Morality, Prudence, Desire: A Lexicographic Ordering We Can Live With

This guy writes like Hegel. I'm having trouble finding a way to argue with it. I've spent a good part of the last 25 years reading a plethora of western and eastern philosophy, so it's not like I'm not used to reading on topics such as this. But I find his writing and ideas bordering on gibberish. Not quite. But close.

He's basically made a definition: Moral judgements incorporate self-interest. That is his definition of morality. I see no reason to define morality in such a fashion. I understand that an objectivist would orient all philosophical arguments such that they hinge upon the self, or self-interest.

And I love the "if formed correctly" phrase. Definitely self-serving.

Summary: I don't think morality necessarily incorporates self-interest as described in this quote. Though I do think the author of the quote is exhibiting his own self-interest (in his ideology) by making this argument. Unfortunately, I find his argument immoral.

I'm not convinced.

If desire influences prudence and prudence influences morality, then prudence isn't taking precedence over desire and morality isn't taking precedence over prudence. He's suggesting that all three factors are considered simultaneously. I don't see the hierarchy.

What FXGLM said.

What conchis said....

ps to TS Elliot the only good thing thats come out of Mass. happened in the late 1700s

Bryan,

So do you now disagree with Glen Whitman's conclusions? Seems to me he sought to refute by counter-example any lexicographic preference for morality over prudence. Does his argument fail?

He begs the question.

If Huemer's morality already takes both prudence and desire into account, then it has already dealt with the problem of lexicographic orderings that I discussed in the linked post. Huemer's morality wouldn't make absolutist claims that apply regardless of all consequences, because prudence would rule out such claims.

Glen,

How does the fact that one has weighed one's self-interest rule out absolute moral principles?

Huemer writes:

Thus, if one judges that one is morally required to act against one's own interests on some occasion, that means that one has already weighed one's particular interest in the circumstances against whatever considerations are at stake, and found one's own interest to be outweighed by those other considerations.

Why should I weigh my correctly judged self-interest against any consideration at all?

It can't be in my interest to do so.

Frankly I don't even see *how* I can weigh anything against my correctly judged self-interest.

ps to TS Elliot the only good thing thats come out of Mass. happened in the late 1700s

Actually, I kind of like RADAR. It's cool when flying. And for knocking out German U boats.

I thought the mini-computer was a pretty cool idea as well. For its time.

What everyone else said. This is not a lexicographic ordering.