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

[Roboramma]

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?

That recognising that someone has a right and respecting that right are two different things.

Personally I can't see why you think your ethical system requires the latter, and I don't think Robin can either.

 

[Roboramma]

If your moral agent has no clue what is, how shall he find out what will be (the consequences)? Remember, not mine but your ethics is based just (!) on consequences.

Are you suggesting that it's not possible to make moral decisions based upon knowing possible (rather than certain) consequences? A chance of harm is still a chance of harm.
Moreover I suggest that whether she wakes or not, the fact that she could means the she still has a moral position - because I know that if I could wake I wouldn't want to be raped.

Because love is blind.

Mine isn't. And it certainly shouldn't be in regard to moral questions. To suggest that some people are willfully ignorant of the position of others or of the harm that they can cause doesn't suggest that they are not, in fact, causing harm.

You heard of Kant? Fine. How can you rationally argue that he was so immensely naive? Can you make this plausible at all?

I took what you said and applied it. You haven't yet showed how the application fails.

But I admit I left out an important word:

Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never merely as a means to an end.

But I do treat the plumber merely as a means to an end! I call him because, and only because, I need my pipes fixed. I don't care about his wife and children or that he likes to play bridge or what colour hair he has. I am calling him only because I want him to fix my pipes, and I know that if I give him a certain amount of money, he'll do it.
I'd act exactly the same way toward him if he were a robot.

Now, I haven't read Kant. Maybe he deals with this and his moral system is more robust than you're representing it. If so, I'd like to see you explain how - so far you've failed to do so, at least to the limits of my reading comprehension.

 

[Fiona]

I challenge you to find a single instance, just one, where people aspired to something great and were able to meet the goal without relying on science.

A performance of Swan Lake

 

[Herzblut]

Are you suggesting that it's not possible to make moral decisions based upon knowing possible (rather than certain) consequences? A chance of harm is still a chance of harm.
Moreover I suggest that whether she wakes or not, the fact that she could means the she still has a moral position - because I know that if I could wake I wouldn't want to be raped.

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!

But I do treat the plumber merely as a means to an end! I call him because, and only because, I need my pipes fixed. I don't care about his wife and children or that he likes to play bridge or what colour hair he has. I am calling him only because I want him to fix my pipes, and I know that if I give him a certain amount of money, he'll do it.

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.

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

 

[rocketdodger]

A performance of Swan Lake

Ha!

How were the instruments devised, made, and learnt to be played upon?

How was the story communicated to the performers?

How was the performance advertised to the audience?

How was the set constructed?

How was....... etc.

 

[Fiona]

There were instruments long before there was science I think

There was language long before there was science

There were town criers long before there was science

There were people who made things out of wood and there were artists long before there was science.

We can play this game for a long time, but I don't see the point myself. You know what I mean. You may disagree but I doubt it really.

 

[Herzblut]

A performance of Swan Lake

150.000 years of survival.

 

[rocketdodger]

Evidence?

Your own words: "breaching her human dignity." To me, 'breaching someone's dignity' causes them harm.

I made no such claim. Can you rationally argue why I should be making bold claims about a predicate like 'harm' which is irrelevant in my ethical system?

Ummm... wasn't one of the initial conditions for this hypothetical situation that the male nurse causes no harm to anyone?

Furthermore, my question to you was (quite clearly) "Why is this wrong if it does no harm?" By answering that you implicitly agreed to the statement "These reasons do not involve harm being done, or else I would not include them in this answer to your query."

I explained, but you didn't understand.

No. You listed 4 (count them, 4) reasons why such an act is unacceptable. All 4 involve harm being done to someone, using a conventional definition of harm. The problem here is that your definition of harm is different from everyone else's. But hey, that's moral absolutism for ya...

So the whole thing boils down to this: You contend that this behavior causes no harm, according to your definition of harm, and would be allowed in moral systems that are based on harm, but is clearly NOT acceptable to any morally good human. Therefore, those harm based moral systems must fail at least part of the time. Well guess what? Your definition of harm is extremely narrow! As soon as you include things like... well, those 4 reasons you listed... as causing harm, then the harm based moral systems no longer fail.

How bizarre. You have to address those questions to yourself, because they only occur in your own ethical system. They are irrelevant in mine.

That is what scares me. How can the question of harm be irrelevant in your ethical system?

On the other hand, my ethical system is concerned only with harm -- so all of those questions have simple answers.

Do you understand this?

Yes. You are a moral absolutist. Which means your ideas of right and wrong are independent of the good or suffering they may or may not lead to. What a pleasant thought!

 

[Herzblut]

That recognising that someone has a right and respecting that right are two different things.

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.

 

[rocketdodger]

There were instruments long before there was science I think

There was language long before there was science

There were town criers long before there was science

There were people who made things out of wood and there were artists long before there was science.

We can play this game for a long time, but I don't see the point myself. You know what I mean. You may disagree but I doubt it really.

No I don't disagree, thats why I was careful to include the phrase "science (or its precursor, rational thought)."

I am not saying science per say is responsible, I am just trying to echo the galt-like message that our only means of survival is thought, and that our dreams can only be realized by thinking -- not by simply more dreams.

One could say that this thread is about science, and NOT rational thought, but that is kind of iffy, because science is nothing more than the application of rational thought to thought itself, right?

 

[rocketdodger]

How can you rationally argue away the obvious self-contradictions?

By pointing out that it is verse rather than a mathematical proof, and thus the message may have meaning that is different from the simple aggregation of words used to convey it?

 

[Fiona]

One could say that this thread is about science, and NOT rational thought, but that is kind of iffy, because science is nothing more than the application of rational thought to thought itself, right?

Well as I have already said, I think this thread is about vision/ideal/illusion/aspiration. Those may come from thought but they may come from other parts of ourselves, such as emotion, as one poster argues, for example. But your last phrase puzzles me a lot. I cannot see that definition or that process. Perhaps you can explain it in different words cos I am not catching your meaning there

By pointing out that it is verse rather than a mathematical proof, and thus the message may have meaning that is different from the simple aggregation of words used to convey it?

Oooh! I spy HERESY. You want to watch that RD, you will find yourself thinking like me if you don't

 

[Herzblut]

Your own words: "breaching her human dignity." To me, 'breaching someone's dignity' causes them harm.

What harm does the moral agent cause?

How does this compare to the happiness he also causes?

Compiling a balance of happiness against harm, how does your moral agent behave?

Or, do you obey negative consequentialism disregarding anything (happiness included) but harm as moral predicate?

How could your moral agent breach an intrinsic moral value like 'human dignity' at all while you deny any such moral values even exist in your monstrous dystopia?

Your moral agent walks home and pushes heftily a young lady who crosses the street
1) in order to save her life by preventing a collision with a car dashing towards her
2) because pushing young ladies makes him horny
Both scenarios lead to the same harm (mild crushing injuries) and, hence, have to be judged as ethically equal within your ethical system. How can you justify this? Are both actions good or are they both bad? Why?

How can you apply an ethical system based on an arbritrary variable like 'harm'? How do you know everybody has the same understanding of the harm you just happen to 'define' adhoc upon your convenience?

How do you rank different types of harm?

How can you at all build any ethics on what you should NOT do, to prevent harm, instead of what you SHOULD do?

What should your moral agent do if all his options don't create no harm, with harm being his only decisive criteria?

Why have you not analysed your ethics whatsoever before obeying this crap?

How would a world look like, with your ethics applied worldwide? Why?

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?

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

In the other thread you suggested denying any science based services (like medical treatment) to those you don't understand those sciences (don't know how exactly a medicin works). How would you prevent exploding numbers of starving children on the planet? Do you care at all? Is this your idea of ethics?

Are you insane?

 

[rocketdodger]

But your last phrase puzzles me a lot. I cannot see that definition or that process. Perhaps you can explain it in different words cos I am not catching your meaning there

Well, people can think rationally without applying the scientific method, right? Say there is a problem to be solved -- how to make a musical instrument sound better, for example. There are a great many possible solutions I suppose, and a rational human will sit there and rationally try to think of a way to fix whatever is wrong.

But this method is not guaranteed to be efficient unless some sort of metadata is kept about the whole process. So in my view the "scientific method" is a framework people thought up (using rational thought) to solve the problem "how can we keep metadata about our solving a problem that maximizes our chances of finding the best solution?"

So to fix an instrument, the application of the scientific method would entail 1) coming up with a hypothesis about what exactly is wrong 2) testing it and either repeating step 1 or moving to step 3, 3) coming up with a hypothesis about how to fix it 4) trying it 5) rinse and repeat until it is done, etc. You could blindly fix things that might be broken, but that is a waste of time. You could blindly ignore things that are broken, as well, but that is also pointless. The only way to really solve the problem, in all cases, is to organize one's thoughts properly.

In other words the scientific method is just the application of rational thought to the act of rational thinking -- How can we best organize our thoughts and ideas so that the problem gets solved most efficiently? By using science.

 

[rocketdodger]

What harm does the moral agent create?

... snip ...

Are you insane?

It will take a fair amount of work to wade through all of these incorrect assumptions and inferences, numerous as they are, and I will be gone until sunday afternoon. I will post a reply then.

Here is a clue though -- I said nothing about my ethical system except that it is based only on harm. I did not say anything else. It amazes me that you can generate a post with so many conclusions based on that simple statement (that is probably why most of them are wrong). Maybe you should re-think your response and post a revised version?

 

[Herzblut]

Here is a clue though -- I said nothing about my ethical system except that it is based only on harm. I did not say anything else.

I think world hunger and poverty, pandemics, tsunamis and what have you all create massive harm due to the huge number of suffering humans.

We should, hence, forcefully blow out the whole human race, quick and easy. Let's annihilate man from the face of the earth asap! It's the only way to reach minimal human harm level, zero.

Edit: my points are actually well-known standard attacks against utilitarism. If you want to advocate your ethical visions you might want to be prepared to defend it against the attacks.

 

[Fiona]

@ rocketdodger. Hmm. I am not sure. I think there is something important in what you say but I am not happy with it. Thinking aloud here so I may conclude something quite different by tomorrow. Anyway

"People can think rationally" (and intuitively and artistically and ...well I am not sure we need the word rationally in there but no matter) "without the scientific method." Yes. I agree with that.

"There is a problem to be solved." Well, aside from very obvious ones, that seems to me to be a part where science does not get involved. Something else decides there is a problem. But that does not touch on your idea directly, I suppose

Having spotted a problem people will try to think what might be wrong. Is this another stage or does it equate to your "people will try to think of a way to fix whatever is wrong" Possibly there is no distinction there, I am not sure. In the early part of your post you seem to see one but in your summary you also identify two. It seems to me these are two processes: the problem would be "this instrument is not making a very nice noise: what might be wrong would be "maybe it is the wrong shape": how to fix it might be " we're building it round when it ought to be square". In any case I do not think the scientific method is involved at this stage either, except perhaps tangentially. Typically anecdote and observation tend to generate hypotheses about what might be wrong: or maybe just experience and an ability to break down compartments in the thinking, so knowledge from one field can be seen as applicable to another, so suggesting a way of fixing it. None of this seems to me to be scientific. Yet seeing a problem and generating a hypothesis are very important.

What seems to me to be the start of the scientific process is the formulation of the hypothesis. What is special to the scientific method is not the idea about the problem or about how to fix it but rather how to pose the question so that it can be falsified. This is the point where science scores for those areas where it is applicable.

The scientific method is a framework to solve the problem of keeping metadata. ( I have not quoted you exactly but I trust I have not misrepresented you - it just made an easier sentence if I paraphrased this way) Well I am not familiar with the term "metadata". I assume you mean a record of what happened when we tried things? If you do, I do not see that as central to the scientific method. Before we had science we certainly had record keeping and, for example, the craft guilds had ways of retaining and passing on the outcome of much trial and effort. I can accept this was not very efficient but I do not really see it as different in kind from what science does in this respect.

So you summarise thus

So to fix an instrument, the application of the scientific method would entail 1) coming up with a hypothesis about what exactly is wrong 2) testing it and either repeating step 1 or moving to step 3, 3) coming up with a hypothesis about how to fix it 4) trying it 5) rinse and repeat until it is done, etc. You could blindly fix things that might be broken, but that is a waste of time. You could blindly ignore things that are broken, as well, but that is also pointless. The only way to really solve the problem, in all cases, is to organize one's thoughts properly.

This is not what I think happens for the reasons I have given. I think to summarise differently:

1. Somebody decides there is some kind of problem with something. (not science)
2. He has a think about what might be causing that problem (not science)
3? He has a think about ways it might be fixed (not science)
4? He formulates a hypothesis which is testable and falsifiable (science)
5? He tests it. (not necessarily science unless he has done step 4: as you say he could skip step 4 and still test an idea: only that would not be science)

So on balance I do not think I agree with your formulation nor with your conclusion. And, as an aside, the way I have presented it is what leads me to the conclusion that there are areas where science is ideal for solving problems; and areas where it is not applicable at all. For if you cannot do step 4 you cannot do science

 

[Herzblut]

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?

OK, got an example of a real situation where utilitarism is consequently applied to minimize harm. Not sure I want to live in a world which looks like that all over the place.

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

Triage
Triage is a process of prioritizing patients based on the severity of their condition so as to treat as many as possible when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately.

Advanced triage
In advanced triage, doctors may decide that some seriously injured people should not receive advanced care because they are unlikely to survive. Advanced care will be used on patients with less severe injuries. Because treatment is intentionally withheld from patients with certain injuries, advanced triage has ethical implications. It is used to divert scarce resources away from patients with little chance of survival in order to increase the chances of survival of others who are more likely to survive.

The use of advanced triage may become necessary when medical professionals decide that the medical resources available are not sufficient to treat all the people who need help. The treatment being prioritized can include the time spent on medical care, or drugs or other limited resources. This has happened in disasters such as volcanic eruptions, thunderstorms, and rail accidents. In these cases some percentage of patients will die regardless of medical care because of the severity of their injuries. Others would live if given immediate medical care, but would die without it.

In these extreme situations, any medical care given to people who will die anyway can be considered to be care withdrawn from others who might have survived (or perhaps suffered less severe disability from their injuries) had they been treated instead. It becomes the task of the disaster medical authorities to set aside some victims as hopeless, to avoid trying to save one life at the expense of several others.

If immediate treatment is successful, the patient may improve (although this may be temporary) and this improvement may allow the patient to be categorized to a lower priority in the short term. Triage should be a continuous process and categories should be checked regularly to ensure that the priority remains correct.

So, this is a kind of environment where consequent utilitarism really delivers according to its goal.

 

[zosima]

Edit: my points are actually well-known standard attacks against utilitarism. If you want to advocate your ethical visions you might want to be prepared to defend it against the attacks.

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.

 

[Robin]

I said not every case of CSA shows evidence of lasting harm:

A 1998 meta-analysis is suggesting that child sexual abuse does not always cause pervasive harm; that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences; and that the extent of psychological damage depends on whether or not the child described the encounter as "consensual."
(Wikipedia)

There is no evidence that every case of CSA does necessarily cause harm (instead, there is strong evidence against this, see above)

What I say is in no way denying that CSA is causing suffering. What I deny is that there is evidence that every single case of CSA is causing suffering, because a substantial amount of cases is lacking such evidence.

Show me such evidence, if you can.

The bit I underlined above and the part I quoted before.

Stop deliberately mischaracterizing my posts.

I will allow your own words to speak for themselves.

Every single case of child abuse causes suffering. In the child. In the family. In the general community. Not lasting suffering in all cases, because people are resilient, but suffering nontheless. I will not apologise for standing by this position.

Also, nothing that is subject to huge research effort is a "self-evident fact". If something were self-evident fact, it would not require huge research effort. Hence, I refuse to accept your claim of self-evidence. I regard such weasel-wording as a strong indication for holding an ideology lacking evidence or denying counter-evidence.

It is a derail, but if you want to start a topic in the science section then I will be happy to fcuking bury you in evidence mate.