User:Tetronian/sandbox2
Working title: Essay:Tetronian’s worldview
|
This essay is an original work by Tetronian. It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts. |
In this long but informal essay, which I have shamelessly named after myself, I will explain my position on various philosophical and political topics.[1] I welcome any discussion and/or argument concerning my opinions on the talk page. Also, feel free to correct the numerous errors in grammar and spelling that probably plague this otherwise satisfactory piece.
Epistemology[edit]
The Regress argument[edit]
Metaphysics[edit]
Morality[edit]
“”Morality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness. --Immanuel Kant
|
to add:
- section about deriving morality from definition of human nature
- section about utilitarianism + its flaws
However, utilitarianism cannot be considered an viable moral philosophy for practical reasons. Act utilitarianism suffers from enormous practical flaws, namely that it is unreasonable to expect people to accurately determine the correct course of action in any given circumstance. Rule utilitarianism offers some promise provided that the rules are neither too broad nor too specific and do not allow for the creation of sub-rules. (That is, if the rule seems to violate the principles of utilitarianism in a certain case, the a sub-rule would be created to amend the rule. This leads to various problems, though, namely the fact that this would lead to rule utilitarianism degenerating into act utilitarianism as more and more sub-rules are created for each case. Even so, certain branches of utilitarian philosophy are both justifiable and feasible. In particular, the concept of preference selection is in a agreement with the principles discussed above, and it is far more practical than any other form of utilitarianism. By allowing the positive and negative consequences of an action to be judged in terms of each individual's personal preferences, preference utilitarianism avoids the draconian consequences of act and rule utilitarianism by allowing for freedom of choice.
It is possible to use the principles of preference utilitarianism to derive a few basic moral principles that are both rational and feasible. The first and most important comes directly from one of the tenets of preference utilitarianism:
“”Any action that does not harm another individual in a measurable physical, psychological, or economic manner cannot be considered immoral or unethical.
|
Sexuality[edit]
Politics and law[edit]
Religious freedoms[edit]
Despite my opposition to religious dogmatism, I firmly support freedom for religion for all people. There is no reason why the government (or any other organization) should be granted the power to force people to believe in or practice any particular religion; as discussed above, it is far more practical to allow people to follow their own whims as long as they do not harm anyone else. This is the only limit to religious freedom: a person may not perform a particular act if it violates the principles discussed above, even if this act is committed in the name of religion. Naturally, religious freedom includes freedom ‘’from’’ religion.
For the most part, the Establishment Clause is a reasonable guideline for the government to follow: the state should neither promote nor discriminate against religion. However, I do disagree with the way the clause is interpreted in the US, particularly by social conservatives.
The social contract[edit]
Taxation and wealth redistribution[edit]
Crime and punishment[edit]
Personal freedoms[edit]
Gun control[edit]
International policy[edit]
Environment[edit]
On this issue, my views are based not on my political leaning or on my views on ethics, but on simple, undeniable facts. The key concept is sustainability: if human beings cannot regulate our population, energy consumption, and ecological footprint, then we will destroy the world’s ecosystems as well as our own civilization. It is clear that the only reasons the human race has been able to support our enormous population are agriculture and technology.[2] However, there is much evidence to suggest that these often lead to ecological suicide, as evidenced by many societies that have squandered their natural resources and made sustainability impossible.[3] Thus, it is obviously in the best interest of humanity to ensure that our society is sustainable and utilizes renewable resources that do not negatively affect the environment.
Perhaps the most important sustainability issue is population, as it is directly related to almost all other environmental issues. According to UN predictions, which take into account complex factors such as declining fertility rates, projects that the world population will reach “9.2 billion around 2050.”