If my morals involve consulting a random-number generator at some point, the results will be inconsistent in the sense that I will behave differently in the same situation.
I wouldn’t call that an inconsistency. Your morals would be “In [situation], do what RNG tells me” and not “In [situation], do X”. Both decision rules are consistent. I’m not sure we mean the same thing by “inconsistent moral code”—I’d say that an inconsistent moral code would have contradictions in it.
I still don’t know what does “wrong” mean here.
Consider if I said “All Xarbles are Yarbles, all Yables are Zarbles, but not all Xarbles are Zarbles”. You may have no idea what I’m talking about but you’d still be able to say that I’m wrong because I’m contradicting myself. Something similar is the case here.
What would be for you an example of inconsistent behavior, then?
Your morals would be “In [situation], do what RNG tells me” and not “In [situation}, do X”. Both decision rules are consistent.
If you climb the abstraction tree high enough, you can always get to consistency, if only in the form of “Do what your morals tell you to do”.
Something similar is the case here.
I don’t think so. Morals are not syllogisms. In particular, “X is wrong” is a different claim from “X is inconsistent” or “X is not logically coherent”.
What would be for you an example of inconsistent behavior, then?
If you say that eating meat is wrong, and you eat meat, then you are factually wrong about eating meat being morally wrong, you are acting morally wrongly when you eat meat, or both.
It’s not clear whether you are incorrect, immoral, or both. However, what you clearly are not doing is acting in a moral manner because it is moral. You can’t be doing that if you don’t know what’s moral, and you can’t be doing that if you’re acting immorally. You might get lucky and act morally by coincidence, but since that’s not something that can be done consistently, there’s little point in rewarding it.
What would be for you an example of inconsistent behavior, then?
If you say that eating meat is wrong, but then eat it.
If you climb the abstraction tree high enough, you can always get to consistency, if only in the form of “Do what your morals tell you to do”.
That’s true, but “do what your morals tell you to do” is vacuous and not action-guiding. Morality must be action-guiding, and “In [situation], do X” and “In [situation], do what RNG tells you” are both action-guiding.
In particular, “X is wrong” is a different claim from “X is inconsistent” or “X is not logically coherent”.
If I say “Eating meat is wrong, one should never do something wrong, it is sometimes permissible to eat meat”, there is a contradiction, and that requires at least one of the three statements to be false.
Because “do what your morals tell you to do” is self-referential, as your morals are what you should do. “Do what your morals tell you to do” unpacks to “do what you should do”, so if someone asks you what you should do, you can only respond “What I should do”. “Do what the RNG tells you to do” is not self-referential.
I wouldn’t call that an inconsistency. Your morals would be “In [situation], do what RNG tells me” and not “In [situation], do X”. Both decision rules are consistent. I’m not sure we mean the same thing by “inconsistent moral code”—I’d say that an inconsistent moral code would have contradictions in it.
Consider if I said “All Xarbles are Yarbles, all Yables are Zarbles, but not all Xarbles are Zarbles”. You may have no idea what I’m talking about but you’d still be able to say that I’m wrong because I’m contradicting myself. Something similar is the case here.
What would be for you an example of inconsistent behavior, then?
If you climb the abstraction tree high enough, you can always get to consistency, if only in the form of “Do what your morals tell you to do”.
I don’t think so. Morals are not syllogisms. In particular, “X is wrong” is a different claim from “X is inconsistent” or “X is not logically coherent”.
If you say that eating meat is wrong, and you eat meat, then you are factually wrong about eating meat being morally wrong, you are acting morally wrongly when you eat meat, or both.
It’s not clear whether you are incorrect, immoral, or both. However, what you clearly are not doing is acting in a moral manner because it is moral. You can’t be doing that if you don’t know what’s moral, and you can’t be doing that if you’re acting immorally. You might get lucky and act morally by coincidence, but since that’s not something that can be done consistently, there’s little point in rewarding it.
If you say that eating meat is wrong, but then eat it.
That’s true, but “do what your morals tell you to do” is vacuous and not action-guiding. Morality must be action-guiding, and “In [situation], do X” and “In [situation], do what RNG tells you” are both action-guiding.
If I say “Eating meat is wrong, one should never do something wrong, it is sometimes permissible to eat meat”, there is a contradiction, and that requires at least one of the three statements to be false.
Lessee… You said
So for this situation the morals would be
if (coinflip == true) { say “Eating meat is wrong” } else { say “Eating meat is not wrong” }
Eat meat
I don’t really see the difference in that respect between “do what your morals tell you to” and “do what the RNG tells you to”.
Because “do what your morals tell you to do” is self-referential, as your morals are what you should do. “Do what your morals tell you to do” unpacks to “do what you should do”, so if someone asks you what you should do, you can only respond “What I should do”. “Do what the RNG tells you to do” is not self-referential.