Not insufficient in relation to circumstances. Insuffienct as a criterion for moral. To be moral you generally have to be good.
I swear, you gotta be just playing dumb to torture. I can do the time crossword and use, on some of the questions, rational deduction to come up with the answers. That doesn’t make it a moral act. And if my wife was suffering in the bedroom and asking for water, most religious people would say that while I approached solving the puzzle rationally I did not act morally by ignoring her calls. It might even be rational for me to do this. Perhaps I stand to inherit big bucks and I am an unloving ass and her dying in there benefits me. But that ‘being rational’ is insufficient to meet the criteria of being moral.
Now you are just muddying the waters and throwing a bunch of unnecessary things at me. Take small steps. Resolve one issue, if possible, move to others.
Exactly what I said above…
Now I am supposed to solve conflicting goods. What have I told little iamb about that? Hm, remember?
Right now we are discussing if rationality is a sufficient criterion (as opposed to a necessary one) in most moral systems. It’s not. And regardless of whether one can solve conflicting goods, it’s not.
You can’t follow simple arguments. You have the entire edifice of your position with you at all moments. So when we are focusing on a specific issue, you drag the whole house in so nothing gets anywhere.
It’s an illness. We could, for example, have dealt with how being rational is not a sufficient criterion for being moral (as morality is conceived). Then moved on, in small steps. But you flood every interchange with the whole ball of wax as if any argument that does not immediately solve the entire thing solves nothing.
REmember the Tylenol thing, where some guy poisoned the batches. There were rational arguments in a number of directions and the CEO decided that the moral response was to recall all Tylenol. And it turned out to be a great long term strategy even though it cost them terribly for a while. One could have made and one did make rational arguments for many approached. In addition to the rationality were moral criteria. The rational arguments were inssuficient to be moral ones, in most people’s sense of morality. He felt that taking care of the customer’s safety was THE Priority. Regardless of how this affected the company - as it turned out even that went well, but his decision was based on rational argument plus a moral value. And generally - here’s a hint - religious morals tend to ask people to put aside self-interest, especially on certain issues.
Now I know what you want to do now. You want to find out how to resolve conflicting goods. Jump right from this to pointing out how other businesses do not act like that or how do we know which value to prioritize and so on.
A simple bit of advice. Take small steps in a conversation. You have a habit of inserting the entire project into posts when a small issue is potentially being dealt with.
It muddies the water.
It is ‘as if’ anything I said, for example, solved conflicting goods.
It is for the moment irrelevant. Imagine…
we agree that most morals consider rationality to not be a sufficient criterion for a behavior. We find a way to have that small successful shared conclusion.
THEN
you can slowly reintroduce the other issues, step by step.
If during an exchange of posts we do not agree IT STILL DOES NOT HELP.
Keep a focus. You are being extremely rude when you do otherwise.