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

[Herzblut]

And what is utility, herzblut? Apparently the only definition you are aware of is "the people I pay my monthly water and electric bill to."

Allow me to educate you: according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utility utility is

1: fitness for some purpose or worth to some end
2: something useful or designed for use

So you are now saying the concept of human dignity 1) has no fitness or purpose in the human world and 2) is not useful. You already admitted that you think breaching dignity causes no harm. It would seem as if your opinion of human dignity is very low indeed. So why do you champion it so?

You do not understand.

The concept of human dignity as being absolutely inviolable revokes it from any possible list of relative, subjective utilities. Because it is non-negotiable, non-compensable by any amount of utility.

Let me clarify this based on a drastic example.

A well-known recent sentence of our German Constitutional Court nullified an anti-terror Law which had permitted to shoot down an airplane under terrorist control under certain conditions.

The Court made it crystal clear that as long as there is just one single innocent passenger on that plane no German law can ever legalize its shooting. Even if authorities are regarding this act as the only way to save the life of thousands of people in a sky scraper the plane is seemingly going to crash into.

There cannot be any legal blessing whatsoever which degrades this one innocent passenger to a mere object of state authority. None.

Do you still not understand that this kind of reasoning cannot comply to your utility thinking? There is no way.

 

[rocketdodger]

You do not understand.

The concept of human dignity as being absolutely inviolable revokes it from any possible list of relative, subjective utilities. Because it is non-negotiable, non-compensable by any amount of utility.

Let me clarify this based on a drastic example.

A well-known recent sentence of our German Constitutional Court nullified an anti-terror Law which had permitted to shoot down an airplane under terrorist control under certain conditions.

The Court made it crystal clear that as long as there is just one single innocent passenger on that plane no German law can ever legalize its shooting. Even if authorities are regarding this act as the only way to save the life of thousands of people in a sky scraper the plane is seemingly going to crash into.

There cannot be any legal blessing whatsoever which degrades this one innocent passenger to a mere object of state authority. None.

Do you still not understand that this kind of reasoning cannot comply to your utility thinking? There is no way.

No, you do not understand.

That simply means they have decided that the utility of human dignity must always be higher than the utility of everything else combined.

 

[Herzblut]

No, you do not understand.

That simply means they have decided that the utility of human dignity must always be higher than the utility of everything else combined.

No, it doesn't. If human dignity were a utility, I had to maximize it (or minimize its violation) by shooting the plane.

 

[rocketdodger]

It is also perfectly possible to envisage a society in which a great majority of people decide that autonomy is trumps and that serial killers are entitled to their point of view: and in which that majority derive their happiness from their conception of themselves as highly tolerant. They might elevate freedom above security, as I have often seen argued on this board. In that case the serial killer would be free to kill and everybody would agree that utility was served. I still do not think the serial killer is a moral man and I do not think his friends and neighbours are either.

So what? If you don't like it, don't live there! If you hate it, attack them!

I think they are moral if they are doing what makes them happy. I also think they are disgusting and I would quickly kill them to prevent them from harming people I care about. Because what makes them happy makes me furious. What I realize, and what moral absolutists don't, is that the ice crystals in the rings of Saturn don't really give a hoot one way or the other.

But it follows from your position that you do think so.

Yes. It also follow from my position that being "moral" doesn't suggest anything other than following one's morality -- a useless tautology.

Your misunderstanding must be from the fact that you interpret "moral" to mean somehow "good" or "just" or any other positive connotation. I do not interpret it that way.

 

[Lonewulf]

So, letting thousands of people die in a sky scraper, when you can take action to prevent it at the expense of one other life, is supposd to be considered the superior reasoning?

Not sure if I can agree with that.

Inaction is still an action, a choice. Thousands of people still die, and in fact, so would that one innocent passenger on the airplane. Deciding not to shoot down that plane, and letting a far greater amount of innocent people die, for some weird method of scoring "ethics points" is not a code I would wish to follow.

 

[rocketdodger]

No, it doesn't. If human dignity were a utility, I had to maximize it by shooting the plane.

Why?

Clearly, as your own example shows, letting the plane crash into the building does not violate the dignity of anyone.

Otherwise, how could dignity be "inviolable?"

 

[Herzblut]

So, letting thousands of people die in a sky scraper, when you can take action to prevent it at the expense of one other life, is the superior reasoning?

Not sure if I can agree with that.

Inaction is still an action, a choice. Thousands of people still die, and in fact, so would that one innocent passenger on the airplane. Deciding not to shoot down that plane, and letting a far greater amount of innocent people die, is not a moral code I would want to follow.

That's of course fine, Lonewulf.

I've actually chosen this extreme case because it is the screaming opposite of Consequentialism. Any possible consequences are disregarded, enforcing the absolute statal duty to never violate one person's dignity.

I am just stunned how anybody could ever argue this. I mean, that's .. insane!

 

[Herzblut]

Why?

According to your own moral stance, Consequentialism, should the plane be shut down?

[1] Yes. Consequence: one innocent life killed.
[2] No. Consequence: ~4001 innocent lives killed.

Why?

 

[rocketdodger]

That's of course fine, Lonewulf.

I've actually chosen this extreme case because it is the screaming opposite of Consequentialism. Any possible consequences are disregarded, enforcing the absolute statal duty to never violate one person's dignity.

I am just stunned how anybody could ever argue this. I mean, that's .. insane!

Because your case shows that in order to follow such a system you must make subjective decisions such as the one you have here -- that allowing the plane to crash does not violate the dignity of anyone, despite the fact that 1001 people, including the passenger on the plane we are so concerned with, is killed.

Who made the decision that allowing all those people to be killed doesn't violate anyone's dignity?

 

[rocketdodger]

According to your own moral stance, Consequentialism, should the plane be shut down?

[1] Yes. Consequence: one innocent life killed.
[2] No. Consequence: ~4001 innocent lives killed.

Why?

Assuming it is as cut and dry as that (I.E. there is no chance of any other outcome) and assuming all of the lives are of equal worth to the rest of the world and assuming we are not concerned future events (I.E. there is no conspiracy to try to generate anti-islamic sentiment by letting the plane crash), then of course it should be shot down.

Why? Because I do not differentiate between action and inaction -- both are the result of a decision. So if there is no difference between the results other than the number of people who are killed, why on Earth would I choose to let the plane hit the building?

EDIT: why are you ignoring the question of how letting 4001 people die does not violate anyone's dignity?

 

[Herzblut]

Who made the decision that allowing all those people to be killed doesn't violate anyone's dignity?

Nobody.

This case is merely about lawful acts of state authorities. Shooting that plane cannot be lawful, it is against the primary article of the Constitution 'Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is duty of all state authority' which must be respected unconditionally. Other arguments were also presented by the Court.

You might want to google a little to gain some understanding. I am only repeating myself.

 

[Herzblut]

Assuming it is as cut and dry as that (I.E. there is no chance of any other outcome) and assuming all of the lives are of equal worth to the rest of the world and assuming we are not concerned future events (I.E. there is no conspiracy to try to generate anti-islamic sentiment by letting the plane crash), then of course it should be shot down.

Yes, I agree. If I were in charge, I would possibly shoot the plane down.

But I don't think our assumption can ever be proved with no doubt. And it's impossible this act can ever be blessed by material law, as described above.

Whether it's a criminal act or not is a different question, about which the Court has not said a single word.

 

[rocketdodger]

You might want to google a little to gain some understanding. I am only repeating myself.

I know you are repeating yourself -- that is the problem. Please give me new information, for instance the answer to the question you have been dodging since the beginning of this thread.

I originally asked you why violating human dignity does not cause harm. You have ignored that question over and over.

Now I ask you why letting 4001 people die does not violate anyone's human dignity. You have ignored this question twice already.

I assume you will ignore these questions forever, because to answer them in any way necessarily exposes the major flaw in your reasoning. So ... do whatever you want I guess...

 

[ntropy]

Religion provided the soil from which the weed, science, sprouted from. To that extent, illusions have exalted humanity.

 

[Robin]

I am still not getting it, Robin. Omelas shows what is wrong with Utilitarianism in principle. If you accept that we can never get rid of all suffering, then working towards the maximising of happiness results in just such an outcome. In a utilitarian conception Omelas is a good and moral place.

On the contary, Utilitarianism, as defined by J.S. Mill would regard Omelas as a bad and immoral place.

You are not getting it because you are still insisting that your straw version of Utilitarianism is correct. But it is not.

Mill said specifically that you should value another persons good as much as you value your own. If you valued another persons good as much as your own then you could never, not even in principle be happy in Omelas.

So by Mill's definition a Utilitarian should walk away from Omelas.

Again you say that we need subjectivity. You agree we cannot assume the answer to the question. Where the person cannot respond, as in the unconscious patient, then you must ask her family and friends. So if they answer that they do not see any harm in the abuse that settles the matter? Not for me, I am afraid. I think it would still be wrong. It seems to me that you agree, yet I cannot see how utilitarianism gets you to that conclusion.

As a general rule Utilitarianism would say it is wrong because our overwhelming weight of experience and evidence is that it would cause unhappiness. Even if the family agreed to it, even if all the friends agreed to it it could not be considered good because the co-workers and the owners of the medical establishment are all parties.

If nobody involved at all had any problem with it whatsoever then we could not establish that the nurse had done anything morally wrong until the patient herself woke up.

If the nurse checks with his employer and his co-worker and ensures that the woman's friends and family are on board with his little plan and everybody agreed that it was morally OK for the nurse to do what he did and the patient herself said, "that's fine, I wasn't using my body anyway", then on what basis was the nurse's action wrong? I think it a slightly implausible example.

But how do you get to that conclusion that it was immoral.

The comatose patient who wakes up happy and marries the abuser is the essence of the "sleeping beauty" story. It is a very common theme. We teach it to children, (albeit in bowdlerised form: you may wish to make that an important distinction, but I cannot really see any essential difference if we assume the prince does not stop at a kiss).

No essential difference between a kiss and a fcuk? And does the prince have to keep his activities secret?

Or consider the Stockholm syndrome. It is not so unlikely - it happens. Does the fact that the captive reports themselves happy after conversion make the kidnapping right? It seems to me on your argument that it does.

If, after being free from the kidnappers and having time to think on it and discuss it with counsellors, they continue to be happy with the kidnapping then how could you say that there was nothing wrong with it?

Do you say you know better than them?

What about someone who was kidnapped from a cult and deprogrammed and was happy with the kidnapping? Would you say that was morally wrong?

So we cannot know, on the basis of utilitarianism, whether any given instance is right or wrong until we see the outcome.

Oh come now, I think that in the vast majority of cases we know whether or not our intentions are good. If we do not know whether our intentions are good then how does any moral system help us?

That is the essence of subjectivity and I do not think it leads to a moral conclusion. You may argue that the harm done to family and friends and the wider society outweighs the happiness of the kidnappers and their victim but I cannot see how one can measure and count those things in any "subjective" way: what is wrong with it seems to me to be based on some other intuition than arithmetic.

If you have some arithmetic that can tell us right from wrong then please share.

Please understand I am not arguing that system solves all dilemmas: I am only exploring the limits of subjectivity and I cannot get around the fact that the nurse's actions seem to me to be wrong even if every other person in the scenario does not agree that they are.

So do you think the Prince's actions in Sleeping Beauty (Disney version) are morally wrong?

And I do not agree that the "sleeping beauty" outcome is a problem for all ethical systems. Even in that case the nurse's actions would still be wrong within the Kantian model.

Please show how you think the Kantian model would lead to the conclusion that his act was wrong even if everybody involved, including the woman herself, approved.

 

[zosima]

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

What do you think of concretely? Which industries?

Well there are some that everyone can get behind, like the military(not military equipment production, but the military itself), but also things like the coinage of money, major utilities, and certain kinds of scientific research. I don't mean these always should be, but certain circumstances require it.

Basically, any time when the investment required to enter the market makes competition prohibitive. In the simplest terms this can be characterized as a high fixed cost and a low variable cost. Sometimes competition can be preserved without requiring nationalization. (By subsidizing the cost of entrance into the industry, or mandating fair behavior) Other times entrance of one industry into a market makes competition more difficult for other firms, or the investment required would result in an unreasonable duplication of effort.

The most obvious example is a network utility. To be effective a network utility needs to invest a huge some of money in the construction of their network so few firms can enter a market(they don't have the resources). Generally, it is not worth building a duplicated network in any area because it was so expensive to build in the first place. Firms that want to compete end up renting the network from the utility but at worse terms than the network owner. Moreover, the original network builder puts their network infrastructure at the optimal locations and purchase the cheapest properties, making any second network more expensive to build than the original. This means competing firms get forced out of the market, if they enter it at all. Thus we get situations like we have in the US, where you have a single phone company in an area, a single power company, etc... Without nationalization or regulation they can form a monopoly, charge whatever they want, and people are forced to accept the terms of the company without any choice. This is particular true for industries we can't do without.

If you look at the world market, the non-nationalized industries with few large firms that have allegations of monopoly and collusion are all high fixed cost low-variable cost industries. (Oil, Operating Systems, Power, Telephony/Internet) Certain high cost scientific endeavors are good examples. Things like the tokomak, or biotechnological research. (These things are essentially public sector)

The theory that allows us to determine which industries are anti-competitive and which ones are competitive is pretty well developed.

 

[Herzblut]

I originally asked you why violating human dignity does not cause harm.

Because you ignore the undeniable fact that violating somebody's dignity, e.g. by lying, does not neccessarily cause objective harm.

Now I ask you why letting 4001 people die does not violate anyone's human dignity.

How is euthanasia involved?

 

[Herzblut]

Well there are some that everyone can get behind, like the military(not military equipment production, but the military itself), but also things like the coinage of money, major utilities, and certain kinds of scientific research. I don't mean these always should be, but certain circumstances require it.

OK, sovereign state duties should not be outsourced to private enterprises.

Basically, any time when the investment required to enter the market makes competition prohibitive.

I believe this can be steered by politics in a regulated market. You mentioned networks and there's actually a Federal Network Agency to regulate the liberalization of a market that used to be totally dominated by Deutsche Telekom. Quite successfully. I think the current US situation also differs quite significantly from the good old days where there was AT&T and period. Actually, carriers like COLT are profitable now in Germany, after investing billions to layout their fiber acrosse Europe, admittedly.

 

[zosima]

OK, sovereign state duties should not be outsourced to private enterprises.

You have to remember that I'm in the US and there are people that would like to privatize every last parcel of the government. Basically they think that government itself is tyrannical and that all goods can be serviced via the free market.

I believe this can be steered by politics in a regulated market. You mentioned networks and there's actually a Federal Network Agency to regulate the liberalization of a market that used to be totally dominated by Deutsche Telekom. Quite successfully. I think the current US situation also differs quite significantly from the good old days where there was AT&T and period. Actually, carriers like COLT are profitable now in Germany, after investing billions to layout their fiber acrosse Europe, admittedly.

I think we're in agreement. When possible subsidy and regulation is a more ideal option and complete nationalization should be used sparingly. You're right too that the cost of rolling out a communications network has decreased significantly. Still, I'd bet another network based monopoly shows up in another form in the future.

 

[Herzblut]

You have to remember that I'm in the US and there are people that would like to privatize every last parcel of the government. Basically they think that government itself is tyrannical and that all goods can be serviced via the free market.

What a bizzare kind of ultra-libertarianism. What I regard more dangerous nowadays is the other end of stupidity, clowns like Chavez, Correa, Ortega who frantically nationalize all that generates money, just to run the national economy full speed against the brick wall.