Quote:
|
So, what makes you think that your "personal approach is a commonsensical / realist / pragmatist's view"?
|
It is pragmatic because it proposes that sound reasoning with an aim to contributing positively to experience is the characteristic which should be considered the defining attribute of moral activity. This is realistic because it avoids the metaphysical backgrounds and logical pitfalls relied upon by other theories while giving people something useful to work toward. Hence, an analytical mind can hone in on specific moral propositions and determine which ones (as valuations) are likely to contribute positively to the experience of beings in general on basis of the available information. Or simply put:
1. Moral activity depends on sound reasoning.
2. Reasoning is sound (as opposed to fallacious) if it appears very likely to have pay out (positive outcomes).
3. Something can only be said to appear 'very likely' in an objective sense if it is put through a rigorous process of experience-centered verification.
4. Since a rigorous process of verification is not always possible, like in situations where time is short or resources are limited, the next best degree of analysis can be substituted in its place. In this case, the activity still counts as a moral even if the verification process was not rigorous.
In retrospect, commonsensical was a poor choice of word. I think it is, but I would have to go on a tangent concerning common sense to demonstrate it.