Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[Robin]

This is not what he says. Not at all. What he says is this:

I have treated the cab driver as an entitled person while I have NOT treated the cab driver as an entitled person.

This is self-contradicting nonsense.

Ah, poor innocent Herzblut. I am in the unhappy position of having to inform you that not everyone who sees their duty, does their duty.

A thief is not someone who has innocently failed to realise that property rights apply to people beyond themselves. They are people who fully recognize that this right applies to others, but simply don't give a bit wet one.

It is as I said before, you cannot rob an object. If you can demonstrate how it is possible, for example, to trample on the rights of a brick, then I will agree that robbing somebody is treating them as an object. If you cannot then clearly robbing somebody is treating someone as a person, from whom you wish to steal.

The case is as I said - you are merely treating the taxi driver as a means to an end, whether or not you pay him. Your relationship is based on whether he can get you from a to b. If he cannot them you bid him farewell and think nothing else of him.

To insist otherwise is simply twisting language to meaninglessness. And a moral system that depends upon such sophistry would not be worth anything.

 

[Robin]

My favorite criticism again utilitarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

Naive utility theory is an inadequate theory, as is Kantian ethics. I like Rawl's Theory of Justice. He takes the idea of universalism from Kant and adds in the mathematical formalism that utility theory uses to maximize some particular end.

Sounds like consequentialism to me. Which is of course what Kant was really on about. He explicitly said that every man's end is happiness.

The only thing that is really naive in ethics is to suppose that any position can really produce faultless ethical decisions.

We live in a messy world with messy problems and messy outcomes. Really we should just muck through the best way we know how.

 

[Robin]

Can you quote any society that has ever applied your ethics? Why not? How do you know such a society will be better? Or even be possible?

Have you never heard of victim impact statements read out in court? People who's sentences have been extended to protect society from the consequences of their release?

What do you think the whole point of a right is? The point is that a right is something that, if you did not have it, suffering would be increased, happiness would be decreases. Every single western democracy is grounded in consequentialism - life, liberyy and the pursuit of happiness. Ring a bell.

Can you give any evidence that universalising maxims and treating people as an end in itself has any philosophic force in a modern society?

Given universal rejection of your ethical crap system, what method do you suggest to implant it, other than brute force?

 

[Robin]

What harm does the moral agent cause?

He breached her human dignity.

You said yourself that he will go to great lengths to prevent anyone ever finding out what he has done, so he himself realises that he has done harm. He simply wants to avoid the fallout of that harm by covering it up.

The woman is harmed. His medical co-workers and employers are clearly harmed, the woman's family and friends are harmed and society at large is harmed. The dubious amount of happiness he allegedly generates in himself is not worth a gob in a hurricane against the harm he has caused.

Clearly and unambiguously in a consequentialist ethical system every step would be taken to prevent this happening and if it did, every effort would be made to ensure he is punished to the full extent of the law and, if possible, beyond.

It is simply beyond comprehension that you could think that this person would feel himself justified in a Utilitarian ethical system. Certainly he could be fooling himself, but the same would go for every other system.

 

[Robin]

I usually differ between lying to someone and not insulting them. Would ommiting to speak your mind to spare someone pain be disrespectful to the person then? Do you think a person would feel more esteemed if you call their beliefs ridiculous or if you simply disagree without giving a value judgement?

They might feel esteemed, but you would know better. If they later found out that you found their beliefs ridiculous they would be doubly insulted, the ridicule and the fact that you lied to them. If someone found one of your beliefs ridiculous, wouldn't you prefer that they said so?

It is interesting that this person proposes to have respectful conversations with people who's ideas he finds ridiculous. You suggest he can pull this off by keeping his opinion a complete secret from them.

Is it just me or does anybody else spot a teensy-weensy problem with this plan?

 

[slingblade]

Excellent. Then what did Robin mean when he said

I have treated him as a subject who is entitled to a right, ..cut.. I have simply decided to thwart this right ..cut..

Fyi, the concrete situation is a cab ride, so this reads:

I have treated the cab driver as a person who is entitled to get money from me. I have simply decided to run away and not give him a penny.

Simple minds like mine have problems to follow this. Would you explain?

I've come a bit late to this, but I've been busy p), and now that I have a good minute, I wanted to respond.

I have a semantics problem with the second statement. If I am treating any individual as a person who is entitled to money, then I am giving/paying him money. To do otherwise means I am not treating him as if he's entitled.

I can recognize him/her as such a person, and then run away and not pay, but the only way to treat him or her as entitled is to actually pay.

That's all. Just that. Carry on.

 

[Herzblut]

I have a semantics problem with the second statement. If I am treating any individual as a person who is entitled to money, then I am giving/paying him money. To do otherwise means I am not treating him as if he's entitled.

I can recognize him/her as such a person, and then run away and not pay, but the only way to treat him or her as entitled is to actually pay.

That's all. Just that. Carry on.

Thanks slingblade. This is exactly what I say.

You cannot treat a cab driver as a person entitled to your money, and then jump off and not pay him any. The only way you treat somebody as if he had a certain entitlement, is to actually grant it.

I am really sorry if that sounds mean, but honestly, to argue against this is ignorant idiocy.

 

[Herzblut]

He breached her human dignity.

<yawn> Utilitarianism denies the existence of human dignity.

 

[Herzblut]

Ah, poor innocent Herzblut. I am in the unhappy position of having to inform you that not everyone who sees their duty, does their duty.

<yawn> You do not understand your own words. See under ignorant idiocy above.

 

[Herzblut]

The only thing that is really naive in ethics is to suppose that any position can really produce faultless ethical decisions.

We live in a messy world with messy problems and messy outcomes. Really we should just muck through the best way we know how.

I'm really glad to say that I happily agree to you. Really.

Actually, very few people think we're infallable. The others advocate Law. And authorities entitled to enforce it.

 

[Herzblut]

My favorite criticism again utilitarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

Hehe. Yeah, I saw that just recently and found it very nice.

And, since nobody here seems to be able to defend their chosen ethics (weird!) let me try to argue.

Actually, there's not just one type of utility. There's many, like utilityA, utilityB etc. Also, if a utilityA_monster has been established, competitors won't rest until they've built another utilityA_monster2, possibly even more effective than the original one.

In the end, it comes down to maximize overall utility in a reasonable way. This is of course a never ending process of evaluation, judgement and adaption. This also increases productivity of utility .. yawdi yawdi ya.

But, well, I think adherents to a certain philosophy should be able to defend it against rational criticism. Otherwise the ungood impression emerges that they do not understand what they advocate!

Naive utility theory is an inadequate theory, as is Kantian ethics.

There's enough room for criticising Kantian ethics. For instance, I enjoy that it's very rational. On the other hand, Kant executes his reasoning so relentlessly, that it appears grossly merciless and grim. Think of lying. Kant says it's wrong to lie, under any circumstance. Hence, it is wrong to lie to a murderer who asks you where he can find his next victim. Other examples are death penalty, suicide, and you mentioned masturbation condemned by Kant because you treat yourself as a mere means to your own lust.

These are items worth discussing, I'm tired answering people appealing to their ignorance.

I like Rawl's Theory of Justice.

I assume you're no marxist. You mentioned this before, and I definetely will have a good look at it. My very first impression is not bad. Thanks for the advice.

H

 

[zosima]

I assume you're no marxist.

Well I do favor nationalization of certain industry. I think it depends on the structure of the industry. If the fixed costs are high, or there are barriers to entry then I think the market doesn't approximate the competitive assumption that is made when people count the blessings of capitalist economics.

So some industries must be nationalized and some should never be. I think economic issues are complex and requires a careful balance of government and private management.

You mentioned this before, and I definetely will have a good look at it. My very first impression is not bad. Thanks for the advice.

He proposes maximizing fairness rather that utility. With fairness being defined in ways similar to how Kant constructs ethics from the categorical imperative. It ends up leading to the idea that we promote ideas equality of opportunity, which seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion.

 

[Herzblut]

Well I do favor nationalization of certain industry. ..snap..

So some industries must be nationalized and some should never be.

Now, that surprises me! I actually can't find any justification of nationalization of any industry. I agree maybe to temporal exeptions demanded from pure emergency.

What do you think of concretely? Which industries?

 

[blauregen]

It is interesting that this person proposes to have respectful conversations with people who's ideas he finds ridiculous. You suggest he can pull this off by keeping his opinion a complete secret from them.

No. I suggest that he simply avoids passing judgement. As I understand it, part of respecting other people is that you treat them as equal, which would include acting as if they are reasonable and know what they do, regardless of your opinion about their state of delusion. You can expect the same respect from them.

This would tie in nicely with the 'possibility of being wrong' too.

There is nothing wrong with educating people about possible inconsistencies in their beliefs though, and you are of course as entitled to preach your worldview,as the next christian fundamentalist is to preach his beliefs.

 

[Roboramma]

Look, you have to give your moral agent an algorithm to determin his behaviour. Please do so!

You know how, don't you? You have to compile two lists. One adds up happiness tokens, the other substracts harm tokens. You then have to resolve the optimization problem with respect to the two variables. Just go ahead!

Here's the problem - in my view there are more than two variables.
It's not just happiness vs. suffering. Even if it were, we couldn't compare them in a linear fashion - X happiness + X suffering = 0. Or to put that slightly differently, one person's X happiness + another person's X happiness <> 2 X happiness.
And yet I still think that the equation can be made. I just think that we have a lot of work to do before we can do so in all situations.

But this is exactly what we do when, for instance, we suggest that one economic system is better than another. We compare the good one does, in total, to the harm that it does, in total, and compare that relationship to other possible choices.

Finding a metric is a difficult thing to do. Finding the ways in which the units add up and relate to each other is difficult as well. These are still questions I struggle with.

Based upon mutual consent. Treating the plumber merely as a means to an end does not impose a consent because a mere-means, like a hammer or a screwdriver, cannot deny consent. The plumber would argue vice versa, you are his means to an end. His end is getting your money.

I still don't see how I'm not treating him as a means to an ends. I may not be treating him as an object - of course not, I'm a rational human being who realises that he is too, and thus, out of practicality I need to deal with him as such.

By paying him you treat him as a subject who is entitled to get your money. An object is not entitled to anything.

No, by paying him I treat him as someone who wouldn't do the job if I didn't. Whether I consider him entitled to that money is a different question.

 

[Roboramma]

Sorry it took me some time to come back to you Roboramma.

ditto

Well, as I have said, I think everyone knows it is ridiculous but sometimes there seem to be posts which skirt perilously close to that view. I think it is, as Ichneumonwasp suggests, that sometimes people overstate the role of science when they are correcting problems they perceive.

I agree - the idea that everything of value in the world comes from science is ridiculous! Engineering is not science, though it makes use of it, neither is painting nor music, theater, raising a family, or playing football.
Similarly science makes use of philosophy, but isn't itself philosophy. The fact that human pursuits are interconnected doesn't mean that any one of them is the ultimate, the only meaningful thing we do, because without it the others would fall down.

I think we need both. It is important for groups to identify what draws them together, and insofar as the people who post here are a group it is legitimate to use shorthand and simplification when talking to each other. I think that is not helpful when talking to folk who do not share core perceptions, however, and there are many who post here who do not.

I agree - it's one of the main problems that I have here - the problem is a lack of common vocabulary. I have a similar problem when I try to communicate with yoga people - they have their own special vocabulary and the process of getting down to what they're really saying ends up taking up the entire discussion. The same happens in any group, I think.

Absolutely. I certainly did not mean to say that understanding what it is is not amazing. As you say, I merely wished to identify what Blauregen called the "exaltation" which arises from such phenomena independent of that understanding. That exaltation is there whether one understands it or not.

Yeah I agree. On the other hand I've been thinking about this and I think there has to be some sort of interpretation of phenomena before we can find them amazing. Maybe that interpretation is internal or even at times instinctual, or maybe the amazement itself happens at the level of instinct, without being amazed at anything except our own sensory perception. But I think that a higher level of amazement, wonder, sense of beauty and awe has to come from some idea, even if not entirely clear, of what exactly it is we're being amazed by.

I agree. But clearly some do not, since it is being argued that such things as honour etc cannot be "true". This is the fundamental point of disagreement, surely. If you believe them to have a "real existence" (as I do) you are believing in things that are not true, by the definition proposed by some here. That definition is, for me, too narrow, for the reasons you give. That is what I am calling reductionist. To me that is the essence of this debate.

Its weird, though, I mean I think it's obvious that there is such a thing as courage, for instance. More than that, I think it's observable, definable, and entirely material. It is also based upon the relationship of things, rather than those things themselves, but then so is information. The value of such things is less concrete, but since they definitely (and, again, observably) have value to me I think that's enough.
That metaphors also have some truth to them is a little less obvious, but I think pretty clear to those who think about it - if a metaphor teaches me some true thing, or inspires me in a similar way, then clearly that true thing came from the metaphor, and thus the truth was a part of it.

I would go further. I think that the idea of the hero in our culture is always dangerous and always to be resisted. What I find inspiring is that ordinary people can do extraordinary things and think extraordinary thoughts. But it is the actions or the ideas which are important.

I sort of agree with that - whatever is heroic about a person doesn't detract from the fact that they are flawed, and whatever is flawed doesn't detract from the heroism. If by "the idea of the hero" you mean the idea of a person without such flaws, I agree completely.

From time to time a biography is produced which brings out the flaws in some celebrity. It happened with Philip Larkin, for example.There usually follows a debate about whether character flaws of a major kind should affect our attitude to the work. How could they? Is it possible to believe that there are people who are great in every aspect of their lives? Does racism or sexism or a proclivity to pull the wings off flies render a great poem worthless? It is infantile.

Absolutely

I think the solution is to take what is good or inspiring and separate it from the producer. I do not aspire to be like a "great" person: but I can aspire to some of their ideas and ideals and that is what counts

I agree with this. When I say aspiring to be "like" a great person I mean aspiring toward what they achieved in some aspect of their character or their actions. The fact that they are as flawed as I am gives me even greater inspiration, actually.

Again I agree. But again there are those who deny that anything about religion is, or even can be, true.

Which is sad. The metaphysical claims are, to my mind obviously, false. But that doesn't mean that religions don't pass on old ideas or knowledge or values that are real and useful. Great poetry or dreams mixed up with bad ones, perhaps, but the great ones are still there.
And, as I say, negative values, barbaric ideas, sure, those are a part of religions as well - but the fact that they have many things that aren't worthwhile doesn't mean that they have nothing that is.
Personally I'd like to see us go without the false metaphysics, the superstition, etc. We could still have all those things of value. But that doesn't mean that those things of value don't exist in religion.
For instance, my grandmother gets a great sense of community from going to church. This could also be had in some secular way (in my opinion) - I get the same thing doing brazilian jiu jitsu - but she happens to get it from church. The fact that this value is separate from the metaphysics doesn't mean it isn't a valuable thing that she gets from her religion.

My purpose in bringing up the ideal of freedom of research was to show it is exactly the same type of "illusion" as the others which were mentioned as inspiring.

I agree - I don't like the use of the world "illusion" here, but now that I understand what you mean by it, I agree that what you say is true.

Anyway, I appreciated the post, and the clarity you brought to it. We seem to agree.

 

[Fiona]

I would like to run through some of this because it is quite hard to follow and I would like to ask the participants to take some time out to correct me where I have not understood what is being argued.

As I understand it, some are either arguing for utilitarianism, or that is being attributed to them. I cannot really sort out which. Utilitarianism is usually summarised as the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number. If that is a fair representation of the position it is clearly absurd. The idea is dealt with in Ursula K LeGuin's story "The ones who walk away from Omelas" and for me this settles it. It does leave open the question of whether walking away is enough (live and let live or some such form) and the issue of resistance remains. But Utilitarianism won't do for me for this reason

Also in this thread there seems to be a strand which bases morality on "harm reduction" and this seems to be a variation on Utilitarianism. It seems to say that maximising happiness is inadequate, but minimising misery is better. And I think this is better. But Omelas still exists unless the existence of avoidable misery is the guiding principle and overrides a great deal of happiness. This does not necessarily follow and Omelas could still exist on this thinking: though it does not have to. Depends how you do the sums, I suppose. For me this is not enough either

Both of those kinds of utilitarianism seem to focus on society as the unit to which morality is to be applied. If that is correct then therein lies a big problem, as I see it. Societies do not cry: people do. As Keynes said "in the long run we are all dead". I cannot see we can work at the level of the group though we can hope that if we work on the level of the individual the group will also benefit in some sense. If it does not then I am afraid that is tough, however.

Kant does not place his morality at the level of society, but rather he focuses on the individual, and founds on "duty". One way of summarising his position is to say that one must accept the full moral agency of the other: and therefore it is not permissible to use the other as an object but to respect them as subject instead. But the main thing which Kant gave us was the idea that morals must be universalisable. At least that is how I see it, and I do accept this. "What would the world be like if everybody did that" is a good thought to have when considering what principles to adopt; and I take this from his position. Problem I have with Kant is that although he discusses what we should do he does not consider what we should be. This seems to me to be a big part of what we should be considering, because like it or not we do think about it when making moral decisions.

The example you have been discussing of nurse and the coma patient is interesting.

Maximising the happiness is immediately seen to be useless in this case since we can only measure the happiness of the nurse and so his decision is trumps by definition. So utilitarianism as commonly presented does not bring us to what seems to be the agreed moral outcome (if anyone is arguing that this is the correct outcome I have missed it and I apologise)

No objective harm can be demonstrated, as Herzblut has pointed out. In order to bring in the concept of harm you have to spread it so wide it loses meaning and this cant be good. It seems to me that those who are bringing in the concept are working from some other moral intuition and then trying to make the situation fit with the concept of harm reduction. That does not fly, I think
Again we do seem to have an agreed moral outcome and this negative utilitarianism does not get us there

Treating the other as a subject not an object does seem to get us there and so Kant is more helpful in this case: and his concept of duty is very apposite here, too. Insofar as this example goes I think Kant is sufficient

The objection to the principle was raised in the context of the plumber, and it was suggested that the use of the other as object is necessary, or at least acceptable, in that kind of situation. I do not wholly agree, because I am persuaded by experience in the work place and also by the concept of alienation, People are not just their role, even when performing their role, and it is perfectly possible to get the work done while recognising this. But it is true that is not entirely clear if we just take kant's ideas and there is a real problem here

For me that problem is resolved by addressing the agent and not just the action. We cannot just look at the outcome for those we act on nor just at the intrinsic properites of the act itself: we must always also think about the implications for the self of acting in such a way. We have a notion of who we want to be, and actions that we take impact on that too. This seems to be missing from this whole discussion so perhaps this is a silly point and everyone will immediately explain to me why it is irrelevant. But morality is for me as much about my own standards of behaviour as it is about the effects of those standards on other individuals or on society

 

[Roboramma]

Fiona, could you give a brief description of the story that you reference above? It's hard to follow that part of your post without knowing what the story is about or what it says.

Thanks.

 

[Fiona]

Sorry. I thought it was so well known it did not need a reference - my bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_From_Omelas

 

[Robin]

I've come a bit late to this, but I've been busy p), and now that I have a good minute, I wanted to respond.

I have a semantics problem with the second statement. If I am treating any individual as a person who is entitled to money, then I am giving/paying him money. To do otherwise means I am not treating him as if he's entitled.

I can recognize him/her as such a person, and then run away and not pay, but the only way to treat him or her as entitled is to actually pay.

Well let me ask you this. Why "run away"?

You would not run away from an apple tree on common ground after you had picked the apple. You would not run away from somebody who had given you a free sample.

So how is it possible that running away is not treating them as though they had a right to payment?

It is not. The very act of robbing somebody is inescapably, by definition, treating them as though they had the right you are failing to fulfil.