I think I _DO_ subscribe to a version of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. You are (and each agent is) responsible* for everything you/they perceive. Whatever situation you find yourself in, and whatever actions (including inaction) you take, you will feel some reflection of the pain you perceive in others, and that is the primary consequence (for you) of your choices (or rather, situation + choices—they’re not easily separated).
I do use “responsible” in a much more limited way than many advocates of the concept of “justice” tend to do (and I’ll argue that motte-and-bailey is rife in such conversations, so it’s hard to nail down what it really means to someone). I only mean “will experience the future which your actions (and inactions) will contribute to”. I reject the fuzzier meanings of “fairness” or “only contractual human-imposed consequences”, but these do play a part in one’s future experiences in consequence of current state + choices made.
I don’t honestly know if this is just a restatement of consequentialism, as it leaves “good” as relative rather than absolute, and it acknowledges that much of the universe (but impossible to determine HOW much) is actually outside one’s control.
I too enjoy the show greatly, but remember it’s fiction, and based on some deep falsehoods (including moral realism—in truth, there is no point mechanism, and no good nor bad place separate from one’s actual life).
I think what you are pointing at is more heroic responsibility, unless you think that being unaware of something by choice actually lets you off the hook. I’m guessing you think it doesn’t? If you think it does then say more.
The Good Place’s ability to assign (at least in my book) shockingly accurate point totals to actions is the best case for the existence of objective morality I’ve ever seen, but yes we’re all fully aware it is fiction. I’m using it as a way to illustrate a mode of thinking, and to recommend a great show, nothing more.
If one is even slightly curious about the world, it’s very hard to be unaware of suffering by choice. I don’t have much of a theory of morality for the un-curious. And I do include “reasonably inferred” as suffering that you will share in your perception, so deniability doesn’t let you off the hook (and my version isn’t about other’s judgement of your reasons anyway, it’s about your actual experiences and choices).
Note that this does imply that I bite a pretty large bullet: I am probably a deka-hitler, possibly more. I’m also some fraction of a Salk. These are different dimensions, so don’t cancel out—I have to live with the knowledge of all the suffering I haven’t alleviated, even while feeling some relief from the good I’ve done.
I think I _DO_ subscribe to a version of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. You are (and each agent is) responsible* for everything you/they perceive. Whatever situation you find yourself in, and whatever actions (including inaction) you take, you will feel some reflection of the pain you perceive in others, and that is the primary consequence (for you) of your choices (or rather, situation + choices—they’re not easily separated).
I do use “responsible” in a much more limited way than many advocates of the concept of “justice” tend to do (and I’ll argue that motte-and-bailey is rife in such conversations, so it’s hard to nail down what it really means to someone). I only mean “will experience the future which your actions (and inactions) will contribute to”. I reject the fuzzier meanings of “fairness” or “only contractual human-imposed consequences”, but these do play a part in one’s future experiences in consequence of current state + choices made.
I don’t honestly know if this is just a restatement of consequentialism, as it leaves “good” as relative rather than absolute, and it acknowledges that much of the universe (but impossible to determine HOW much) is actually outside one’s control.
I too enjoy the show greatly, but remember it’s fiction, and based on some deep falsehoods (including moral realism—in truth, there is no point mechanism, and no good nor bad place separate from one’s actual life).
I think what you are pointing at is more heroic responsibility, unless you think that being unaware of something by choice actually lets you off the hook. I’m guessing you think it doesn’t? If you think it does then say more.
The Good Place’s ability to assign (at least in my book) shockingly accurate point totals to actions is the best case for the existence of objective morality I’ve ever seen, but yes we’re all fully aware it is fiction. I’m using it as a way to illustrate a mode of thinking, and to recommend a great show, nothing more.
If one is even slightly curious about the world, it’s very hard to be unaware of suffering by choice. I don’t have much of a theory of morality for the un-curious. And I do include “reasonably inferred” as suffering that you will share in your perception, so deniability doesn’t let you off the hook (and my version isn’t about other’s judgement of your reasons anyway, it’s about your actual experiences and choices).
Note that this does imply that I bite a pretty large bullet: I am probably a deka-hitler, possibly more. I’m also some fraction of a Salk. These are different dimensions, so don’t cancel out—I have to live with the knowledge of all the suffering I haven’t alleviated, even while feeling some relief from the good I’ve done.