Positive moral development

From the CADRE:

Brad Haggard said...
6/10/2010 06:41:00 AM

J.D.,

I think you can push the illustration a little further, because for a video game to have any sort of coherence, it has to have a uniform physics. The physics and hit detection are probably the most crucial part of building a good game, and if the math isn't consistent, there really isn't any game to be played. That's what makes the classics so good, is that their system of movement and hit detection is intuitive and consistent.

When, for instance, someone finds a way in the original Super Mario Bros. to get caught halfway into a wall, it is considered a "glitch" and a mistake of the programmers. If these glitches characterized the entire game, then there would be no game to play, because there would be no internal coherence to the physics.

Ok, I'll stop now before I reveal too much of my inner dork. That was a very interesting post.

Brad Haggard said...
6/10/2010 06:42:00 AM

BTW, Alexander Pruss has a very interesting set of posts on Theodicy. Here's one that really struck me in evaluating the moral outcomes of the Holocaust:

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2010/05/horrendous-evil-and-moral-development.html

steve said...
6/10/2010 08:04:00 AM
Brad,

How is your illustration distinguishable from Deism? Or is it?

steve said...
6/10/2010 08:20:00 AM
Regarding Pruss:

“Now, add the following thesis: In terms of value, a moderate amount of positive moral development trumps a very large amount of suffering. (Socrates would say—and I think he'd be right—that any amount of positive moral development trumps any amount of suffering.)”

That thesis strikes me as far from self-evident.

“Suppose I knew that by preventing a great suffering to myself I would be losing an opportunity for significant positive moral development. Would prudence permit me to refrain from preventing the suffering? I think it would. Nor would such a refraining from prevention be morally wrong.”

Several obvious problems:

i) Suffering isn’t equivalent to moral evil.

ii) Even if suffering is morally beneficial for me, it doesn’t follow that to make a second party suffer for my own benefit is justifiable.

iii) In many cases, suffering doesn’t contribute to the moral development of the affected party. To the contrary, it frequently contributes to a person’s moral decline.

steve said...
6/10/2010 11:40:00 AM
Brad Haggard said...

"Oh, and for Pruss, I don't want to defend his thoughts here. I just thought that they were interesting in light of J.D.'s post. I also think there is a case to be made for the first thesis you present, but I'm not going to take the time to do that here."

Are you referring to his thesis statement: “Now, add the following thesis: In terms of value, a moderate amount of positive moral development trumps a very large amount of suffering. (Socrates would say—and I think he'd be right—that any amount of positive moral development trumps any amount of suffering.)”

It would be interesting to see you make a case for that thesis.

Let's take a concrete illustration. Suppose I'm a recovering serial-killer. Due to a disadvantaged childhood (I'll spare you the Dickensian details), I used to be a sociopathic killer. Had no conscience or compassion.

But after I started torturing women to death, I began to feel a twinge of guilt. Seeing them weep and beg for mercy, seeing their friends and family go on TV to plead for their loved one, began to awaken in me a dormant sense of empathy and remorse for my crimes.

Therefore, my moderate positive moral development trumps the suffering of my victims, as well as the suffering of their surviving loved ones. After all, "any amount of positive moral development trumps any amount of suffering"

Is that the thesis you'd like to defend? Give it your best shot.