Atheism and morality

[Mike]

It is not ad hoc because it is the ONLY observable that can be considered to base a mediating system on. Think about it, if you were to create a system that completely ignores feelings, then why can it even be called a moral system? What would be the difference between destroying a rock as opposed to a person? The term "morality" would be completely useless!

 

[DanteFox]

It is not ad hoc because it is the ONLY observable that can be considered to base a mediating system on. Think about it, if you were to create a system that completely ignores feelings, then why can it even be called a moral system? What would be the difference between destroying a rock as opposed to a person?

interestingly enough, you're appealing to my moral values to try to justify your conclusion. The reason you can't conceive of another reasonable system besides your own is because these ethical values are so deeply ingrained into your way of thinking that you take them as given.

The term "morality" would be completely useless!

It would be useless because you're already assuming the worth of these subjects.

that's what morality is. it's making value judgements and then seeing what logically follows from those value judgements. every moral system can be boiled down to at least one.

I'm trying to get you to see that it's incorrect to see only your own definition of morality as "reasonable" unless you include the morality itself in the definition of "reasonable," actively excluding all others.

 

[Mike]

interestingly enough, you're appealing to my moral values to try to justify your conclusion. The reason you can't conceive of another reasonable system besides your own is because these ethical values are so deeply ingrained into your way of thinking that you take them as given.

...and apparently you can't either. You have yet to propose a reasonable idea to base morality off of. I claim that other than the one I brought up, it's impossible. You have to show me otherwise if you are to convince me.

It would be useless because you're already assuming the worth of these subjects.

that's what morality is. it's making value judgements and then seeing what logically follows from those value judgements. every moral system can be boiled down to at least one.

Yes, and I'm telling you that all but one of those 'value judgments' are ad hoc. They are unreasonable to consider. Assuming a God exists and basing a moral system off of that is entirely ad hoc. Assuming that only humans have 'inherent respect' is ad hoc. But assuming that the feelings of all sentient beings have value is NOT ad hoc because every moral system must consider feelings; else it is a completely useless system. Why give rocks, air, or plants moral value? What is the purpose in that? Why call it morality if it were to assign moral value to inanimate objects?

I'm trying to get you to see that it's incorrect to see only your own definition of morality as "reasonable" unless you include the morality itself in the definition of "reasonable," actively excluding all others.

Not sure what you mean here...

 

[DanteFox]

...and apparently you can't either. You have yet to propose a reasonable idea to base morality off of. I claim that other than the one I brought up, it's impossible. You have to show me otherwise if you are to convince me.

I can't come up with one because you've framed "reasonable" as "not ad hoc," and "ad hoc" as "everything except my value judgement."

Yes, and I'm telling you that all but one of those 'value judgments' are ad hoc. They are unreasonable to consider. Assuming a God exists and basing a moral system off of that is entirely ad hoc. Assuming that only humans have 'inherent respect' is ad hoc. But assuming that the feelings of all sentient beings have value is NOT ad hoc because every moral system must consider feelings; else it is a completely useless system. Why give rocks, air, or plants moral value? What is the purpose in that? Why call it morality if it were to assign moral value to inanimate objects?

I've already responded to this but let me try framing it in a different way: Why NOT do all the things above? You're appealing to an established moral standard in order to justify your own value judgement.... and then saying that it is self evident. You're pulling a slight of hand, as it were.

Not sure what you mean here...

I'm saying that in order to make your moral code the only reasonable one, you're rigging the game by including the value judgement inherent to that code --the equal worth of every subject-- in the definition of "reasonable" itself! That significantly waters down your claim to little more than a tautology, so I can see why you're so resistant to accept it.

 

[rvkevin]

A person looks at the sky and notices certain behaviors among the celestial bodies, and says, I'm going to study this and I'm going to call it the science of astrophysics. No objections, he goes on his way. A person looks at the people around him and notices certain behaviors among his fellow primates, and says, I'm going to study this and I'm going to call it the science of morality. A thunderous crowd of philosophers come out of nowhere with objections, that's not morality, what you call morality is not what other people consider to be morality, you can't get an is from an ought, etc. Why are these objections meaningful? How one defines their terms is inconsequential as long as they are clear enough that no one misinterprets what they are saying. Let the philosophers ponder about meaningless questions while the scientists follow the fruitful branches. After all, it wouldn't be the first time philosophy and science have used the same terms with different meanings or that science has adopted a term with contested meaning. How this counts as an objection against a science of morality bewilders me.

 

[Mike]

I can't come up with one because you've framed "reasonable" as "not ad hoc," and "ad hoc" as "everything except my value judgement."

Which I gave justification for, rendering it not ad hoc. If you cannot justify any other value judgments, then you must agree that the one I brought up is the only one.

I've already responded to this but let me try framing it in a different way: Why NOT do all the things above? You're appealing to an established moral standard in order to justify your own value judgement.... and then saying that it is self evident. You're pulling a slight of hand, as it were.

Because doing those things would either be completely ad hoc and therefore unreasonable or it would render 'morality' a completely useless term. Unreasonable things by definition, should not be considered, and if you cause morality to be a useless term, then what's the point in it? Compare it to defining "science" as "the process of justifying claims about the universe using any reasoning system". This definition would be weeded out because it serves no purpose. Whats the point in calling any type of justification for a claim science? This is what I'm trying to do with morality. Defining it as a system that distinguishes between right and wrong is useless unless "right" and "wrong" are also defined. And these words cannot have an ad hoc or useless definition. It turns out that only one is available.

I'm saying that in order to make your moral code the only reasonable one, you're rigging the game by including the value judgement inherent to that code --the equal worth of every subject-- in the definition of "reasonable" itself! That significantly waters down your claim to little more than a tautology, so I can see why you're so resistant to accept it.

I never included it in the definition of "reasonable". I also never said every subject was of equal worth. You are simply misinterpreting my statements.

 

[ballin4life]

A person looks at the sky and notices certain behaviors among the celestial bodies, and says, I'm going to study this and I'm going to call it the science of astrophysics. No objections, he goes on his way. A person looks at the people around him and notices certain behaviors among his fellow primates, and says, I'm going to study this and I'm going to call it the science of morality. A thunderous crowd of philosophers come out of nowhere with objections, that's not morality, what you call morality is not what other people consider to be morality, you can't get an is from an ought, etc. Why are these objections meaningful? How one defines their terms is inconsequential as long as they are clear enough that no one misinterprets what they are saying. Let the philosophers ponder about meaningless questions while the scientists follow the fruitful branches. After all, it wouldn't be the first time philosophy and science have used the same terms with different meanings or that science has adopted a term with contested meaning. How this counts as an objection against a science of morality bewilders me.

What do you mean by science of morality? I fail to see what science has to do with morality.

Ultimately, morality comes down to statements of the form "X is right."

 

[DanteFox]

Which I gave justification for, rendering it not ad hoc. If you cannot justify any other value judgments, then you must agree that the one I brought up is the only one.

No you didn't. You haven't justified why subjects have worth and rocks and grass don't. All you've said is that having it any other way would make morality "useless," which you haven't supported at all.

Because doing those things would either be completely ad hoc and therefore unreasonable or it would render 'morality' a completely useless term. Unreasonable things by definition, should not be considered, and if you cause morality to be a useless term, then what's the point in it? Compare it to defining "science" as "the process of justifying claims about the universe using any reasoning system". This definition would be weeded out because it serves no purpose. Whats the point in calling any type of justification for a claim science? This is what I'm trying to do with morality. Defining it as a system that distinguishes between right and wrong is useless unless "right" and "wrong" are also defined. And these words cannot have an ad hoc or useless definition. It turns out that only one is available.

Idk why you brought up science here, as it seems rather irrelevant. "right and wrong" fall under the category of value judgement that I mentioned earlier. These can't be justified by logic alone as your unsuccessful attempts at doing so demonstrate.

I never included it in the definition of "reasonable".

but you are desperately trying to exclude it from your definition of "ad hoc," all the while trying to shove every single other moral system into the category of "ad hoc," and since your definition of "reasonable" depends on your definition of "ad hoc," it's essentially the same action, but removed by a degree of separation.

I also never said every subject was of equal worth.

fair enough. I suppose the amount of worth you assign to each subject is also the only "reasonable" one?

 

[Mike]

No you didn't. You haven't justified why subjects have worth and rocks and grass don't. All you've said is that having it any other way would make morality "useless," which you haven't supported at all.

Idk why you brought up science here, as it seems rather irrelevant. "right and wrong" fall under the category of value judgement that I mentioned earlier. These can't be justified by logic alone as your unsuccessful attempts at doing so demonstrate.

If a moral system assigned moral worth to inanimate objects, what would be the point of the moral system? It is no longer a system for mediating undesired interactions, so why call it morality at all? I brought up the analogy to illustrate how this is a semantic debate. I'm arguing that morality must only cover a certain area in the way that science does; else the term would be too general and would be useless. Giving rocks moral worth is like giving Intelligent Design scientific reputation.

but you are desperately trying to exclude it from your definition of "ad hoc," all the while trying to shove every single other moral system into the category of "ad hoc," and since your definition of "reasonable" depends on your definition of "ad hoc," it's essentially the same action, but removed by a degree of separation.

I'll repeat my argument as I don't believe you understand all of it:

All moral systems must be reasonable. This means they must be logically consistent and free from ad hoc ideas. An ad hoc idea is one without justification. It's true "just because".

The claim that the purpose of morality is to mediate the interactions between subjects is not ad hoc for a couple reasons:
1. Negative, or unwanted interactions exist.
2. Nobody wants to be on the bad end of this interaction.
______
3. Thus a system can be placed to minimize this type of interaction. We can call this system "morality".

Now try to do this with any other system of morality:
1. God exists and demands that everyone follow a moral system
2. God only decided to tell a few special people the specifics of this system
______
3. Follow this system without question
Something seems terribly wrong here, doesn't it? Even when assuming the first two premises are true.

or

1. Happiness exists.
2. Everyone's goal in life is to obtain the highest happiness.
______
3. Moral decisions are ones that maximize the total amount of happiness.
This would be a reasonable purpose of morality if it were even somewhat possible to decide how "happy" or "unhappy" certain actions can cause people to feel in both short and long term. But it isn't even close to possible - not even philosophically. So this system cannot be accepted as reasonable.

Can you think of one that works?

fair enough. I suppose the amount of worth you assign to each subject is also the only "reasonable" one?

Way to keep the debate civil with your overbearing politeness.

 

[DanteFox]

If a moral system assigned moral worth to inanimate objects, what would be the point of the moral system? It is no longer a system for mediating undesired interactions, so why call it morality at all?

morality is a system of belief based around what's right or wrong. that's it. you don't get to decide which "rights and wrongs" deserve the title of "morality."

I brought up the analogy to illustrate how this is a semantic debate. I'm arguing that morality must only cover a certain area in the way that science does; else the term would be too general and would be useless.

Too general and useless for your purposes? I guess so. If you're trying to make morality like a science, you're going to have to establish some basic principles. No problem there, as that's basically a field of ethical philosophy, but to claim that those principles are the only reasonable ones becomes rather pointless because, like it or not, there will still be ad hoc principles in the mix.

I'll repeat my argument as I don't believe you understand all of it:

All moral systems must be reasonable. This means they must be logically consistent and free from ad hoc ideas. An ad hoc idea is one without justification. It's true "just because".

The claim that the purpose of morality is to mediate the interactions between subjects is not ad hoc for a couple reasons:
1. Negative, or unwanted interactions exist.
2. Nobody wants to be on the bad end of this interaction.
______
3. Thus a system can be placed to minimize this type of interaction. We can call this system "morality".

Ok so it seems to me you're saying it's not ad hoc because you can justify a purpose for this definition of morality. You have the premises in the form of 1 and 2, you claim 3 is justified by 1 and 2. Let's see what happens when we apply this to the other two systems fairly ( aka the way the beliefs are commonly held)

1. God exists and created humanity
2. God is omniscient and knows the best way for people to live
______
3. Thus a set of guidelines can be laid out that will, when followed, bring people in line with this ideal way of living. We can call this system "morality."

logically consistent, and it's not ad hoc because its purpose is justified by 1 and 2.

1. happiness exists on an incremental scale, and it is possible to maximize a group's happiness
2. Everyone wants to obtain the highest shared happiness possible.
______
3. Moral decisions are ones that maximize the total amount of happiness felt by all the people involved.
.

logically consistent, and not ad hoc.

Way to keep the debate civil with your overbearing politeness.

wut.

 

[Mike]

morality is a system of belief based around what's right or wrong. that's it. you don't get to decide which "rights and wrongs" deserve the title of "morality."

Too general and useless for your purposes? I guess so. If you're trying to make morality like a science, you're going to have to establish some basic principles. No problem there, as that's basically a field of ethical philosophy, but to claim that those principles are the only reasonable ones becomes rather pointless because, like it or not, there will still be ad hoc principles in the mix.

You never attacked my arguments directly. All you've done is repeat the same very general arguments. How does this apply to what I've said and how does it prove my claims false? For example, are there any other reasonable purposes of morality? If so, what are they?

logically consistent, and it's not ad hoc because its purpose is justified by 1 and 2.

This is assuming 1 and 2 are true. This is not the case as they are both ad hoc premises to begin with!

logically consistent, and not ad hoc.

Yes, Utilitarianism is logically consistent and not ad hoc, but it is also meaningless as happiness cannot be compared. It's nonsense!
Edit: Oops misread it. Premise 1 is not true because happiness does not exist on an incremental scale. At least not on a scale that we know of.

 

[DanteFox]

You never attacked my arguments directly. All you've done is repeat the same very general arguments. How does this apply to what I've said and how does it prove my claims false? For example, are there any other reasonable purposes of morality? If so, what are they?

You refuse to acknowledge what I'm saying. You saying "this purpose of X morality is useless" is pointless without a frame of reference. Of course you're all too eager to insert your own frame and exclude all others as unreasonable.

This is assuming 1 and 2 are true.

Of course I'm assuming 1 and 2 are true, just as you did when you framed your system.

This is not the case as they are both ad hoc premises to begin with!

what do you mean by that? how do you know these premises are not true? You might wanna publish this finding as its the first I've heard of someone disproving theism.

Yes, Utilitarianism is logically consistent and not ad hoc

Therefore by your stated definition, it is reasonable.

but it is also meaningless as happiness cannot be compared. It's nonsense!

How quickly the goalposts move.

Edit: Oops misread it. Premise 1 is not true because happiness does not exist on an incremental scale. At least not on a scale that we know of.

Whether or not we know of something does not affect its truth value.

 

[Mike]

Of course I'm assuming 1 and 2 are true, just as you did when you framed your system.
what do you mean by that? how do you know these premises are not true? You might wanna publish this finding as its the first I've heard of someone disproving theism.

My 2 premises ARE true. Would you care to attack them if you think they aren't? And you seem to be forgetting "burden of proof". If you don't prove that you god exists, it is unreasonable to assume it does.

Therefore by your stated definition, it is reasonable.

How quickly the goalposts move.

Actually I retract that statement. Utilitarianism is ad hoc because it assumes happiness can be compared in a meaningful way when clearly we have no method of doing so. How silly of me to have not caught that.

Anyways, I assumed "making sense" is a given for any proposition. If that wasn't apparent, then it should be now.

Whether or not we know of something does not affect its truth value.

Maybe i should've reworded it as "CAN know of". It is impossible to measure and compare happiness. Firstly, happiness would have to be defined rigorously which may even be impossible given the ambiguity of the term. And second, how would you compare it? How would you know if a consequence would make one less unhappy than it makes someone else happy except in the most extreme circumstances?

 

[DanteFox]

My 2 premises ARE true. Would you care to attack them if you think they aren't? And you seem to be forgetting "burden of proof". If you don't prove that you god exists, it is unreasonable to assume it does.

You conveniently remember the burden of proof when you want to apply it to me, but you fail to apply it to yourself. Why should I have to prove my premises and disprove yours? You're trying to make me shoulder both burdens. Yet another slight of hand.

Actually I retract that statement. Utilitarianism is ad hoc because it assumes happiness can be compared in a meaningful way when clearly we have no method of doing so. How silly of me to have not caught that.

now you're talking about a completely different subject: the practicality of a moral system. I have no interest in debating this as it's completely subjective.

Anyways, I assumed "making sense" is a given for any proposition. If that wasn't apparent, then it should be now.

both my propositions made logical sense, you simply disagreed with the premises or took issue with their practicality, two issues I don't have much interest in debating, as well as issues that were not brought up in your original claim.

Maybe i should've reworded it as "CAN know of". It is impossible to measure and compare happiness. Firstly, happiness would have to be defined rigorously which may even be impossible given the ambiguity of the term. And second, how would you compare it? How would you know if a consequence would make one less unhappy than it makes someone else happy except in the most extreme circumstances?

you're getting into practicality again. not something that was central to your original claim. I tried to play the game by your rules but you keep changing them mid game. If you move the goalposts I'm going to have no choice but to pick up my ball and go home.

 

[Mike]

You conveniently remember the burden of proof when you want to apply it to me, but you fail to apply it to yourself. Why should I have to prove my premises and disprove yours? You're trying to make me shoulder both burdens. Yet another slight of hand.

You have to disprove my claims if you are to prove me incorrect.
You have to prove your claims if you are to be correct.

That's how it works if you are going to convince anyone of anything.

now you're talking about a completely different subject: the practicality of a moral system. I have no interest in debating this as it's completely subjective.

It is not simply the practicality that is the problem in Utilitarianism. It's the fact that it doesn't make sense in the first place! Comparing happiness is like comparing apples to oranges. There is no conversion factor, so they cannot be compared. This causes the whole system to become nonsense!

both my propositions made logical sense, you simply disagreed with the premises or took issue with their practicality, two issues I don't have much interest in debating, as well as issues that were not brought up in your original claim.

They only make sense if you accept the premises as true. This is not the case here: your premises are ad hoc. Thus your claims are unreasonable.

you're getting into practicality again. not something that was central to your original claim. I tried to play the game by your rules but you kept changing them mid game. If you move the goalposts I'm going to have no choice but to pick up my ball and go home.

Don't strawman. They are perfectly valid philosophical points, as I addressed two paragraphs up.

 

[DanteFox]

You have to disprove my claims if you are to prove me incorrect.
You have to prove your claims if you are to be correct.

That's how it works if you are going to convince anyone of anything.

You have to disprove my claims if you are to prove me incorrect.
You have to prove your claims if you are to be correct.

That's how it works if you are going to convince anyone of anything.

c wut i did thar?

It is not simply the practicality that is the problem in Utilitarianism. It's the fact that it doesn't make sense in the first place! Comparing happiness is like comparing apples to oranges. There is no conversion factor, so they cannot be compared. This causes the whole system to become nonsense!

I didn't say they could be compared, I assumed their total could be maximized in my premise.

They only make sense if you accept the premises as true.

of course. that's true of any logical argument

This is not the case here: your premises are ad hoc. Thus your claims are unreasonable.

that word doesn't mean what you think it does. now you're using "ad hoc" to mean untrue or impractical. you've changed it to mean something different than what you stated before, and as I said I'm not interested in debating about practicality, and the truth of our premises is not something that you initially argued around.

Don't strawman. They are perfectly valid philosophical points, as I addressed two paragraphs up.

sorry dude I tried my best to frame my argument in the same way you did to show you the error in your thinking, but you moved the goalposts every time I did. I really don't feel like jumping through any more of your semantic hoops.

I think I'm gonna leave it at that and pack it up.

 

[Mike]

You have to disprove my claims if you are to prove me incorrect.
You have to prove your claims if you are to be correct.

That's how it works if you are going to convince anyone of anything.

c wut i did thar?

And I did exactly that. I stated my argument with justification. It's up to you to disprove it if you disagree with it!

You claimed that your two premises are correct and you did not provide justification (that an omniscient god exists that tells us what is moral)..

I didn't say they could be compared, I assumed their total could be maximized in my premise.

Their total cannot be calculated if they cannot be compared. There's your logical inconsistency.

that word doesn't mean what you think it is. now you're using "ad hoc" to mean untrue or impractical. you've changed it to mean something different than what you stated before, and as I said I'm not interested in debating about practicality, and the truth of our premises is not something that you initially argued around.

Your claim that god exists is ad hoc because there is nothing indicating such a thing. It IS a "just because" claim.

sorry dude I tried my best to frame my argument in the same way you did to show you the error in your thinking, but you moved the goalposts every time I did. I really don't feel like jumping through any more of your semantic hoops.

I think I'm gonna leave it at that and pack it up.

...

Anyways, I'd like to know what the rest of you Proving Grounds people think about the ideas I presented! If you need me to restate my points, I can do that.

 

[metalreflectslime]

Dante asked to be in the Debate Hall by posting in the Center Stage. You should also since you have argued well.

 

[Mike]

Im ok here. I hear the PG has more activity anyways O__o

But do you have anything to say about the discussion that was just going on? Any agreements/disagreements?

 

[ballin4life]

If a moral system assigned moral worth to inanimate objects, what would be the point of the moral system?

The "point" of anything is subjective.

The claim that the purpose of morality is to mediate the interactions between subjects is not ad hoc for a couple reasons:
1. Negative, or unwanted interactions exist.
2. Nobody wants to be on the bad end of this interaction.
______
3. Thus a system can be placed to minimize this type of interaction. We can call this system "morality".

I think premises 1 and 2 are true (although 1 does not fully define what constitutes a negative interaction, and using the word negative already implies a moral judgement - I will assume that a negative interaction is by definition one where someone is worse off as defined by his own happiness, and 2 is a tautology based on the definition of "bad", which again already implies a moral judgement).

3 follows, but this is just creating a subjective definition for what makes events morally right to you - i.e. to you what is morally right is whatever minimizes negative interactions. You can say "we can call this system morality", but to reconcile this with what people generally mean when they say morality, you need an "ad hoc" premise that minimizing negative interactions is good.

Additionally there is the question of what constitutes an interaction - you assume that this applies to humans (which most people would accept), but someone might come along and say "well eating hamburgers is negative for the cows". I might come along and say that morals apply to everyone besides me. Assuming that morals apply equally to humans is "ad hoc".

To address the moral system itself, I gave a general reasoning for my own moral system which turns out to be quite similar to this. My question though is how do you determine what is a negative interaction? Would me getting fired be a negative interaction? Clearly, I am worse off, but my boss may be better off. How do you determine whether there is a negative interaction in this sort of situation?

 

[Mike]

The "point" of anything is subjective.

Yes, but what I meant where is the significance in giving inanimate objects moral worth?

I think premises 1 and 2 are true (although 1 does not fully define what constitutes a negative interaction, and using the word negative already implies a moral judgement - I will assume that a negative interaction is by definition one where someone is worse off as defined by his own happiness, and 2 is a tautology based on the definition of "bad", which again already implies a moral judgement).

By negative, I mean unwanted. It doesn't imply a moral judgment because one doesn't need to accept the existence of morality to wish something didn't happen to him.

3 follows, but this is just creating a subjective definition for what makes events morally right to you - i.e. to you what is morally right is whatever minimizes negative interactions. You can say "we can call this system morality", but to reconcile this with what people generally mean when they say morality, you need an "ad hoc" premise that minimizing negative interactions is good.

The purpose of a moral system is to distinguish between good and bad (in the form of fair and unfair) in the interactions between subjects (I'm sure we both agree that the morality we're talking about requires at least two subjects, right?). And if there were no disagreements between subjects, everything should be considered "fair". In the case of my claim, minimizing negative interactions is the most effective way to ideally minimize these complaints, which means maximizing fairness.

Additionally there is the question of what constitutes an interaction - you assume that this applies to humans (which most people would accept), but someone might come along and say "well eating hamburgers is negative for the cows". I might come along and say that morals apply to everyone besides me. Assuming that morals apply equally to humans is "ad hoc".

No I actually said it applies to all sentient beings somewhere a few pages back. Any type of restriction would be ad hoc.

To address the moral system itself, I gave a general reasoning for my own moral system which turns out to be quite similar to this. My question though is how do you determine what is a negative interaction? Would me getting fired be a negative interaction? Clearly, I am worse off, but my boss may be better off. How do you determine whether there is a negative interaction in this sort of situation?

Every moral system requires something called "justice" where you are allowed to act what would otherwise be immoral in order to enforce the moral code (if you disagree with this, tell me so I can elaborate further). And if your work is not up to par, firing you would be justified as the boss is only harming you to prevent you from harming him (assuming not firing you would cause negative consequences for the boss). In other words he is applying justice, as the morally correct decision for you would be to quit if you know you are hurting your boss by staying.

I might have to post my entire ethical system to completely clear things up, but I don't have time for that tonight. I'll do it later if it's necessary though.

 

[ballin4life]

Sentient is ad hoc. Also to nitpick: You also don't know for sure that rocks aren't sentient, and you don't know for sure that other people are.

The concept of justice is ad hoc as well. It sounds like you are advocating a version of the non-aggression principle - essentially that the first person to harm others is the one that is wrong, and that others are then justified in harming him back.

By the way, I agree with your general sentiment. As I stated earlier, I base my morality on the principle that objective good is obtained when people interact in ways that are to their mutual benefit (since no one disagrees, it is objectively good), and this observation leads me to accept the non-aggression principle and promote voluntarism.

But anyway, so a negative interaction is one in which someone is worse off. How about this one: I plant some flowers in front of my house. Everyone on the street gets a benefit because my flowers are very nice to look at. At some point though, I get tired of gardening and decide to get rid of the flowers. Now, all my neighbors would not agree to this, as they all like the flowers. Removing the flowers would appear to put them in a negative situation. But forcing me to keep the flowers puts me in a negative situation. Which one is justified and which one is the negative interaction?

 

[rvkevin]

How about this one: I plant some flowers in front of my house. Everyone on the street gets a benefit because my flowers are very nice to look at. At some point though, I get tired of gardening and decide to get rid of the flowers. Now, all my neighbors would not agree to this, as they all like the flowers. Removing the flowers would appear to put them in a negative situation. But forcing me to keep the flowers puts me in a negative situation. Which one is justified and which one is the negative interaction?

It would be hard to measure, but I think it is still possible to. Lets say that the neighbors come together and each one says I prefer that you maintain your garden, and they get X utility from it each morning, and thus, they will pay you $X to maintain your garden everyday. If you determine that the amount is so low as to not be worth your time to maintain the garden, then your negative would be greater than your neighbors. If the neighbors offer convinced you to continue, then your neighbors negative would have outweighed yours. The answer to your question would be dependent on the outcome of this experiment. We can speculate what the results will be by imaging what we would do. For example, I wouldn't offer much of anything for someone to maintain their garden, and if I were them, an offer of nothing would not convince me to continue gardening, so if the participants were myself and myself, the results would be that the person stop gardening, but you can actually do the experiment and those results would trump any thought experiment.

 

[Sucumbio]

my grandpa had a nice garden. he used to give tomatoes and cucumbers to all the neighbors.

 

[ballin4life]

It would be hard to measure, but I think it is still possible to. Lets say that the neighbors come together and each one says I prefer that you maintain your garden, and they get X utility from it each morning, and thus, they will pay you $X to maintain your garden everyday. If you determine that the amount is so low as to not be worth your time to maintain the garden, then your negative would be greater than your neighbors. If the neighbors offer convinced you to continue, then your neighbors negative would have outweighed yours. The answer to your question would be dependent on the outcome of this experiment. We can speculate what the results will be by imaging what we would do. For example, I wouldn't offer much of anything for someone to maintain their garden, and if I were them, an offer of nothing would not convince me to continue gardening, so if the participants were myself and myself, the results would be that the person stop gardening, but you can actually do the experiment and those results would trump any thought experiment.

But all this takes as a given that I have the right to get rid of the garden in the first place if they don't pay me. I agree personally with your analysis because I accept the concept of property rights (the flowers are mine, so I get to decide what to do with them), but Mike's criteria of morality doesn't make any such reference to property rights. I think that his system of morality needs additional principles.

 

[Mike]

Sentient is ad hoc. Also to nitpick: You also don't know for sure that rocks aren't sentient, and you don't know for sure that other people are.

It isn't if you accept the purpose of morality I stated. If something isn't sentient, the concept of fairness doesn't apply to it. And I don't think any sane person would agree to your nitpicks. Let's keep this debate at a reasonable level.

The concept of justice is ad hoc as well. It sounds like you are advocating a version of the non-aggression principle - essentially that the first person to harm others is the one that is wrong, and that others are then justified in harming him back.

Justice isn't ad hoc as it is REQUIRED for any moral system to have any practical significance. If justice wasn't required, morality wouldn't be necessary in any way. The whole idea behind morality is that people will do bad things. What's the point in a moral system if that is allowed?

By the way, I agree with your general sentiment. As I stated earlier, I base my morality on the principle that objective good is obtained when people interact in ways that are to their mutual benefit (since no one disagrees, it is objectively good), and this observation leads me to accept the non-aggression principle and promote voluntarism.

If you don't have a system of justice, Hitler would still be killing people D:

But more seriously, why would you consider allowing immoral actions to happen to be a moral decision?

But anyway, so a negative interaction is one in which someone is worse off. How about this one: I plant some flowers in front of my house. Everyone on the street gets a benefit because my flowers are very nice to look at. At some point though, I get tired of gardening and decide to get rid of the flowers. Now, all my neighbors would not agree to this, as they all like the flowers. Removing the flowers would appear to put them in a negative situation. But forcing me to keep the flowers puts me in a negative situation. Which one is justified and which one is the negative interaction?

I never stated my ethical system. It goes something like this: a motive is immoral if, without just cause, it includes intentionally acting on a subject (directly or indirectly) in a way that may be undesirable to that subject. In the flower case, you just want to get rid of the flowers. You aren't doing it to intentionally harm anybody, so it's morally permissible.
Edit: oops i forgot an important part. If the neighbors demanded that he keep the flowers it is equivalent to intentionally forcing him to upkeep the plants, which he clearly does not want to do.

Similarly, my ethical system condones most cases of stealing because to steal you must take something from someone else, which is harmful in most cases. However, torrenting is fine

Mike's criteria of morality doesn't make any such reference to property rights. I think that his system of morality needs additional principles.

The beauty of the system I proposed is in its simplicity! (This is assuming my system is correct. I will admit this is a new idea to me since I only recently got interested in this topic and I'm not completely sure of its validity, which is why I am testing it here.) There are no extraneous principals such as "killing is wrong" that are not universally applicable. The system can hold in all cases BECAUSE of its simplicity.

 

[ballin4life]

What if I want your watch, and so I hit you in the face to take it from you. I didn't do this because I wanted to intentionally harm you in particular, I just did it because I wanted the watch.

What's the difference?

 

[Mike]

Similarly, my ethical system condones most cases of stealing because to steal you must take something from someone else, which is harmful in most cases. However, torrenting is fine

This is quoted from the second to last paragraph on the post above yours.

Your scenario is the type of stealing that's not consistent with the interests of the person you're stealing it from. Not to mention punching the person in the face is another intentionally harmful motive altogether.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, but what is the distinction between stealing something from someone and reducing their property values by removing my flowers?

Your only criterion given so far is just "puts someone in a negative situation intentionally" which applies to both.

I would resolve this by forming a criterion based on property rights, but it seems that you would dismiss this as being "ad hoc".

 

[Mike]

Yes, but what is the distinction between stealing something from someone and reducing their property values by removing my flowers?

Your only criterion given so far is just "puts someone in a negative situation intentionally" which applies to both.

I would resolve this by forming a criterion based on property rights, but it seems that you would dismiss this as being "ad hoc".

Property rights can't be a criterion. What would you say would be the moral decision if your friend's toy was rigged with a bomb and the only way to save him from getting blown to bits was to steal his toy and dispose of it accordingly? That would be an exception to the rule, and exceptions are an ad hoc reason to deviate from the rule to cover something the rule should have already covered.

Unless it was agreed upon that he would have to keep the flowers if he bought the house, the expectation for homeowners was that they have a certain amount of control over what they can do with their property. If you are to be restricted from removing the flowers, that would cause the condition in which you bought the house to be unpleasantly misleading, which is immoral. So either you should get to remove the flowers or you should be compensated for the misleading advertisement.

 

[ballin4life]

I am incredibly confused as to how you denied property rights in the first paragraph and yet said "homeowners... have a certain amount of control over what they can do with their property".

I also don't think your counterexample works, because me stealing the toy is presumably to the mutual benefit of both me and the friend. I introduce property rights into situations where someone is going to be worse off as a criteria for determining who has the right to do something (e.g. the flowers example, or the boss firing me example - in both cases someone has a property right and it's ok for that person to exercise their property rights even if it puts another in an undesirable situation).

 

[Mike]

I am incredibly confused as to how you denied property rights in the first paragraph and yet said "homeowners... have a certain amount of control over what they can do with their property".

Mutual agreement through informed consent is very important when establishing whether something is against someone's benefit. It isn't the fact that you own the house that makes it okay to get rid of the flowers, it's the fact that the usual policy is that you have a certain amount of leniency on what you do with your property. That means that if the community deviates from this policy, they must inform whoever is buying the house so they can make an informed decision on whether to buy the house. Otherwise, it is misinforming that person which in this context would obviously be against the interests of that person. But if he was informed of the policy and he decides to buy the house, it would be wrong for him to get rid of the flowers because he would be the one misinforming his community by lying about accepting their agreement.

I also don't think your counterexample works, because me stealing the toy is presumably to the mutual benefit of both me and the friend. I introduce property rights into situations where someone is going to be worse off as a criteria for determining who has the right to do something (e.g. the flowers example, or the boss firing me example - in both cases someone has a property right and it's ok for that person to exercise their property rights even if it puts another in an undesirable situation).

Yes! Exactly, the reason stealing the toy is right is because it is to the benefit of your friend! You are acting in a way that you know your friend would want you to act toward him. THIS is what makes it moral. It has nothing to do with property: every issue regarding property would boil down to acting in a way that is agreed to be beneficial to one another! "Respecting one's property" is similar to "killing is wrong" in the way that while both are true in most cases, they are not universally applicable.

 

[ballin4life]

You don't necessarily enter into an agreement with the community when you buy a house.

The problem with denoting everything in terms of agreements is that it falls apart when you consider a case where there are no agreements made and someone has to be made worse off.

I can argue that me not having your Xbox puts me in an undesirable state, and therefore you are harming me by not giving me your Xbox. I can argue that the fact that someone else is homosexual puts me in an undesirable state, and therefore is harming me.

Also buying a house already assumes that property rights exist (otherwise what are you buying? In fact, what are you paying with if you can't be said to own that money?)

 

[Mike]

You don't necessarily enter into an agreement with the community when you buy a house.

You can! It's called a homeowners association. And there are state and federal laws that prevent you from changing the property in other ways.

The problem with denoting everything in terms of agreements is that it falls apart when you consider a case where there are no agreements made and someone has to be made worse off.

I can argue that me not having your Xbox puts me in an undesirable state, and therefore you are harming me by not giving me your Xbox. I can argue that the fact that someone else is homosexual puts me in an undesirable state, and therefore is harming me.

Of course agreements shouldn't be the be-all end-all. The only thing that is universally applicable is that you must act toward someone else in a way that he would agree not to be against his own interests. But if you were to purposely mislead another into agreeing to something that is probably against that person's interest, it would be immoral.

Me buying an xbox to play with is not intentionally going against your interests. Same with being homosexual. If someone doesn't mean to put you at risk of harm, it isn't immoral. Only if they do it with the intent of putting you at risk for harm by going against your interests is it immoral.

In the case of stealing, it is tied to the fact that you must take something from someone else. In most cases you cannot steal without going completely against the victim's interest. Simply owning or buying something that someone else wants isn't intentionally going against that person's interest.

Also buying a house already assumes that property rights exist (otherwise what are you buying? In fact, what are you paying with if you can't be said to own that money?)

This is true according to law, but legally owning that property doesn't make it a safe haven from the influence of other people. If others know it to be in your best interest to abuse your property in some way (to somehow save you from some tragic scenario), they should be allowed to do it!

 

[ballin4life]

You can! It's called a homeowners association. And there are state and federal laws that prevent you from changing the property in other ways.

Heh. Let's not start talking about the state.

Of course agreements shouldn't be the be-all end-all. The only thing that is universally applicable is that you must act toward someone else in a way that he would agree not to be against his own interests. But if you were to purposely mislead another into agreeing to something that is probably against that person's interest, it would be immoral.

Me buying an xbox to play with is not intentionally going against your interests. Same with being homosexual. If someone doesn't mean to put you at risk of harm, it isn't immoral. Only if they do it with the intent of putting you at risk for harm by going against your interests is it immoral.

In the case of stealing, it is tied to the fact that you must take something from someone else. In most cases you cannot steal without going completely against the victim's interest. Simply owning or buying something that someone else wants isn't intentionally going against that person's interest.

Let's say that we are at Best Buy, and there is one Xbox left on the shelf. If you take it first, you are intentionally depriving me of an Xbox.

Let's say that I am unemployed and about to starve. You decide to not give me a job. Clearly this is intentionally going against my interests.

I think the homosexuality example is debatable. Many religious people consider homosexuality to be an abomination that really does harm them.

This is true according to law, but legally owning that property doesn't make it a safe haven from the influence of other people. If others know it to be in your best interest to abuse your property in some way (to somehow save you from some tragic scenario), they should be allowed to do it!

As long as it is my best interest ACCORDING TO ME then I am ok with this. Obviously it's not ok to shove people usually, but if I am shoving you out of the way of a speeding car then you will thank me instead. But I worry about paternalism. I might disagree about what your best interest really is and decide to force you to stop playing video games (or whatever).

 

[Mike]

Let's say that we are at Best Buy, and there is one Xbox left on the shelf. If you take it first, you are intentionally depriving me of an Xbox.

One of you being disappointed in not getting the xbox is unavoidable. Since it's equal both ways, either way is fair.

Let's say that I am unemployed and about to starve. You decide to not give me a job. Clearly this is intentionally going against my interests.

By telling the recruiter that you are going to starve you are forcing him into a situation where he has to purposely interact with you in a way that is undesirable to you or act in a way that is undesirable for himself. Since you forced him into the bad position, it isn't immoral if he ignores it.

I think the homosexuality example is debatable. Many religious people consider homosexuality to be an abomination that really does harm them.

There is no intended interaction in this case! This is assuming the homosexuals in your example are simply "living their lives" and not trying to force themselves onto the religious conservatives.

As long as it is my best interest ACCORDING TO ME then I am ok with this. Obviously it's not ok to shove people usually, but if I am shoving you out of the way of a speeding car then you will thank me instead. But I worry about paternalism. I might disagree about what your best interest really is and decide to force you to stop playing video games (or whatever).

Exactly. The moral system I proposed states that if you act on someone else, you do it in a way that does not go against that person's interests. Paternalism would be immoral under that statement because you are imposing your beliefs onto others.

 

[ballin4life]

One of you being disappointed in not getting the xbox is unavoidable. Since it's equal both ways, either way is fair.

I somewhat agree with this. My point is that there are going to be situations where someone has to be disappointed. There needs to be a good criterion for handling these sorts of cases. In this case, the store will simply give the Xbox to whoever got there first (again this goes back to property rights - the store can sell its Xbox to whomever it wants).

By telling the recruiter that you are going to starve you are forcing him into a situation where he has to purposely interact with you in a way that is undesirable to you or act in a way that is undesirable for himself. Since you forced him into the bad position, it isn't immoral if he ignores it.

What if I did not tell him? What if he found out from someone else, or found out independently (perhaps he saw me in my cardboard box while he was walking down the street yesterday)?

I also don't see how telling him something that is true is forcing a "bad position" on anyone. Even if I don't tell him, or even if I am not necessarily going to starve, he has the choice to put me in a worse situation (no job) or a better situation (job).

There is no intended interaction in this case! This is assuming the homosexuals in your example are simply "living their lives" and not trying to force themselves onto the religious conservatives.

An opponent of homosexuals might argue that simply seeing them or knowing that they exist is enough of an interaction.

 

[Mike]

I somewhat agree with this. My point is that there are going to be situations where someone has to be disappointed. There needs to be a good criterion for handling these sorts of cases. In this case, the store will simply give the Xbox to whoever got there first (again this goes back to property rights - the store can sell its Xbox to whomever it wants).

Property rights is only upheld if it's ethical to uphold them. That's why it can't be an ethical criterion.

I guess i can change the working to include "intend unavoidable undesirable interactions" although I assumed it was implied.

What if I did not tell him? What if he found out from someone else, or found out independently (perhaps he saw me in my cardboard box while he was walking down the street yesterday)?

I also don't see how telling him something that is true is forcing a "bad position" on anyone. Even if I don't tell him, or even if I am not necessarily going to starve, he has the choice to put me in a worse situation (no job) or a better situation (job).

Refusing to hire you (because you were not qualified) is ceasing the interaction with that person. This is not immoral as there would be no more intended interactions, which is necessary for a motive to be immoral.

An opponent of homosexuals might argue that simply seeing them or knowing that they exist is enough of an interaction.

But it's not an INTENDED interaction on the homosexual's part.

By the way, sorry if it seems that my reasoning changes slightly. Sometimes I'll realize something after reading your post. I don't think I ever contradicted myself though.

 

[ballin4life]

Whether an interaction is unavoidable or undesirable is debatable. If two people are having a disagreement, they might disagree as well about whether their interaction is unavoidable or undesirable.

I don't understand the point about future intended interactions. What if I only intend to rob you once, then never see you again?

And refusing to hire someone is still taking an action that puts someone in an undesirable position.

So if two homosexuals purposefully make out in front of a religious person, then it's an undesirable interaction, right?

 

[Mike]

Whether an interaction is unavoidable or undesirable is debatable. If two people are having a disagreement, they might disagree as well about whether their interaction is unavoidable or undesirable.

Oh wow i meant "avoidable" not "unavoidable", although I think you knew what I meant. Meh, I don't see this part as an important part of the discussion. It's pretty clear that a situation is unavoidable once it happens. In the case of the xbox example (i assumed they got to the xbox at the same time) they can't take the xbox without interacting with the other party. Having one party be displeased is unavoidable.

I don't understand the point about future intended interactions. What if I only intend to rob you once, then never see you again?

What? Where did I say future intended interactions? How does this relate?

And refusing to hire someone is still taking an action that puts someone in an undesirable position.

Yes, but he also knows that he isn't guaranteed the job if he decides to apply. Everything was set up according to an agreement and executed according to that same agreement. Where is the unfairness in this? Just because something doesn't go accoring to someone's wishes doesn't mean immorality was involved.

So if two homosexuals purposefully make out in front of a religious person, then it's an undesirable interaction, right?

Yes, if they do it because they know it's going to bother someone. But if that someone is a person who is trying to put unjustified restrictions on the rights of the gays, then he is acting immorally and justice should be applied to him to prevent him from acting on his immoral motives.