Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Open discussion for all registered members.

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby nottamun » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:34 pm

Response to Lausten:

I agree in a general way with most of what you have said and, particularly, about morality encompassing far more than the well-being of the individual. Indeed, really ‘powerful’, ‘high level’ or whatever morality should maximise the scale of well-being. I think the island analogy is, however, a very interesting one because it removes much of the social context and therefore requires us to consider what else is removed at the same time.

None of these definitions, however, does much to define ‘optimal’ in the sense of well-being. Optimal may require short-term sacrifice for long-term gain. And it doesn’t necessarily help if the people making the short-term sacrifice are not the same as those benefiting from the long-term gain. It may be overly glib, but it could be argued in the broadest sense that World War II was fought to defend against fascist tyranny. Millions paid the price of death or horrible injury for an indeterminite benefit. Nobody at the beginning of the war could imagine the true cost or benefits, including those for following generations. But many people of differing moral beliefs have argued the case of a ‘just war’. Morality is a messy business.
nottamun
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:56 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:12 pm

None of these definitions, however, does much to define ‘optimal’ in the sense of well-being.
Indeed. Offhand, simple utilitarianism doesn't cover two important things. When two rights or values conflict, which do you go with? How much benefit to the many do we need to accrue before we dick over the few - or the one? Even then it can get very complicated. Two: time horizons. How much harm should we inflict now for far greater rewards later. Again this can get very complicated.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby Tackster » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:10 pm

Well I'm glad this thread has generated some talk on the subject - I don't think we're going to meaningfully solve any questions but I have found areas I'm interested in learning more about and seen the various points of view out there. Isn't reason fun! :mrgreen:

EnlightenmentLiberal wrote:
None of these definitions, however, does much to define ‘optimal’ in the sense of well-being.
Indeed. Offhand, simple utilitarianism doesn't cover two important things. When two rights or values conflict, which do you go with? How much benefit to the many do we need to accrue before we dick over the few - or the one? Even then it can get very complicated. Two: time horizons. How much harm should we inflict now for far greater rewards later. Again this can get very complicated.


I wanted to amicably dispute the two points above simply because this was the latest comment in the thread :P

Point 1: When two rights or values conflict, which do you go with?
I think this depends on what we mean by conflict. I assume we're saying is that the sum total outcome is equal for well-being/efficiency/whatever and then I think it simply implies that these are equal choices. I don't think that two actions being equally valid necessarily conflicts with the premise that morality is objective. My personal hypothesis is that this equality is only true when both actions results in a 0 sum total effect and therefore are not moral actions, but that's probably a conversation for another thread.

Point 2: How much harm should we inflict now for far greater rewards later?
Well this is where maths comes into it for me. It's not difficult to measure effects over time in the same as way as measuring effects over any other cross-sections of the results of an action. We simply take the sum total effect over time.

There may be an implication here to value harm vs. benefit. That's something I've always found hard to understand. Why is morality necessarily a conflict between harm and benefit? Couldn't we just minimize harm and leave whatever actions remain open to people creating as much benefit as possible? I always equate this to the question: Would you kill a man if it resulted in 10,000,000 dollars contributed to cancer research. Well, if we don't kill the man are we necessarily preventing a donation to cancer research? Why are we in this situation? Could we not possible convince the person to donate regardless? These questions that pose IF THEN ELSE statements are interesting conundrums but ultimately unrealistic. Situational moral questions are only really fair if any conceivable actions are viable to explore, and not limited to a small set of actions.

Off-Topic:
I had a long discussion with a colleague today about moral relativism and he annoyingly tried to end it by bringing it down to logical absolutes and arguing that we don't know that they're absolute. The only reason I mention this is to point out (a) let's never end anything on that :P and (b) if I create a thread on the topic of absolute truth anytime soon - you know why!
Praise Reason!
Tackster
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:20 pm

Well this is where maths comes into it for me. It's not difficult to measure effects over time in the same as way as measuring effects over any other cross-sections of the results of an action. We simply take the sum total effect over time.
Sorry. I think I have to reject this. Remember the simple test of a society, that you might judge it as though you were placed into a random position in the society? Well, that same argument can apply over time. I can judge the society as though I was placed at a random pint in time. It is not fair, it is not moral, to supremely dick over one generation to aid the next 10 by a modest amount.

This is where the math comes up. How do you add harm and benefit?

Of course, you reject that such situations even exist. Let me trot out my favorite example. Vaccines. I think we can all agree that the government should incentivize taking vaccines, such as how it currently does for school children. Vaccines are very safe, but they are not side effect free. Some kids will die because of this program that will not have died otherwise. I'm still for this program. That is, I am judging that the deaths of a very small number of children is worth saving the lives of many, many more, in this particular case. Offhand, I'm not exactly sure what all went into this reasoning process, and it would probably take me quite a long time to work out, but I feel pretty comfortable about the conclusion regardless.

I think the two problems in my earlier post are legitimate questions for which I have yet to see concrete answers that I think are just "self evident" to most people, unlike how "don't murder people just because they're annoying" is self evident to most people.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby Tackster » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:16 pm

Will break this down for ease of reply:

Sorry. I think I have to reject this. Remember the simple test of a society, that you might judge it as though you were placed into a random position in the society? Well, that same argument can apply over time. I can judge the society as though I was placed at a random pint in time. It is not fair, it is not moral, to supremely dick over one generation to aid the next 10 by a modest amount.


I 100% agree. And therefore the best way of establishing the moral benefits are by establishing sum total benefits over time. Remember I talked about measuring just harm? I'm not stating we should inflict -100 Harm Units on the previous generation to result in +101 Happiness Units on the next generation. I'm saying that a state of 50 Harm on one generation and -100 Harm on another is sum total positive. I.e. -50 Harm. The happiness generates itself.

This is where the math comes up. How do you add harm and benefit?

Of course, you reject that such situations even exist. Let me trot out my favorite example. Vaccines. I think we can all agree that the government should incentivize taking vaccines, such as how it currently does for school children. Vaccines are very safe, but they are not side effect free. Some kids will die because of this program that will not have died otherwise. I'm still for this program. That is, I am judging that the deaths of a very small number of children is worth saving the lives of many, many more, in this particular case. Offhand, I'm not exactly sure what all went into this reasoning process, and it would probably take me quite a long time to work out, but I feel pretty comfortable about the conclusion regardless.


I see that as an decision based purely on removing harm. Inflict 10 Harm now to result in -999999999 harm later. Sum total = Less harm.

I think the two problems in my earlier post are legitimate questions for which I have yet to see concrete answers that I think are just "self evident" to most people


I don't disagree the questions are legitimate. I just think they have answers and I think I'm not giving you a 'because I think so' reason. Maybe I am, and if that's the case I appreciate you explaining why because I agree, 'Just So' arguments are annoying.

, unlike how "don't murder people just because they're annoying" is self evident to most people.


Erm, a little rude maybe? I obviously don't believe in murdering annoying individuals. For a start it's impractical given they're in the majority :P However, I think truth is important and I like to assess claims that are self-evident, even my own, because I accept I can have flawed reasoning and I trust logic above intuition.
Praise Reason!
Tackster
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:27 pm

Ok. Let's do some numbers.

Suppose the current vaccination program in the US this year will kill 10 kids. Suppose that if we stopped the program, 10,000 kids would die this year because we stopped vaccinations. I'm pulling numbers out of my ass, but they seem plausible. Do we kill the 10, or the 10,000?

Suppose I found 5 people, one who needed a heart transplant, one who needed lungs, one who needed a kidney, one who needed a liver, and one who needed another major bodily organ. I found this sixth guy who has all of the needed organs. Do we pick the policy that results in 1 death, or the policy that results in 5 deaths?

I'm for one of these programs, and not the other. I'm curious what your position is, and how you intend to justify it with absurdly naive moral system. I fully expect that you are about to trot out some additional rules, and abandon your overly simplistic math.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:33 pm

... unlike how "don't murder people just because they're annoying" is self evident to most people.
Erm, a little rude maybe? I obviously don't believe in murdering annoying individuals.
Also, sorry. That was meant as mere comparison, not an implication that you hold that position.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby Tackster » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:45 pm

Let's be clear on a couple of things before I answer your questions.

(1) These are situational arguments. I am answering based on the information you gave me alone. In every hypothetical I can go off and start theorizing about medical treatments better than vaccines or something. I am only addressing your points so these are not relevant to my general views on morality, just my highly flawed understandings of the limited situations proposed.

(2) I am naive, I haven't studied ethics, I don't purport to be an expert. I do read the pieces I find interesting. I do attempt to educate myself where my (many) gaps are. The idea that this naive system is 'absurd' is a little strong on judgement as i'm sure the majority of humanity share equally naive, non-researched opinions on morality.

Anyway:
Suppose the current vaccination program in the US this year will kill 10 kids. Suppose that if we stopped the program, 10,000 kids would die this year because we stopped vaccinations. I'm pulling numbers out of my ass, but they seem plausible. Do we kill the 10, or the 10,000?


In this simplistic example I argue we 'kill' the 10. Over time the harm done is 10 less lives rather that 9,990. I don't even see this as 'killing'. We can call it 'collateral damage' if you want to go with a term that really pisses people off :roll:

Suppose I found 5 people, one who needed a heart transplant, one who needed lungs, one who needed a kidney, one who needed a liver, and one who needed another major bodily organ. I found this sixth guy who has all of the needed organs. Do we let the 6th live and the other 5 die? Or do we kill the 6th to involuntarily harvest his organs to save the other 5?


Again the choices are: Lose 1 or lose 5. We choose lose 1.

In these simplistic arguments we don't take into account the extra values that are always important. What if the person needing 1 transplant is more likely not to reject the organs, and all five others are very likely to reject them? What if the 9,990 children are all sterile and the 100 aren't? If they're the 'entire' future of the community we're drastically affecting the chance to survive.

I can give realistic simple examples to why these questions aren't useful to discuss in a vacuum. At the end of the day we take the effects of our choices and mathematically work out the effects. I don't see what's naive about that? Sure sometimes the maths is complex. Sometimes we make intuitive choices. Hopefully when it comes to governmental decisions we're making the former and not the latter.

The point I was making was simply that finding the position of least harm is more important then weighing harm vs. good. The other point was that time based decisions are only difficult if taken to extremely large jumps which are impractical and result in large error bars. It's quite reasonable to do something that is certain to do good now and very slightly possible to do futher harm later if the other choices result in more harm now.
Last edited by Tackster on Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Praise Reason!
Tackster
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby Tackster » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:52 pm

Also if you want to see a REALLY naive statement check out my proposition below. I know it's flawed and finding out why would be educational :mrgreen:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4450&sid=aa0785ef56306935f4ce82113ee29128#p22164

Someone teach me how to create a hyperlink? lol...
Praise Reason!
Tackster
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby Tackster » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:16 pm

I just re-read and in the case of the 5 v 1 I didn't realize we were explicitly killing a healthy person. I misread that to imply that we were either donating to 5 or donating to 1. My apologies.

In order to address what you actually stated:

Given only the information you provided and nothing more then I still conclude we kill the 1 man.

When we take into account the effects this would have on society, the necessity to weight the different 'values' of people's lives and so on I arrive at two conclusions:
1. These are too difficult to compute given that we do not currently have all the information. Given that I know that I can provide an argument that a sum total negative is created by killing the man simply due to the reactions a society would have (e.g. Many people would actively harm themselves in order to avoid being picked). In essence we move into calculus and 'approach' the true result without being able to express it.

2. It isn't too difficult to compute in the which case we just 'maths' it. This isn't a realistic choice, just the alternative.

Do you think I added too much in answering your questions? It still comes down to maths, overall harm and calculations over time as far as I can see?
Praise Reason!
Tackster
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:09 am

Do you think I added too much in answering your questions? It still comes down to maths, overall harm and calculations over time as far as I can see?
I think the overwhelming number of people's intuitive reactions are wholly against killing the single healthy man to save others. I think the overwhelming majority of people's intuitive morality has a Kantian element to it. I think the overwhelming majority of people would be in favor of the current vaccination program, and strongly opposed to killing the healthy guy for forced organ "donation". These are simply material facts.

What should we do? What is moral? I don't have good answers offhand. I agree with the majority. I think that the morality I want imposed, that I want to live under, is not this naive utilitarianism, but has some Kantian elements as well.

Let me ask you this. What's the difference between my forced organ "donation" scenario, and the scenario where I can save lies, labor, effort, etc., by enslaving 10% of the population? I don't immediately see an obvious difference in how your reasoning would apply. It seems as though you would in fact demand that we enslave 10% of the population if I can show enough benefits for doing so - or in your pedantic language where you distinguish between harm and benefit - if I can show that enslaving 10% of the population can be used to save the other 90% from some other harms which "add up" to outweigh the harm of enslaving 10% of the population.

In fact, the slavery example and the kill 1 to save 5 scenario shows that your reasoning is utterly incapable with the notion that we should judge a society by how it treats its lowest member. The simple fact is that most people do not do this naive sort of linear analysis, but do a much more nuanced "addition", which is also affected by Kantian elements.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby Tackster » Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:12 am

Are you purposefully ignoring all of my post apart from the direct answers? Thoughts before I go to bed:

1. I don't agree with the answers I gave in general either. I just gave answers based on the limited information you provided. Never in real life would the decision be so simple. I'm not the one that posited these oversimplified, unrealistic scenarios that lead to no relevant conclusions. When you asked your simplistic questions, I gave simplistic answers. I was attempting to be honest and show the failure of asking such questions. I think that exercise missed the mark a bit for you. For instance, if I ask you which country you would save in a nuclear war can I draw any realistic understanding of your moral concepts? I know that I would feel arrogant in presuming I could.

2. The overwhelming majority of people don't necessarily correlate to an objective moral truth. I don't think the overwhelming majority of people believed in equality between men and women, classes or social levels in historic times. So what? I agree - there is a majority in any situation where more than 3 people are asked to pick between 2 options. So what? Most importantly I pretty much agree with my local majority (the morals and legal systems exemplified across many European countries). I think that some of the majorities you are quoting I do agree with. I'm arriving at a similar conclusion to the majority through non-sentimental means. If I want to base that on maths, I think you'd be better off questioning my proofs then asking for 2 unrealistic scenario based conclusions...

3. Naive utilitarianism? You'd be surprised at how much of utilitarianism (and consequentialism, which I think you are unknowingly accusing me of) I disagree with. My points were (1) Using maths to solve these issues is not only viable but probably if not definitely the best way to reach conclusions. (2) Making decisions based on time are common place and not particularly difficult within reason. (3) Harm vs. Benefit - well I don't want to explain this a third time and you've never really addressed it except to call it 'naive' without providing a reason.

4. If enforcing slavery does provide a benefit to the majority in minimizing harm then I hold that is a good thing. Does that mean I believe we should do it? No! Why? Because nobody has claimed that is the case! Do the majority approach that decision through rational thought? Yes! How many countries have mandatory conscription or civil service, sometimes even without pay? How many businesses require their employees to pay social charges that end up in part in government sponsored charities? Legal companies require their lawyers provide pro bono defenses for financially bereft clients. Universities courses sometimes require students to take part in unpaid internships to make their credits. These are all examples of the shades of grey that are the results of taking all effects into account and reaching sound conclusions that we hope approach an objective morality.

5. Come up with your 10% vs. 90% example and I will happily engage in a descriptive debate concerning the issue. I posited normative principles, you provided limited scenarios and then expanded the results to exaggerated over-applications. Doesn't really invalidate the answers I gave, I believe. More to the point forcing me to use simple maths is not an example of a naive moral system - I think it's a naive question.

6. 'Utterly incapable with the notion that we should judge a society by how it treats its lowest member'. What I think is funny here is that this is a nice way of describing an important aspect of the island analogy I proposed when I created this thread. My question was around defending that position and confirming why it is that morality should in essence 'trump' self-interest, which I believe it does. I think that any society that enslaves it's people for future benefit would most likely be actively behaving in a self-interested way.

Now - you have made some assertions. If I analyze this situation mathematically then I have to believe in slavery? If I apply some basic utilitarian notions then i'll by definition act against the major morals upheld by humanity? Most importantly, that by providing brief examples of certain values I hold or even better providing concrete answers to unrealistic questions, you can know my entire system of judgement and what conclusions I will draw? Any proof for these assertions?

I'm kinda sleepy - looking forward to an interesting continuation of the discussion tomorrow. I know this was a bit aggressive but after reading your reply I hope you understand you're simply getting as good as you're giving. I appreciate the time you've taken to reply - I've only been on the forum a couple of days but the posters have already validated the reasons I came here. To engage, learn and share. G'nite!
Praise Reason!
Tackster
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:03 am

Tackster wrote:Are you purposefully ignoring all of my post apart from the direct answers?
No. If I don't have something terribly interesting to reply with, I don't. If you want some specific response from me, phrase it as a question please. And I apologize if I miss questions. I do not intend to be difficult or evasive. Just ask again, sorry.

Never in real life would the decision be so simple.
And no. Sometimes it is just that simple. Slavery and forced organ donations are both things that have happened in recent history. Slavery in the past US, and forced organ donations in China. Maybe it's not a simple answer, but if you cannot even do simple questions, how can you do the hard questions?

2. The overwhelming majority of people don't necessarily correlate to an objective moral truth.
There is no such thing as objective moral truth absent a specific moral axiomatic framework. Also, I disagree with your simplistic utilitarian moral premise.

3. Naive utilitarianism? You'd be surprised at how much of utilitarianism (and consequentialism, which I think you are unknowingly accusing me of) I disagree with. My points were (1) Using maths to solve these issues is not only viable but probably if not definitely the best way to reach conclusions.
I'm confused. How is that not utilitarianism? What do you think that "utilitarianism" and "consequentialism" mean?

Harm vs. Benefit - well I don't want to explain this a third time and you've never really addressed it except to call it 'naive' without providing a reason.
I can only respond to what I've been given to work with. I do not understand a coherent way that you can partition harm from benefit. Could you give me one please? I just looked over the thread, and AFAIK you have not given any way to distinguish between harm and benefit as you seem wont to do. Furthermore, we can talk about a hypothetical measure of well-being on a real-value scale. Harming them puts them lower on the scale, and benefiting them puts them higher on the scale. Thus, if we are choosing between two (or more) policy options, I fail to see any reasonable way to distinguish between the two.

However, I distinguish between something related to that. I don't distinguish between harm and benefit. However, I have a Kantian distinction, namely: if someone takes an action to harm someone, then the bar is very low for use of force to prevent that. However, if someone hurts someone else through simple inaction, then the bar to compel them to take action to help out is much higher than the previous case. In other words, causing direct or indirect harm through action is much more frowned upon than merely letting suffering continue through inaction. Are you intending to draw this distinction? Because this may be related to your harm vs benefit, but it's not distinguishing between harm vs benefit. It's only distinguishing between action and inaction, between actively hurting someone vs actively helping someone.

Do you have some other criterion that we can discuss? Otherwise I'm just left with "your views are naive".

4. If enforcing slavery does provide a benefit to the majority in minimizing harm then I hold that is a good thing. Does that mean I believe we should do it? No!
Now you're just being an asshat and needlessly difficult. If something is a good thing, that definitionally means that we should pursue that policy. That's what the word "good" means. If we cannot agree over some basic definitions of terms, like this one, then I cannot continue this conversation.

5. Come up with your 10% vs. 90% example and I will happily engage in a descriptive debate concerning the issue. I posited normative principles, you provided limited scenarios and then expanded the results to exaggerated over-applications. Doesn't really invalidate the answers I gave, I believe. More to the point forcing me to use simple maths is not an example of a naive moral system - I think it's a naive question.
How is this a naive question? This happened for a hundred years in American history, or something like it. This is a very real world applicable question. Do we enslave a lower class or not? For a hundred years we did, and now we decided that it's a bad policy.

Now - you have made some assertions. If I analyze this situation mathematically then I have to believe in slavery?
No, as I understand your naive system, it follows. There's a lot more nuance and context than just that simple description. I'm asking you to further explain your system, and you have thus far refused to consider even the simple questions, and if we can't even analyze the simple questions, how the hell can we do the "real world" hard questions?

Yes, I have a harsh tone, because you're dodging the important questions, questions I'm asking in order to understand your system, dodging them by calling them "irrelevant" or "obscure" or "hypothetical only", which further pisses me off because these are real world questions that were/are very controversial, that we did have to face in recent history, and that we continue to have to face. If you can't answer the simple questions, then there is no hope for me to understand your system.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:50 am

Here, let me give you an example of what I'm looking for. Off the top of my head, here are my initial answers and explanations.

Q: Should we have mandatory or heavily incentivized vaccinations for schoolchildren?
A: Yes. Explanation: I'd assume that the set of kids who would die from the vaccination program has little to no correlation to the set of kids who would be saved by a vaccination program. In other words, there is no partitioned and separate set of kids who are harmed by the policy vs the other set who are helped by the policy. Thus, it does not create an identified lower class, and thus it does not run afoul of the basic rule that we should try to judge a society by the worst-off member - a rule of basic fairness and equity. In other words, if I didn't know which position in society I would be born into, I would want the policy in place. It's simple, stupidly low odds for death, and significantly higher odds of having my life saved.

Now that's why it should be done. Why the government should do it is a little more complicated. Basically it's a positive externality, and I believe that for many / most cases, positive externalities can only be solved by a government-like group that can use force to ensure compliance by its members.

Q: If it could be shown that enslaving 10% of the population would drastically raise the well-being of the other 90%, should we do it?
A: No. Explanation: I assume that the slaves would be chosen at birth, or by lottery at a determined age, or some other similar system. I assume that we're not talking volunteers here, because volunteers are not slaves. Whether it's a random lottery system or based on heredity or race is not relevant.

Here, we are creating an identified lower class. The set of people who are helped by the policy is distinct from those who are hurt by the policy. I'm having a great difficulty at the moment putting it into words, but there is a very important difference here from the vaccination case. In this case, we are exploiting the lower class for the benefit of the upper class, whereas in the vaccination scenario there is no exploitation. Offhand, the critical difference is that everyone is treated fairly under the vaccination program - they each have the same chance of harm or benefit, and it cannot be changed after the odds are rolled. Taking a vaccine is irreversible, whereas making someone a slave is very reversible, and that's why one creates a lower class and the other does not. Thus, it fails the litmus test of "judging a society by its worst-off member".

Q: If we can find 5 people who could live with the organs of a regular, unrelated, random stranger on the street, should we kill that person for the organs to save the 5?
A: No. Explanation: This gets back to my action vs inaction distinction that is central to my morality. On the one hand, if the person was an about-to-be mass murderer who was about to shoot 5 innocent people, then he is taking an action to hurt them, and in that case it's justified to kill the 1 to save the 5. However, here the one person is "killing" the 5 by mere inaction, inaction of giving up his organs. The bar for compelling action or taking of property from someone to help others is much higher, and that's why I would not kill the 1 to save the 5.

That's what I'm asking from you. Again, if you cannot supply answers for the simple questions like these, then I have no hope of understanding your system. And again I must emphasize that these are all policies which actually have been implemented in some form in the real contemporary world or in recent history.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Secular Morality - looking for some answers

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:07 am

I just watched a youtube video of Sam Harris, where he is quite compelling that all reasonable Kantian rules are merely rules of thumb under an appropriately all-encompassing consequentialism world view. I think he's right actually. I think my Kantian rule above about action vs inaction should be pursued because of the consequences on human happiness. I think that people simply cannot be happy in a society where they may be killed without warning or recourse for their organs to be harvested. In other words, the Kantian rule embodies a sort of acknowledgement about what conditions and environment lead to human happiness. At least, I'm pretty sure he's right. I need to think about it more.

Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D47J2aNPbJo

EDIT: PS: Ugg. Maybe not. Part of me really wants to say that I'm willing to majorly fuck over someone who maliciously hurts others if that will give even a little benefit to the victims or almost-victims. Ex: I'll kill someone to stop a rape as a last resort, even though I would generally consider death to be worse than being raped. I don't think that is reducible to any consequentialism. However, it exists in the area of weighing one person's well-being vs another, and maybe in that area Kantian rules can apply, be good, and also not be reducible to consequentialism. So much to think about! Fun times.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron