Is it?

[Ichneumonwasp]

So can you think of an example where a system of copnsidering the "reasonably predictable" consequences of an action doesn't work?


-Bri

For the real world? Probably not at all, or at least not very easily unless it has people believing some really weird things.

Most of the hypotheticals concern science fiction type worlds -- like a world where someone is sacrificed and everyone else derives benefit from it. I think there is a story called "Those Who Were Left Behind" or something like that using it as a premise. Anther one would be what if Jeffrey Dahmer were to be executed but the guy about to pull the switch knows that Dahmer will actually be sent to the Blessed Isles. That would maximize pleasure -- we see justice, he gets to bask in goodness fro eternity -- but it wouldn't be just.

I guess the closest would be if some group of people really thinks that sacrificing a child for the benefit of the community really seems to work. We know that is all bunk, but if they really believe it, then they would seem to be able to justify their behavior by maximizing the benefit to the many. Scapegoating does seem to relieve tension. I don't know how you do that sort of utilitarian calculation, though. It is certainly not just.

 

[Bri]

It doesn't exactly resolve it. If people die from natural causes then they die. You could create a hypothetical in which stealing would be necessary to stop a crime, but stealing would still be wrong in that situation. It might be that you are willing to accept the sin because of the greater good, but it is still a sin according to Kant.

Does Kant not believe in a sin of complacency? In other words, isn't it a sin to sit by and watch someone die? To my mind, it seems a worse sin than to "borrow" a defibrillator without permission.

Also, how does Kant get around the notion of extraneous circumstances? How does he get around the fact that the punishment for a crime varies depending on the circumstances surrounding it (and in some cases a crime like killing someone by throwing him in front of a trolley to save five other people might not even be a crime at all)?

To not consider levels of "badness" or "goodness" with consideration to circumstances seems wrong to my mind. In some circumstances, a normally "bad" action can be completely excused, maybe can even become a "good" action.

That sums it up pretty well. It may just be me, but what I seem to see is that Christians, like all people, use utilitarianism when it suits and deontology when it suits.

That is likely the case. Ethics is a lot more difficult than most people assume, given that it seems like second nature most of the time. I guess it's the few times that you face a moral dilemma that you see how complex it can be.

It just seems strange to me to speak of God in those terms. God is supposed to be an absolute. Absolutely good by definition, which seems to fit with deontology.

An absolute perhaps, but one that is impossible for us to understand. Also, it seems possible that the "greater good" Christians speak of is compatible with the Principle of Permissible Harm of deontology.

It honestly never occurred to me that the Christian religion might be deontological in nature until you mentioned it. It seems like Christianity is more utilitarian, but maybe that's just my perception. As you pointed out, God seems to be utilitarian if he acts for the greater good. But perhaps the Bible sets up seemingly absolute rules (thou shalt not kill) because it understands that utilitarianism can only be successfully practiced if you're omniscient (that is the only way to ensure the best outcome), as a way to remind us that we can only act according to the most likely outcome given that we're not omniscient. The Bible does seem to recognize exceptions to its rules depending on the circumstances, for example it lists lots of circumstances where you can kill someone, such as the death penalty, war, and self-defense.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I guess the closest would be if some group of people really thinks that sacrificing a child for the benefit of the community really seems to work. We know that is all bunk, but if they really believe it, then they would seem to be able to justify their behavior by maximizing the benefit to the many. Scapegoating does seem to relieve tension. I don't know how you do that sort of utilitarian calculation, though. It is certainly not just.

Good examples! That reminds me of the movie "Minority Report" where the impath children are essentially imprisoned, hooked up to computers, and used to prevent crimes.

I guess the question is if it really did benefit society to lock up an innocent person or kill an innocent person would it be justified. I guess that would depend on what cost you would place on imprisoning an innocent person (or in your example sacrificing an innocent person) vs. how much benefit would be gained. When you say that it wouldn't be just, I think that's because we put such a high price on imprisoning or killing innocent people for no reason that it can't possibly outweigh any benefit the society might derive.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Does Kant not believe in a sin of complacency? In other words, isn't it a sin to sit by and watch someone die? To my mind, it seems a worse sin than to "borrow" a defibrillator without permission.

I think Kant would probably say that borrowing the defibrillator was wrong but not to act would be more wrong. But that doesn't excuse the theft. He would probably pat you on the back as he called the authorities to cart you off to jail.

Also, how does Kant get around the notion of extraneous circumstances? How does he get around the fact that the punishment for a crime varies depending on the circumstances surrounding it (and in some cases a crime like killing someone by throwing him in front of a trolley to save five other people might not even be a crime at all)?

To not consider levels of "badness" or "goodness" with consideration to circumstances seems wrong to my mind. In some circumstances, a normally "bad" action can be completely excused, maybe can even become a "good" action.

To him there are no extraneous circumstances. Think of him as the ultimate Javert from Les Mis. There is duty. You perform your duty and you are good. There are no exceptions. The imperative was categorical. No possibility of an exception.

That's why it's fun to think up exceptions that his ideas can't deal with, like the trolley or Nazis knocking at your door. With his first formulation of this -- the categorical imperative -- he would have had to tell the Nazis where the Jews were hiding because you cannot will that a lie be the norm for everyone.

He wanted an ethics completely free of consequences. You already see how ridiculous things get in certain situations. Here is just how weird it can get. Pretend that we are on a volcanic island and there are three prisoners in jail for murder. They are scheduled for execution tomorrow. But the island starts to sink. If we do nothing the prisoners will drown. We will put ourselves at great risk to go back and get them out of the cells so that we can execute them. But, if we don't do that, justice will not be served. To serve justice properly we would have to put our lives on the line to execute those guys even though the end result is going to be the same -- they are going to die.

Pretty weird.

 

[JetLeg]

OK, try to step back and maybe rethink where you're trying to take all this. Try to put a little bit of reality into your thinking, and understand that just because there's some chance greater than zero of your entitiy being real, doesn't mean that it's a 50/50 proposition. If there's no evidence of something, the null hypothesis is that it doesn't exist. Not that there's zero chance, just that the likelihood is really REALLLY small.

Many years ago, I had an intro psychology class and the professor had a cute phrase that went something like this: A neurotic builds a dream house in the sky. A psychotic moves in. Seriously, Jetleg: I hope you haven't moved in. You seem like a good person looking for some answers, and the folks here have lots of good ones that are worth listening (?) to.

But, nevertheless - can you prove the need to give reasons for your opinions somehow?

 

[Bri]

JetLeg,

You don't need to give reasons for your opinions if you don't want to. And you can even hold opinions without having any reasons if you want to. However, you can't really expect anyone else to agree with your opinions unless you can give valid reasons.

In a similar vein, if you want to believe in invisible beings that you've made up in your head, feel free. Just don't expect anyone else to believe in them without evidence. And no, you don't have the right to impose your views or beliefs on others, so no green socks for me, thank you very much.

As for a belief without evidence being just as "valid" as beliefs for which there is evidence, that would depend on what you mean by "valid." Certainly any belief is possible unless proven impossible. But there is more reason for someone to believe something if you provide evidence than if you don't -- in other words, a belief for which you have evidence is more likely to be true than a belief for which there is no evidence.

-Bri

 

[uruk]

I
He wanted an ethics completely free of consequences. You already see how ridiculous things get in certain situations. Here is just how weird it can get. Pretend that we are on a volcanic island and there are three prisoners in jail for murder. They are scheduled for execution tomorrow. But the island starts to sink. If we do nothing the prisoners will drown. We will put ourselves at great risk to go back and get them out of the cells so that we can execute them. But, if we don't do that, justice will not be served. To serve justice properly we would have to put our lives on the line to execute those guys even though the end result is going to be the same -- they are going to die.

Pretty weird.

Is'nt this related to the reason the executioner swabs the condemend prisoner's arm with alchohol before he inserts the needle?

 

[volatile]

Sounds just like libertarianism, doesn't it? Another reason to dislike God; the resemblance to Ayn Rand. Of course, she did think she was God.

[derail]I'd never heard of Ayn Rand until recently, but suddenly I noticed her name kept cropping up. Having read a brief summary of Objectivism, it sounded interesting enough to take a look at. Frankly, I'm sorry I bothered - the whole "philosophy" is based on a materialist strawman and a base self-interest. Whilst I am sympathetic, to a certain degree, with her take on the mind-body problem, the way she presents it (and the way Peikoff presents it on her behalf) is so blunt and unsophisticated. I don't understand why she's such a cult figure in some circles... [/derail]

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is'nt this related to the reason the executioner swabs the condemend prisoner's arm with alchohol before he inserts the needle?

I don't know. That just sounds like irrational behavior to me. Even if you introduced bacteria with the injection the person would not die of sepsis immediately. Besides it would still be us killing the prisoner. Interesting observation, though.

 

[jond]

But, nevertheless - can you prove the need to give reasons for your opinions somehow?

JetLeg: Bri summed it up perfectly. You don't need to give reasons for your opinion if you don't want to. But you can't expect anyone to take your opinion seriously if you don't. And you certainly can't think it's OK to act on those opinions (towards another person) without having a reason to do so. Can you? Really?

 

[Bri]

BTW, JetLeg, if it will help in answering jond, I should tell you that I believe that a second inconsequential being exists. Since you can't disprove my belief, it is just as valid as yours.

My inconsequential being wants everyone to decide for themselves about their socks. Additionally, my inconsequential being wants me to tell you to shove your green socks "where the sun don't shine" (his words, not mine) should you attempt to force me to wear them.

Oh, and my inconsequential being can kick your inconsequential being's ass.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

BTW, JetLeg, if it will help in answering jond, I should tell you that I believe that a second inconsequential being exists. Since you can't disprove my belief, it is just as valid as yours.

My inconsequential being wants everyone to decide for themselves about their socks. Additionally, my inconsequential being wants me to tell you to shove your green socks "where the sun don't shine" (his words, not mine) should you attempt to force me to wear them.

Oh, and my inconsequential being can kick your inconsequential being's ass.

-Bri

* scratching head *

 

[Phlebas]

* scratching head *

Why the confusion? Either show that Bri is wrong or admit that your inconsequential being wold come out second in a God Fight Throwdown.

 

[Bri]

JetLeg,

My point was that you cannot know that you are right since you cannot disprove me, so you are not "more right" than I am. How can you know your position is the right one without disproving the positions of others?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Your problem is that you are starting with "god is good"... which really should be a conclusion. You start from your conclusion and work back to interpret the evidence to support it. You can do that if you like, but it's not good thinking.

I mean, I could equally say "I believe that Charles Manson is innocent. So therefore all the evidence against him, including his own confession, must be wrong; mistakes by the witnesses, misinterpretation, incorrect lab results, whatever - it's irrelevant why, they just must be wrong if he's innocent."

Can you do that? Sure. But does it make any sense? No.

With Charles Manson we are supposed to collect evidence that would proove or disproove his innocence. Therefore, we are not justified to work backwards.

But, with god, we are taking the idea that he is good on faith. We are not searching for evidence for this one. And , if we already come to the conclusion that god is good via faith, we interpret every evidence that we come accross in this light.

 

[JetLeg]

Why the confusion? Either show that Bri is wrong or admit that your inconsequential being wold come out second in a God Fight Throwdown.

Well, I can't really say much.

I can just say that it feels that I am more right. After all, we are a specie that seeks answers to life, no? So, the idea of a good god is inherently meaningful, it brings meaning to life, and it feels right, unlike some other ideas.

 

[JetLeg]

JetLeg,

My point was that you cannot know that you are right since you cannot disprove me, so you are not "more right" than I am. How can you know your position is the right one without disproving the positions of others?

-Bri

Ok, what about this - let us leave the green socks aside.

Lets take the idea of a good god. Why don't you just Try to believe it, and see what impact it has on your life?

The reasons :

-1- The impact it might have on you

-2- The best way to understand the experience of others is to try to go through it yourself.

 

[JetLeg]

BTW, JetLeg, if it will help in answering jond, I should tell you that I believe that a second inconsequential being exists. Since you can't disprove my belief, it is just as valid as yours.

My inconsequential being wants everyone to decide for themselves about their socks. Additionally, my inconsequential being wants me to tell you to shove your green socks "where the sun don't shine" (his words, not mine) should you attempt to force me to wear them.

Oh, and my inconsequential being can kick your inconsequential being's ass.

-Bri

Well, it is a clarifying example. Thanks for it. Can you give me some other examples of your point?

 

[Bri]

JetLeg,

Ok, what about this - let us leave the green socks aside.

Lets take the idea of a good god. Why don't you just Try to believe it, and see what impact it has on your life?

The reasons :

-1- The impact it might have on you

-2- The best way to understand the experience of others is to try to go through it yourself.

Lets take the idea of NO god. Why don't you just try to believe it, and see what impact it has on your life? Same reasons as above.

As with the green socks, you have a right to believe whatever you like, as do I. But you've admitted that your beliefs are no more valid than mine since you cannot disprove mine.

So, can I convince you that I'm right and you're wrong without evidence? If I'm unable to convince you, do I have the right to force my belief on you?

In short, if I suggest that you "try out" my beliefs, no harm done. You can choose to take my suggestion, or you can choose to ignore it. But I do NOT have the right to force my beliefs on you.

Likewise, you do not have the right to force your beliefs on anyone else.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well, it is a clarifying example. Thanks for it. Can you give me some other examples of your point?

My point is very simple, JetLeg. Nobody knows the answer. Whether you believe in the Christian God, or some other God, or no gods at all -- we just don't know for certain.

Some viewpoints are more valid than others, specifically those for which there is evidence. If you want to convince others of your beliefs, you have a better chance of doing so if you provide hard evidence. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of God, but neither is there much evidence that no gods exist. In short, we just don't know for sure.

So, by all means, share your beliefs with those who are interested. But keep in mind that your beliefs are only opinion, not fact, and listen with an open mind when others share their beliefs with you. Try to see things from their perspective. With most things, the "default" belief without any evidence is no belief one way or the other ("I just don't know"), so the atheist/agnostic viewpoint has a lot of merit.

And by NO means do you have the right to ever force your beliefs on others, nor do others have the right to force their beliefs on you.

-Bri