in.
People also forget to distinguish principled-morality-in-perfect-company vs principled-morality-when-surrounded-by-limited-entities. In fact, every “principled” analysis (and note that i object to the term—real-world is messier and more complex, but not unprincipled) is actually a modeling choice of what things to assume away. It’s never “morality about a point-mass”, it’s about choices within some constraints.
Principled vs. pragmatic morality is definitely closer to a spectrum than a dichotomy.
“It’s never “morality about a point-mass”, it’s about choices within some constraints”—Is it? Some people do make moral claims like, “Murder is unconditionally wrong”. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are saying clearly.
“Murder is unconditionally wrong” puts the human choices under constraints into the definition of murder (or lack thereof—often they mean “killing that I object to”). There’s not much value in the abstraction, as all the details come back when you dig in.