Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gitzbitah wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
Dave is never morally justified in killing Bob, under any circumstance, because at all times the maxim "One should not kill a person." is true.

... ...

If we assume that being able to affect the outcome obligates one to act to affect the outcome, then we could assert a general maxim: When forced by circumstances to choose between the lives of a few or many, one should choose the course of action that impacts the minimum possible number of lives.

But there may be arguments I'm failing to consider.

Your ethics seem to have developed a contradiction, sir. I urge you to move from Universality to Utilitarianism, where you try to maximize the good in any situation. It even permits a modicum of selfishness- after all, a known moral agent would ultimately provide more good than an unknown or questionable moral agent.

There is no contradiction.

1. One should not kill a person.
2. When forced by circumstances to choose between the lives of a few or many, one should choose the course of action that impacts the minimum possible number of lives.

Where is the contradiction? Rule #2 follows naturally from Rule #1. Rule #2 only comes into play when it is impossible to operate according to rule #1.

Utilitarianism doesn't work. It's easy to use utilitarianism to prove you should kill innocent people. Clearly that's messed up.

Gailbraithe wrote:
There is no contradiction.

1. One should not kill a person.
2. When forced by circumstances to choose between the lives of a few or many, one should choose the course of action that impacts the minimum possible number of lives.

Where is the contradiction? Rule #2 follows naturally from Rule #1. Rule #2 only comes into play when it is impossible to operate according to rule #1.

Utilitarianism doesn't work. It's easy to use utilitarianism to prove you should kill innocent people. Clearly that's messed up.

The part in bold sounds an awful lot like Ultilitarianism. If you have to kill once so that you do so a dozen times (innocent or no) isn't that resorting to the same arguement?

Emperors Faithful wrote:My apologies if I seem like I'm ignoring you, this the first I've heard of Kantian Humanism, and I will be looking it up, so I actually didn't (and still don't really) grasp what you were trying to say.
Let me get this straight. Your posistion is:
Killing anyone is always wrong, no matter the circumstances.
I'm going to look this up before I get into any more detail, but so far I'm just relaying this info back to you. Am I completely barking up the wrong tree here?

No, though there is a whole discussion of intention that could offer a defense for some instances of killing. So far I have been assuming that all of the killings we are talking about result from an intention to kill, and not as a result from an intention to do some other thing.

That's pretty rich, given the extreme arbitrary nature of your moral code. Your code implies that there is no difference between someone who kills for fun and a mother killing to defend her newborn child. What does this blanket Kantian Humanist code have to offer? I need to read up more on the subject, but so far it sounds far more arbitary than Relativism.

There's nothing arbitrary about my position, or Kantian ethics. As for what it has to offer...gee, I dunno. It's only the basis of modern western law, the concept of human rights, and its development by Kant was what lead to the Enlightenment, and thus is in some sense directly responsible for the invention of the modern secular democracy.

Kantianism does actually note a difference between the mother and the fun killer, which is why this comment reminded me that I had forgotten the issue of intent. But one can't argue that a mother is always justified in killing to defend her newborn baby. A mother could decide that lack of funds constitutes a threat to her child, and thus rob a bank, shoot the clerks, and steal the money to defend her baby from financial hardship, but I doubt you'd find that the same as a mother braining the child's father with a frying pan and accidentally killing him while he was in the process of strangling the baby (which I assume is closer to your intent).

Look, I was just pointing out the flaw in the actions behind the characters. I was arguing that your later examples were a bit far-fetched, the initial examples were solid enough. I wasn't trying to address your arguement concerning the bigger picture. The feasibility of some of the actions regarding the characters struck me as irrational though.

I wasn't really aiming for feasibility. Just throwing in plot twists. Like the "Bob stole the drugs so Dave couldn't sell them" twist was taken directly from the movie District B-13.

Fair enough. So what was with your point on Dave being a Child Molestor?

I wasn't making a point. I was asking questions of those who think that the situation changes the morality of an act.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:The part in bold sounds an awful lot like Ultilitarianism. If you have to kill once so that you do so a dozen times (innocent or no) isn't that resorting to the same arguement?

What? I think you failed a grammar check there.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:My apologies if I seem like I'm ignoring you, this the first I've heard of Kantian Humanism, and I will be looking it up, so I actually didn't (and still don't really) grasp what you were trying to say.
Let me get this straight. Your posistion is:
Killing anyone is always wrong, no matter the circumstances.
I'm going to look this up before I get into any more detail, but so far I'm just relaying this info back to you. Am I completely barking up the wrong tree here?

No, though there is a whole discussion of intention that could offer a defense for some instances of killing. So far I have been assuming that all of the killings we are talking about result from an intention to kill, and not as a result from an intention to do some other thing.

So it is the intention behind the act, not the act itself?

That's pretty rich, given the extreme arbitrary nature of your moral code. Your code implies that there is no difference between someone who kills for fun and a mother killing to defend her newborn child. What does this blanket Kantian Humanist code have to offer? I need to read up more on the subject, but so far it sounds far more arbitary than Relativism.

There's nothing arbitrary about my position, or Kantian ethics. As for what it has to offer...gee, I dunno. It's only the basis of modern western law, the concept of human rights, and its development by Kant was what lead to the Enlightenment, and thus is in some sense directly responsible for the invention of the modern secular democracy.

So...how do the laws of provocation and self defense fit into this?

Kantianism does actually note a difference between the mother and the fun killer, which is why this comment reminded me that I had forgotten the issue of intent. But one can't argue that a mother is always justified in killing to defend her newborn baby. A mother could decide that lack of funds constitutes a threat to her child, and thus rob a bank, shoot the clerks, and steal the money to defend her baby from financial hardship, but I doubt you'd find that the same as a mother braining the child's father with a frying pan and accidentally killing him while he was in the process of strangling the baby (which I assume is closer to your intent).

I wasn't encouraging mothers to rob banks. The second example is closer to what I was aiming for, but not quite. Say, for example, a mother has an abusive husband/boyfriend, a great deal stronger than her. Not only is he violent towards her he is also violent towards her young child, already several beating and injuries and been inflictet. Let's assume, for the moment, that there is little chance of Govt/Family/Friends stepping into help, and the mother has a very serious fear that the life of the child is in danger. Not being strong enough to take him on with a frying pan, she kills him as he sleeps. This is a full and intentional murder, but done in order to save the life of the child (and perhaps herself). Is the difference noticed then?

Look, I was just pointing out the flaw in the actions behind the characters. I was arguing that your later examples were a bit far-fetched, the initial examples were solid enough. I wasn't trying to address your arguement concerning the bigger picture. The feasibility of some of the actions regarding the characters struck me as irrational though.

I wasn't really aiming for feasibility. Just throwing in plot twists. Like the "Bob stole the drugs so Dave couldn't sell them" twist was taken directly from the movie District B-13.

Feasibility is an important part of examples, but nevermind that. Obviously this District B-13 movie has a few far-fetched ideas.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The part in bold sounds an awful lot like Ultilitarianism. If you have to kill once so that you do so a dozen times (innocent or no) isn't that resorting to the same arguement?

What? I think you failed a grammar check there.

Yes. Yes I did.
I mean't don't. If killing one person would mean you wouldn't have to have the same impact on more people, isn't that the same as Utilitariansim?

Emperors Faithful wrote:So it is the intention behind the act, not the act itself?

It's the intention of the act. Which is intimately bound to the act itself.

But yes, one can argue that if an action taken with the intention to defend oneself from harm results in the death of another, then that may not be the same thing as killing a person. But there's an issue of good faith here, which is a term that means one is being honest and rational in one's intentions. For example, if a man with a knife is charging you from twenty feet away, and you have a gun, it would be hard to convince me that you acted without any intent to kill him if you pulled your gun and shot at him without so much as a "Stop or I'll shoot!" Also, the simple fact that you were carrying a gun, and not a taser or mace (or nothing) all indicate to me a premeditated desire to kill someone.

So...how do the laws of provocation and self defense fit into this?

The law recognizes that enforcement of the law is fundamentally flawed, and that perfect justice cannot be achieved by imperfect means. The law also recognizes that humans are not perfectly rational moral agents who always do the right thing (the very need for the law pretty much dispels that notion). Thus the law is a pragmatic attempt to realize justice. It is not pragmatic to demand that people under the law act as perfect saints and allow themselves to be stabbed to death by maniacs, only taking comfort in the abstract notion that they will die morally faultless. Consequently, the law makes certain concessions to reality -- such as taking into consideration that people will tend to defend themselves.

But, for example, if you are a criminal and come storming out of a building with a gun in your hand, and the cops start shooting at you, and you shoot back and kill a cop, you will never be allowed to plead self-defense. Because the lawmakers have decided to treat criminals as responsible for their every immoral act -- which includes killing others in self-defense.

I wasn't encouraging mothers to rob banks. The second example is closer to what I was aiming for, but not quite. Say, for example, a mother has an abusive husband/boyfriend, a great deal stronger than her. Not only is he violent towards her he is also violent towards her young child, already several beating and injuries and been inflictet. Let's assume, for the moment, that there is little chance of Govt/Family/Friends stepping into help, and the mother has a very serious fear that the life of the child is in danger. Not being strong enough to take him on with a frying pan, she kills him as he sleeps. This is a full and intentional murder, but done in order to save the life of the child (and perhaps herself). Is the difference noticed then?

No, because the assumption that there is little chance of Govt/Family/Friends stepping into help isn't a reasonable assumption. That is an assumption that an intellectually honest person would need to test before acting. The option to simply escape into the night also exists, and without a strong reason to reject that option there is no justification for resorting to murder.

Feasibility is an important part of examples, but nevermind that.

No, not really. The Trolley Problem were discussing below is completely unfeasible, for example.

If killing one person would mean you wouldn't have to have the same impact on more people, isn't that the same as Utilitariansim?

No, not really. In this case we're being asked to choose the lesser of two evils, and so we can start counting bodies. Because while it's true that everyone is equal in value, their value is null not zero. 5(null) ≠ 1(null), so choosing the one is less evil than choosing the five. Utilitarianism might reach the same conclusion, but it follows an entirely different line of reasoning. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that one can maximize the good. But there is nothing about saving five people over one person that implicitly maximizes the good. What if the five people are bank robbers, and the one guy is working on the cure for cancer?

Kantian ethics argues that one shouldn't consider who these people are when making a decision (Kant would simply argue that 5 bank robbers could redeem themselves and that the cancer researcher is not guaranteed of finding a cure, so why even consider facts about them), but a utilitarian would be forced to take that into account to reach a decision. That was Kant (and my) big problem with utilitarianism: it always ends up as an appeal to consequences that are not actually predictable.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

The part in bold sounds an awful lot like Ultilitarianism. If you have to kill once so that you do so a dozen times (innocent or no) isn't that resorting to the same arguement?

QFT. Quite obviously, you're saying that while it is not moral to kill, it becomes moral to kill in order to save the lives of many? Isn't that embracing the idea that circumstances exist which change the morality of a situation? Moreover, on the mother and child example, we are not saying that it is ALWAYS morally justified for a mother to kill to protect her child. We are saying that there exists a set of very specific circumstances which will make the normally immoral act of murder, moral on the part of the mother. One of these situations has already been mentioned.

By saying that the claim that the mother being justified to kill bank tellers to rob money is a strawman. We're not saying that at all. Also...I think you've said quite clearly before that killing is wrong, no matter what. Are you changing your story now? Also, there are MANY, MANY philosophers and thinkers who can be considered the basis of modern western law and human rights. Kant is not single handedly responsible for all that you credit him for, and I'm willing to be that the Renaissance was sparked much more by an increasing interest in Romo-Grecian ruins than any ideas that Kant had proposed.

Feasibility is an important part of examples, but nevermind that. Obviously this District B-13 movie has a few far-fetched ideas.

Eh...not necessarily. A thought experiment doesn't have to be perfectly feasible within reality, as long as it proposes a situation. However, I will admit it doesn't really change anything here. Gailbraithe doesn't seem to be creating a thought experiment, more than trying to confuse us. In all honesty, I will admit that my answer DID change with some of the twists you proposed, but I think that doesn't change all of them. I personally believe that it is generally more moral to relegate something to the law than kill, but that's just me.

ChrisWWII wrote:QFT. Quite obviously, you're saying that while it is not moral to kill, it becomes moral to kill in order to save the lives of many?

I said nothing of the sort.

By saying that the claim that the mother being justified to kill bank tellers to rob money is a strawman. We're not saying that at all.

Actually, that was exactly what was said. You simply don't understand philosophy or logic well enough to recognize the reductio ad absurdum when you see it. What you mean is that no one meant to give license to mothers to rob banks, but that doesn't change the fact that license was given.

Also...I think you've said quite clearly before that killing is wrong, no matter what. Are you changing your story now?

I am saying that intentionally killing is wrong, which is a modification of my original position.

Also, there are MANY, MANY philosophers and thinkers who can be considered the basis of modern western law and human rights.
Kant is not single handedly responsible for all that you credit him for, and I'm willing to be that the Renaissance was sparked much more by an increasing interest in Romo-Grecian ruins than any ideas that Kant had proposed.

The Enlightenment, Chris. Not the Renaissance. And you're right, there are many such philosophers. But pretty much all of them were responding to Kant. And is Mr. I Don't Know Nothing About Philosophy suddenly going to lecture me on the importance of certain philosophers? Really?

Also, do you think you could maybe try observing the one topic per paragraph rule? Because you address so many subjects and seem to introduce paragraph breaks so randomly that it's impossible to give a coherent response to your posts without breaking them down sentence by sentence.

Eh...not necessarily. A thought experiment doesn't have to be perfectly feasible within reality, as long as it proposes a situation. However, I will admit it doesn't really change anything here. Gailbraithe doesn't seem to be creating a thought experiment, more than trying to confuse us. In all honesty, I will admit that my answer DID change with some of the twists you proposed, but I think that doesn't change all of them. I personally believe that it is generally more moral to relegate something to the law than kill, but that's just me.

I hate it when someone has lost an argument but simply can't see it.

Chris, your moral reasoning is completely and utterly flawed. If the bolded section of your quote is true, then you are admitting that your moral reasoning is based on arbitrarily decided limits to what circumstances you are considering. Because you are not God (you're not, right?), you can never consider all of the particulars of a situation. So if your moral reasoning is based on considering the circumstances, and you can never consider all of the circumstances, then you can never arrive at a rational conclusion.

You quite clearly said that, in a sense, the needs of the many surpass the needs of the few. This leads to the conclusion that the deaths of a few in order to save the lives of the many is therefore moral, no?

I can recognize it when you actually disprove what I say by showing a true contradiction. No license is given for that type of murder, as there is a line (no, I don't know where the line is. It's an arbitrary line that changes with each and every situation). Murdering to save the life of your child in a life or death situation is one thing, but killing to rob a bank to buy food? At some point there, we crossed a line. Just like with the dolphin issue that started this whole thing, yes the end is a good thing, but the methods used to achieve that end are not moral.

Intentionally killing is always wrong, is a statement I heartily disagree with, but I think neither of us is going to budge on this one. Different views on the world, neither of which can be proven right or wrong.

Yes, Enlightenment. It's 2:30 in the morning here, and I've been doing quite a bit today. My mind isn't totally in on it, apologies. But the point remains that no one man can claim credit for such a wide sweeping change as the Enlightenment. I am not trying to lecture you on the importance of certain philosophers, as (quite correctly) I do not know enough about them in order to do so. I am merely cautioning against using one philosopher's word as the truth of life, the universe and everything.

Yes, my decision of whether or not a situation is moral or not will change with circumstances that are arbitrarily decided. Looking at the world, I have come to the conclusion that human emotion, actions and other activities are far too complex for any set of rules to follow. In 40k terms, you can't judge morality RAW, but you must go RAI, and the way those rules are intended is up to the interpretation of each individual. No, I will not arrive at a rational conclusion, but that's not because of a flaw in my moral code, if anything it's a part of human nature. Human beings are not computers, and nothing is simple black or white, 1s or 0s. Things do not always lead cleanly from one to another in ways that fixed formuals predict. Human beings are spontaneous, and always changing; in my world view, the thought process of morality should not always end with a rational conclusion by the numbers, but should end with the feeling that you've done the right thing in the end, and can go about your life feeling satisfied with your decision.

Don't agree to the premise that changing arguments makes them false. That premise is not only the sign of a poor philosopher, but of a bully. G-baby is both, of course.

I recommend that you continue to demand proof of universality as the foundation of any legitimate moral code. That is his key premise, nothing else matters. Tautological refutation and all.

ChrisWWII wrote:You quite clearly said that, in a sense, the needs of the many surpass the needs of the few. This leads to the conclusion that the deaths of a few in order to save the lives of the many is therefore moral, no?

No, I never said anything of the sort.

Intentionally killing is always wrong, is a statement I heartily disagree with, but I think neither of us is going to budge on this one. Different views on the world, neither of which can be proven right or wrong.

Actually, you're wrong there. You've been proven wrong. It has been shown in this thread that you are morally bankrupt. That you believe morality is whatever you say it is, and that you pretty much make things up as you go along. Your positions are based on no logic, no reason, and make no sense.

This can't be proven to your satisfaction, but you're not a reasonable person, so who cares what you think?

Yes, my decision of whether or not a situation is moral or not will change with circumstances that are arbitrarily decided.

That you aren't filled with shame at that amazes me. You have just admitted to being morally bankrupt.

Looking at the world, I have come to the conclusion that human emotion, actions and other activities are far too complex for any set of rules to follow. In 40k terms, you can't judge morality RAW, but you must go RAI, and the way those rules are intended is up to the interpretation of each individual. No, I will not arrive at a rational conclusion, but that's not because of a flaw in my moral code, if anything it's a part of human nature. Human beings are not computers, and nothing is simple black or white, 1s or 0s. Things do not always lead cleanly from one to another in ways that fixed formuals predict. Human beings are spontaneous, and always changing; in my world view, the thought process of morality should not always end with a rational conclusion by the numbers, but should end with the feeling that you've done the right thing in the end, and can go about your life feeling satisfied with your decision.

Whatever dude. The fact of the matter is that you're completely out of your depth, and more importantly unwilling and unable to acknowledge that you really don't know what you're talking about. But you're right: I won't convince you of that. One cannot convince a person impervious to reason of anything. You believe nonsense, and you will continue to believe nonsense, and you will never recognize that you believe nonsense.

I mean seriously Chris, your position is: Morality is what makes me feel good about myself.

That's not a moral code. That's just a bunch of specious nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Don't agree to the premise that changing arguments makes them false. That premise is not only the sign of a poor philosopher, but of a bully. G-baby is both, of course.

I'm the bully? You're the one who has decided to refer to me as "G-baby." I think you're the bully here, dogma. Or maybe I should call you "D-bag," since infantile taunting seems to be your preferred level of discourse.

Furthermore, you're lying again. You know that my premise is not "Changing arguments makes them false." I haven't said anything of the sort. Why do you feel the need to make such bold-faced lies about my position, D-bag?

My premise is that if the outcome of the moral judgment of an act constantly changes as knowledge of the circumstances change, and if perfect knowledge of all circumstances is impossible, then it is impossible to arrive at an outcome without arbitrarily deciding to stop considering circumstances. That has nothing to do with "changing arguments," D-bag.

I'm at least convinced now that I would never eat dolphin. No thanks on mercury.

Everything I need to know about philosophers can be summed up in a song..... (with lyrics)

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...how do the laws of provocation and self defense fit into this?

The law recognizes that enforcement of the law is fundamentally flawed, and that perfect justice cannot be achieved by imperfect means. The law also recognizes that humans are not perfectly rational moral agents who always do the right thing (the very need for the law pretty much dispels that notion). Thus the law is a pragmatic attempt to realize justice. It is not pragmatic to demand that people under the law act as perfect saints and allow themselves to be stabbed to death by maniacs, only taking comfort in the abstract notion that they will die morally faultless. Consequently, the law makes certain concessions to reality -- such as taking into consideration that people will tend to defend themselves.

So the law doesn't actually follow Kantian principles at all.

But, for example, if you are a criminal and come storming out of a building with a gun in your hand, and the cops start shooting at you, and you shoot back and kill a cop, you will never be allowed to plead self-defense. Because the lawmakers have decided to treat criminals as responsible for their every immoral act -- which includes killing others in self-defense.

And this doesn't follow Kantian philosiphy either. It simply allows Law Enforcement officials to do their job.

No, because the assumption that there is little chance of Govt/Family/Friends stepping into help isn't a reasonable assumption. That is an assumption that an intellectually honest person would need to test before acting. The option to simply escape into the night also exists, and without a strong reason to reject that option there is no justification for resorting to murder.

In this day and age there is thankfully a high chance that Govt. Organisations can be turned to for help and protection. However, it would be ludicrous to suggest this was true even 20-30 years ago. Running off into the night isn't always an option either, the man might be a hunter and the house located in the wilderness. He may have threatened to kill the mother, the child, or both the next morining when he wakes up. All these aspects put together would provide a very strong arguement for poisoning/killing him in his sleep. And I am sure a court would be lenient in this regard.

Feasibility is an important part of examples, but nevermind that.

No, not really. The Trolley Problem were discussing below is completely unfeasible, for example.

No, because the assumption that there is little chance of Govt/Family/Friends stepping into help isn't a reasonable assumption.

Excuse me? You dismissed my arguement regarding the mother due to it's unfeasibility (The notion that Govt/Family/Friends would not be available).

If killing one person would mean you wouldn't have to have the same impact on more people, isn't that the same as Utilitariansim?

No, not really. In this case we're being asked to choose the lesser of two evils, and so we can start counting bodies. Because while it's true that everyone is equal in value, their value is null not zero. 5(null) ≠ 1(null), so choosing the one is less evil than choosing the five. Utilitarianism might reach the same conclusion, but it follows an entirely different line of reasoning. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that one can maximize the good. But there is nothing about saving five people over one person that implicitly maximizes the good. What if the five people are bank robbers, and the one guy is working on the cure for cancer?

Kantian ethics argues that one shouldn't consider who these people are when making a decision (Kant would simply argue that 5 bank robbers could redeem themselves and that the cancer researcher is not guaranteed of finding a cure, so why even consider facts about them), but a utilitarian would be forced to take that into account to reach a decision. That was Kant (and my) big problem with utilitarianism: it always ends up as an appeal to consequences that are not actually predictable.

So, according to you, Kantian is minimising Impact while Utilitarianism is maximising Good?
There is a certain attractiveness to the 'Universal Fairness' in the Kantian approach. And idea that strips down any surrounding circumstances and relates only to the core issue. However, even by your own example Kantian philosiphy (like any philosiphy) can result in just as disgusting acts if taken to its extreme. By your logic killing Mother Teresa in order to avoid killing a trio of murders/rapists is the prefferable choice. It's not an unflawed system by any standard, and I don't understand how you cannot recognise it's arbitrary nature.

Gailbraithe wrote:
There is no contradiction.

1. One should not kill a person.
2. When forced by circumstances to choose between the lives of a few or many, one should choose the course of action that impacts the minimum possible number of lives.

Where is the contradiction?

Rule number 2 implies that there are circumstances in which one should kill another person, and therefore contradicts rule number 1 when the two rules are given equivalent weight. Unless of course you're implying that morality is circumstantially dependent, and that rule number 1 is simply heuristic.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Rule #2 follows naturally from Rule #1. Rule #2 only comes into play when it is impossible to operate according to rule #1.

No, rule number 2 does not follow from rule number one if your argument is one from a universal ideal; ie. you have no way of moving from rule 1 to rule 2 without stating that they are 'naturaly' related. Its basically an appeal to Platonism.

However, if you argument is one from circumstance, which you apparently want to avoid, the justification is elementary.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Utilitarianism doesn't work. It's easy to use utilitarianism to prove you should kill innocent people. Clearly that's messed up.

Your position supposes the same by virtue of rule 2. The trolley problem immediately springs to mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Excuse me? You dismissed my arguement regarding the mother due to it's unfeasibility (The notion that Govt/Family/Friends would not be available).

More importantly, if one is arguing from universality, then 'reason' is irrelevant. Instead, possibility is the question of the day. If a thought experiment is possible, then it must be addressed.

Now, if circumstance is to be considered, perhaps in a Compatibilist sense, reason becomes of paramount concern.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:
I'm the bully? You're the one who has decided to refer to me as "G-baby." I think you're the bully here, dogma. Or maybe I should call you "D-bag," since infantile taunting seems to be your preferred level of discourse.

Given that I'm only antagonistic towards you (primarily because you're antagonistic towards everyone else, as exemplified by the below) I'm not certain that 'bully' is an appropriate moniker for me.

And is Mr. I Don't Know Nothing About Philosophy suddenly going to lecture me on the importance of certain philosophers? Really?

If you really want me to demonstrate what it is like to be bullied by me, then I will be happy to do so.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Furthermore, you're lying again. You know that my premise is not "Changing arguments makes them false." I haven't said anything of the sort. Why do you feel the need to make such bold-faced lies about my position, D-bag?

Because I'm not lying.

I hate it when someone has lost an argument but simply can't see it.

Chris has plainly changed his argument, and you are proceeding on the premise that his new argument must be false because he abandoned his old one.

Gailbraithe wrote:
My premise is that if the outcome of the moral judgment of an act constantly changes as knowledge of the circumstances change, and if perfect knowledge of all circumstances is impossible, then it is impossible to arrive at an outcome without arbitrarily deciding to stop considering circumstances.

From this idea it follows that any principle formulated to govern behavior in circumstance cannot be constructed on the basis of absolute knowledge; rendering it arbitrary. You cannot simultaneously claim that there are universal moral principles of a mathematical sort which creates singular answers, and that those principles are fundamentally unknowable, without concluding that circumstance is relevant to moral judgments.

I started reading this thread and then realized it was 11 pages. Skipping to the end I am saddened to find that the conversation has devolved from arguing about some crappy animal activist films to an argument about philosophy.

BrockRitcey wrote:I started reading this thread and then realized it was 11 pages. Skipping to the end I am saddened to find that the conversation has devolved from arguing about some crappy animal activist films to an argument about philosophy.

What did you expect us to be talking about on the 11 pages?
Dolphins? But hey, Godwin's law hasn't been invoked yet!

When I noticed the 11 pages I kinda figured it would be something like this. Of course it's also possible for people to rant about how cute animals are for 11 pages.

BrockRitcey wrote:When I noticed the 11 pages I kinda figured it would be something like this. Of course it's also possible for people to rant about how cute animals are for 11 pages.

And you prefer this over philosiphy?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...how do the laws of provocation and self defense fit into this?

The law recognizes that enforcement of the law is fundamentally flawed, and that perfect justice cannot be achieved by imperfect means. The law also recognizes that humans are not perfectly rational moral agents who always do the right thing (the very need for the law pretty much dispels that notion). Thus the law is a pragmatic attempt to realize justice. It is not pragmatic to demand that people under the law act as perfect saints and allow themselves to be stabbed to death by maniacs, only taking comfort in the abstract notion that they will die morally faultless. Consequently, the law makes certain concessions to reality -- such as taking into consideration that people will tend to defend themselves.

So the law doesn't actually follow Kantian principles at all.

Err. This is sort of a semantics argument, but following from Kantian principles there is no way to justify the existence of any law enforcement body. So not only does the law not follow Kantian pinciples, it actively violates them by its very existence. But the actual laws themselves are based on Kantian principles.

But, for example, if you are a criminal and come storming out of a building with a gun in your hand, and the cops start shooting at you, and you shoot back and kill a cop, you will never be allowed to plead self-defense. Because the lawmakers have decided to treat criminals as responsible for their every immoral act -- which includes killing others in self-defense.

And this doesn't follow Kantian philosiphy either. It simply allows Law Enforcement officials to do their job.

Yes, because again, following from Kantian principles it is immoral to enforce the law. Law enforcement is, at its heart, a paradox: It is an endless series of evils done towards good ends, and it never actually achieves good ends.

In this day and age there is thankfully a high chance that Govt. Organisations can be turned to for help and protection. However, it would be ludicrous to suggest this was true even 20-30 years ago. Running off into the night isn't always an option either, the man might be a hunter and the house located in the wilderness. He may have threatened to kill the mother, the child, or both the next morining when he wakes up. All these aspects put together would provide a very strong arguement for poisoning/killing him in his sleep. And I am sure a court would be lenient in this regard.

You can't kill someone because of a "maybe." Because every maybe implies a "maybe not."

Feasibility is an important part of examples, but nevermind that.

No, not really. The Trolley Problem were discussing below is completely unfeasible, for example.

No, because the assumption that there is little chance of Govt/Family/Friends stepping into help isn't a reasonable assumption.

Excuse me? You dismissed my arguement regarding the mother due to it's unfeasibility (The notion that Govt/Family/Friends would not be available).

I don't understand. Feasibility matters to arguments, not to hypothetical situations. You appear to be treating them as the same thing here, which goes quite a bit beyond comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to bicycles.

So, according to you, Kantian is minimising Impact while Utilitarianism is maximising Good?

That would be one way to put it.

There is a certain attractiveness to the 'Universal Fairness' in the Kantian approach. And idea that strips down any surrounding circumstances and relates only to the core issue. However, even by your own example Kantian philosiphy (like any philosiphy) can result in just as disgusting acts if taken to its extreme. By your logic killing Mother Teresa in order to avoid killing a trio of murders/rapists is the prefferable choice. It's not an unflawed system by any standard, and I don't understand how you cannot recognise it's arbitrary nature.

That's not a flaw in the system, that's a flaw in your reasoning. You can rig a hypothetical to play to the prejudices of your audience, and make it seem arbitrary, but there are many hidden assumptions in your argument.

First of all, you assume that Mother Teresa was of greater inherent value than the murdering rapists. I'm not going to argue that point, but immediately we are both forcing our value system on to those murdering rapists and claiming that their lives are less valuable because they seem less valuable to us. And that is what is truly arbitrary -- when did you and I become God? Why should our opinion of who is more valuable be given greater weight than the opinions of the three murdering rapists? Also, what if it was Mother Teresa or your mom and my mom? Are we still going to use our biased valuations? Because if we are, then Teresa is going down (I don't know how you feel about your mom, but I like my mom more than I liked Mother Teresa, who I never met).

Second, how do we know that these three murdering rapists, upon learning that Mother Teresa had been killed to save their lives, won't repent and turn their lives around, devoting themselves to Teresa's work? If even one of them does, then the good as been replaced. If all three of them have a change of heart, they will be the equivalent of three Teresa's, right? Or how do we know that one of those murdering rapists won't go on to rape but not successfully murder some woman, thus changing her life in such a way that she becomes a tireless crusaders against rape, and ultimately results in a massive net decrease in global rapes? This is the danger in assuming you know the future, and with consequentalist arguments. You can never truly know the consequences -- every act is a Mexican butterfly flapping its wings, setting off monsoons in India (chaos theory is why I find Kant's arguments against consequentalism so compelling, as chaos theory indicates that the future is unpredictable without perfect knowledge).

A hypothetical like the one you've proposed, with Mother Teresa, seems like a solid argument for the appeal to consequences, but you can't derive a useful principle from it, and hence a "moral system" based on appeals to consequences will always end up being a moral argument based on whoever can spin the better story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Given that I'm only antagonistic towards you (primarily because you're antagonistic towards everyone else, as exemplified by the below) I'm not certain that 'bully' is an appropriate moniker for me.

Thanks for admitting that you're both being deliberately antagonistic (which implies that your arguments against my position are unfair and biased), and that you are a complete and utter hypocrite, D-bag.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Thanks for admitting that you're both being deliberately antagonistic (which implies that your arguments against my position are unfair and biased),

My critiques are biased? Oh noes, its almost as if I were a person who regarded certain things as less important than others! Sorry, but bias does not invalidate an argument. Also, an admission of bias does not imply unfairness.

Gailbraithe wrote:
and that you are a complete and utter hypocrite, D-bag

No, not quite. Were I to be a hypocrite I would have to indicate that I felt that calling people on their incongruent beliefs was wrong. I have done no such thing, so your critique has no merit. Unless, of course, you don't know what the word 'hypocrite' means. In which case your critique may simply have been mislabeled.

I also find it interesting that, instead of responding to my critiques from logic, you chose to move on rhetoric. Its almost as if you cannot defend your position when presented with structural criticism.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
So the law doesn't actually follow Kantian principles at all.

Err. This is sort of a semantics argument, but following from Kantian principles there is no way to justify the existence of any law enforcement body. So not only does the law not follow Kantian pinciples, it actively violates them by its very existence. But the actual laws themselves are based on Kantian principles.

How so?

And this doesn't follow Kantian philosiphy either. It simply allows Law Enforcement officials to do their job.

Yes, because again, following from Kantian principles it is immoral to enforce the law. Law enforcement is, at its heart, a paradox: It is an endless series of evils done towards good ends, and it never actually achieves good ends.

I disagree, but I am loathe to get dragged into another aspect of this.

You can't kill someone because of a "maybe." Because every maybe implies a "maybe not."

Where did I say maybe?

I don't understand. Feasibility matters to arguments, not to hypothetical situations. You appear to be treating them as the same thing here, which goes quite a bit beyond comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to bicycles.

I was using a hypothetical to demonstrate my arguement. Which you dismissed as unfeasible. Then you said it doesn't matter if there are unfeasible hypotheticals.

So, according to you, Kantian is minimising Impact while Utilitarianism is maximising Good?

That would be one way to put it.

Got it. The relative merits and flaws in this approach are fairly obvious.

That's not a flaw in the system, that's a flaw in your reasoning. You can rig a hypothetical to play to the prejudices of your audience, and make it seem arbitrary, but there are many hidden assumptions in your argument.

I'm not rigging anything. I honestly don't know if you're serious here.

First of all, you assume that Mother Teresa was of greater inherent value than the murdering rapists. I'm not going to argue that point, but immediately we are both forcing our value system on to those murdering rapists and claiming that their lives are less valuable because they seem less valuable to us. And that is what is truly arbitrary -- when did you and I become God? Why should our opinion of who is more valuable be given greater weight than the opinions of the three murdering rapists? Also, what if it was Mother Teresa or your mom and my mom? Are we still going to use our biased valuations? Because if we are, then Teresa is going down (I don't know how you feel about your mom, but I like my mom more than I liked Mother Teresa, who I never met).

So it's wrong to assume Mother Teresa is of greater inherent value than murdering rapists, but it's okay to view your Mum has more inherent value? You're contradicting yourself here.

Second, how do we know that these three murdering rapists, upon learning that Mother Teresa had been killed to save their lives, won't repent and turn their lives around, devoting themselves to Teresa's work? If even one of them does, then the good as been replaced. If all three of them have a change of heart, they will be the equivalent of three Teresa's, right? Or how do we know that one of those murdering rapists won't go on to rape but not successfully murder some woman, thus changing her life in such a way that she becomes a tireless crusaders against rape, and ultimately results in a massive net decrease in global rapes? This is the danger in assuming you know the future, and with consequentalist arguments. You can never truly know the consequences -- every act is a Mexican butterfly flapping its wings, setting off monsoons in India (chaos theory is why I find Kant's arguments against consequentalism so compelling, as chaos theory indicates that the future is unpredictable without perfect knowledge).

A hypothetical like the one you've proposed, with Mother Teresa, seems like a solid argument for the appeal to consequences, but you can't derive a useful principle from it, and hence a "moral system" based on appeals to consequences will always end up being a moral argument based on whoever can spin the better story.

First of all I never mentioned consequences.
Second. If you are even going to think about consequences as an arguement for making a choice then you need to know as much about the situation as possible. Which is the exact opposite of a Kantian apporach.

dogma wrote:Given that I'm only antagonistic towards you (primarily because you're antagonistic towards everyone else, as exemplified by the below) I'm not certain that 'bully' is an appropriate moniker for me.

Thanks for admitting that you're both being deliberately antagonistic (which implies that your arguments against my position are unfair and biased), and that you are a complete and utter hypocrite, D-bag.

Oh let's do grow up, shall we?

Gailbraithe wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:

Intentionally killing is always wrong, is a statement I heartily disagree with, but I think neither of us is going to budge on this one. Different views on the world, neither of which can be proven right or wrong.

Actually, you're wrong there. You've been proven wrong. It has been shown in this thread that you are morally bankrupt. That you believe morality is whatever you say it is, and that you pretty much make things up as you go along. Your positions are based on no logic, no reason, and make no sense.

How can you be wrong about something that is personal opinion? And who decides who is considered morally bankrupt? Since when are you in the position to judge other peoples morals? Do you think your morals are superior to ChrisWWII or there

Dakkaites?

That's the spark that ignited this probe of Gailbreath's philosophy, Cheesecat. He claims to have a universal system of values that are not only superior to, but also invalidate most competing moral codes. (I am paraphrasing here, Gail, please feel free to restate it if I'm mistaken).

I have to agree, how can my personal opinion be wrong? I'll admit there are situation where it CAN be, such as if I feel 2+2=5 or that E=MC^3. THen you can say I'm as wrong as you'd like, and you'd be correct. But on an issue of morals it's a different story. My main argument isn't about my moral system, my main argument is that human beings are such irrational, impossible to predict creatures that you can not possibly expect a consistent 'rational' answer out of anything you give them. Yes, there are some situations where you need rationality with subjects like math and the sciences, but everywhere else? Rationality is not always a factor that can be 100% ensured.

I notice that you completely ignored my explanation about why rationality is not something that is guaranteed in humanity, and thus humans can not be forced into a moral framework that only allow for perfectly 'rational' conclusions. You only focused on my side quote that my personal moral system was something that you find depraved, and that's your right. I however, have found that moral system to serve me quite well, and I think that it should work with most people. Do what you think is right, and try and act so that at the end of the day you can go to bed feeling that you've done the right thing. Yes it's completely arbitrary, but that's what you need when dealing with an irrational species. You need the flexibility that a non-universal moral system provides.

Universality is quite simply not something that can be applied to humanity, for the reasons described above. In short, universality requires rationality on all actors parts. Rationality and clear dividing lines, something that's hard to get with humans. Everything a human does is going to be arbitary, because it's really really quite hard to get this type of line. As we've already seen, it's quite hard to assign a fixed value to any human being, as each human is worth more or less depending on doing the judging. Once again, another reason why we've abandones the system of Kings with Holy Mandates.We've realized that these humans have no more right to assign value to other as any of us.

Cheesecat wrote:
How can you be wrong about something that is personal opinion? And who decides who is considered morally bankrupt? Since when are you in the position to judge other peoples morals? Do you think your morals are superior to ChrisWWII or there

Dakkaites?

More importantly, G--baby hasn't proven anything. Logical proofs involve formal structures and rule citation, and I haven't seen him present of any of that work.

So regardless of this thread, Taiji is still eating dolphins with their working moral system (however flawed it may or may not be) with no seeming adverse health effects that I've read. Last I heard they had higher levels of mercury but they were still good to go.
Awesome cross; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And as usual the activists are approaching the problem the wrong way. The dolphins guys went to Tokyo last week and presented 1.5 million signatures(gathered world wide) to stop the hunt in the US Embassy! So of course as expected the regional and local governments closed up and started saying the usual "who are the this foreigners to stop our traditions..." crap. Just the same way "concerned" western citizens bitch and moan every time a Arab (just and example) calls our laws barbaric or immoral.

I don´t care either way about the dolphin hunt and I wouldn´t do it. But according to the laws of this country what the inhabitants of Taiji are doing is perfectly legal. If somebody finds this unacceptable they should come to Japan, start an anti dolphin hunting movement and then get the Japanese Diet(that funny enough represents the Japanese populance) to forbid it, not to try to force their sensibilities down the Japanese throats through the US Embassy.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:And as usual the activists are approaching the problem the wrong way. The dolphins guys went to Tokyo last week and presented 1.5 million signatures(gathered world wide) to stop the hunt in the US Embassy! So of course as expected the regional and local governments closed up and started saying the usual "who are the this foreigners to stop our traditions..." crap. Just the same way "concerned" western citizens bitch and moan every time a Arab (just and example) calls our laws barbaric or immoral.

I don´t care either way about the dolphin hunt and I wouldn´t do it. But according to the laws of this country what the inhabitants of Taiji are doing is perfectly legal. If somebody finds this unacceptable they should come to Japan, start an anti dolphin hunting movement and then get the Japanese Diet(that funny enough represents the Japanese populance) to forbid it, not to try to force their sensibilities down the Japanese throats through the US Embassy.

M.

Which is essentially my point. Guerilla journalism and a time slot on the Animal Planet network are not going to have any real effect on this. A million and a half signatures, mostly garnered through the internet, have no weight in this case unless they are ALL from Japanese citizens. And those signatures would need to be presented to the Prime Ministers office for even so much as consideration.

It´s kind of hard to find your point in 10 pages of moral systems talk

M.

We stayed on debate of dolphins for a while, then we switched over to arguing sentience 'cause someone claimed we shouldn't kill dolphins because they're so close to being humans they might as well be humans. THEN we switched again to debating morality,....How I don't know, but it did. I think the morality debate is only like...3 pages long. Dolphins lasted much longer.

Has anyone else noticed it's been a while since Gailbraithe has posted? Usually he's posting refutations and arguments left and right.