I go to Bentham with the question and I get something like: “Well, all those actions could lead to some utility for you and others, I guess the choice is up to you to do that calculus and figure out which will work best in the long run and if there’s no clear winner, just do whatever would make you happiest right now, after all, maximizing utility applies to you in the moment as well”
That’s a pretty undemanding form of utilitarianism. U-ism is notoriously demanding. Even if you are not a god-emperor, you would still be required to give your stuff away until you are no more miserable than everyone else.
So it’s not really true that all ethical systems are undemanding, more that the undemanding forms are undemanding. People might be motivated to water down their ethical systems to
make them more popular, and that might lead to a degree of convergence, but that isn’t very interesting.
Your second point, that people aren’t motivated to do demanding things by ethical beliefs alone, is also true but unsurprising. As everyone knows, ethical persuasion is buttressed by reward and punishment.
. Even when it is obvious, taking the actions that lead to good outcomes is usually inherently difficult.
But that’s only important under consequentialism, which is only one system.
The day to day actions that do have some ethical value associated with them, don’t differ in terms of direction between any given ethical system
Even if you are not a god-emperor, you would still be required to give your stuff away until you are no more miserable than everyone else.
But that is the crazy interpretation of consequentialism which places 0 value on the ethics of care, that nobody practices, because even true psychopaths still have a sweet spot for themselves, so, is it worth bringing to the table ?
So it’s not really true that all ethical systems are undemanding, more that the undemanding forms are undemanding. People might be motivated to water down their ethical systems to make them more popular, and that might lead to a degree of convergence, but that isn’t very interesting.
This is actually a good point ( though I don’t believe extreme U-ism is the best example here, since again, literally nobody is practicing it.
But that’s only important under consequentialism, which is only one system.
See above, the vast majority of actions under normative ethics have no inherent value, they only help in that they place you in a situation where you are better positioned when taking an action that will have normative value.
Sure they do. Prayer? Eating pork?
Also true.
But are the kind of religious systems where most actions have normative values even “in the discussion” for… anyone that potentially reads LW ?
I guess I bought them up by citing new england style christianity when I should have really just said Quakers or some other light-weight, value-of-life & tolerance focused christian sect where “god” is closer to a “philosopher’s god” or “prime mover”, rather than an “ominpotent demanding father”
That’s a pretty undemanding form of utilitarianism. U-ism is notoriously demanding. Even if you are not a god-emperor, you would still be required to give your stuff away until you are no more miserable than everyone else.
So it’s not really true that all ethical systems are undemanding, more that the undemanding forms are undemanding. People might be motivated to water down their ethical systems to make them more popular, and that might lead to a degree of convergence, but that isn’t very interesting.
Your second point, that people aren’t motivated to do demanding things by ethical beliefs alone, is also true but unsurprising. As everyone knows, ethical persuasion is buttressed by reward and punishment.
But that’s only important under consequentialism, which is only one system.
Sure they do. Prayer? Eating pork?
But that is the crazy interpretation of consequentialism which places 0 value on the ethics of care, that nobody practices, because even true psychopaths still have a sweet spot for themselves, so, is it worth bringing to the table ?
This is actually a good point ( though I don’t believe extreme U-ism is the best example here, since again, literally nobody is practicing it.
See above, the vast majority of actions under normative ethics have no inherent value, they only help in that they place you in a situation where you are better positioned when taking an action that will have normative value.
Also true.
But are the kind of religious systems where most actions have normative values even “in the discussion” for… anyone that potentially reads LW ?
I guess I bought them up by citing new england style christianity when I should have really just said Quakers or some other light-weight, value-of-life & tolerance focused christian sect where “god” is closer to a “philosopher’s god” or “prime mover”, rather than an “ominpotent demanding father”