Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

An introduction to the problem of evil, the argument that the existence of evil in the world is proof that God does not exist. Preference utilitarianism is one of the most popular forms of utilitarianism in contemporary philosophy.[citation needed] Unlike classical utilitarianism, which defines right actions as those that maximize pleasure and minimize pain, preference utilitarianism promotes actions that fulfill the interests (preferences) of those beings involved. The beings may be rational, that is to say, their interests may be carefully selected based on future projections, but this is not compulsory; here, the definition of "party" extends to all sentient beings, even those living solely in the present. Since what is good and right depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad: for preference utilitarians, the source of both morality and ethics in general is subjective preference.[1] Preference utilitarianism therefore can be distinguished by its acknowledgement that every person's experience of satisfaction is unique.

Continued

The theory, as outlined by R. M. Hare in 1981, is controversial, insofar as it presupposes some basis by which a conflict between A's preferences and B's preferences can be resolved (for example, by weighting them mathematically).[2] In a similar vein, Peter Singer, a major proponent of preference utilitarianism and himself influenced by the views of Hare, has been criticised for giving priority to the views of beings capable of holding preferences (being able to actively contemplate the future and its interaction with the present) over those solely concerned with their immediate situation, a group that includes many animals and young children. Hence, in cases of abortion, the views of the parent (however selfish or not, as the case may be) are prioritised over those of the fetus, without recourse to any (perceived) rights (here, the "right to life").[1] There are, he writes in regard to killing in general, times when "the preference of the victim could sometimes be outweighed by the preferences of others". Singer does, however, still place a high value on the life of rational beings, since killing them does not infringe upon just one of their preferences, but "a wide range of the most central and significant preferences a being can have".[3]

Peter....I think everyone has a right to an opinion....I think:)

BLU

AGIR:

You ask whether zoophilia should be taught at a major university?
To the best of my knowledge I don't believe that it is offered as
a separate subject.
If a lecturer was to express an opinion on that subject - I'm sure that it would have been in an appropriate context. Which the students can judge for themsleves - being fully-functional adults, and presumably intelligent ones. However, not knowing what the context was - I don't think think that any of us are in a position to be able to judge accurately.

Is preference utilitarianism a sound approach to ethics? I'm not a student of that subject either - and it is a complicated subject as anyone who's googled it would know. The study of ethics is difficult enough, and there are so many questions within that subject.
We can all disagree as to the very meaning of the principles or the virtue in question. Ethics after all remains a science of living, however it is not in itself a form of moral action or practice.

What is the point of your thread exactly?

"Peter....I think everyone has a right to an opinion....I think:)"

Indubitably. What they don't have is a right to use violence or the threat of it to force others to comply. There is where I am constantly at variance with statists and interventionists of every stripe.

"Since what is good and right depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad: for preference utilitarians, the source of both morality and ethics in general is subjective preference."

I can't see how that is not rubbish; how it would licence any abuse; how it would fail to distinguish ethical from unethical behaviour; how it would negate moral behaviour; undermine social co-operation, and make anyone the slave of another based on the other's mere individual preference.

Al is right. It's not merely amoral. It's positively immoral.

And we're being forced to fund this immoral drivel!

First of all, the world is going through a transitional change right now, and its very similar to the gold rush days, when any thing goes. All one can do in these red cordial times, is the wait until mankind carms down a touch.

I ask the OLO community, in your opinion, is this the kind of 'ethics' which should be taught at a major university in a faculty specializing in applied ethics ?

"Secondly, no matter how we feel about the practice of zoophilia, does it not follow logically from acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary thinking, as just one of a number of possible behaviors? and Further, if we accept Darwinian evolution, who are we to make value judgements on the practice?

Is "Preference Utilitarianism" a sound approach to ethics?

Al, I agree with one particular quote......"let them judge for themselves.
I mean very little is as sound as its once was, and what is ethical or moral for that matter, it seems the more you expose it to them, the less venturesome some become. To cap the evolving human-mind in a world where any-thing-goes, is like trying to shut the gates when the horses have bolted. The Internet is one of the main players in this, and its now up to the educators to keep up with this. However, I don't agree with all of Peter Singers thoughts, but I agree hes keeping up with the 21 centuries demands on how fast humans are developing.

AJ Philips

"Secular ethics come from an understanding of reality, not a baseless assertion of authority, and for that reason alone, they are superior."

Foyle

"Singer's "How are we to live" is a better guide to ethical behaviour than any ancient tome."


If you hide the real world away from them, they will simply find a way to see what your hiding. The evolvement of religions programings has already been hard-wired into the brains of modern man, hence its served its purpose.

Continued

Peter...you said

"Indubitably. What they don't have is a right to use violence or the threat of it to force others to comply."

How and who is using violence/threats/force?

The puppeteers have got the world in such a spin, they have got us all running around in circles, so we don't see who's pulling the strings. Its far to late to ask for a time machine and say, lets go back and fix it. Human greed and the money/law makers have set the stage, and this is how we have archived so much so quickly.

Peter Singer has been described as the newer voice of the brave.

"I can't see how that is not rubbish; how it would licence any abuse;"

All are responsible for their own actions and or, you can do it, but don't get caught. These are the new rules that feed our world today on all levels, and ETC's I could give...well, I don't have the space.

Bestiality......well, just look at the comments here, and personally....I think Al's making a mountain out of a mole hill.

http://tinyurl.com/49ryrcx

Its a brave new world, don't be afraid of it, just have commonsense and all will be fine.

BLU