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

[articulett]

Isn't this derail on utilitarianism an attempt to provide evidence that the "illusions that exalt us" trump 10,000 truths?

 

[Robin]

Isn't this derail on utilitarianism an attempt to provide evidence that the "illusions that exalt us" trump 10,000 truths?

The premise being used to critique Utilitarianism is that sexual abuse does not necessarily cause harm and increases the general happiness in the community.

That is certainly an illusion, but I don't think it exalts anybody or trumps anything.

 

[articulett]

The premise being used to critique Utilitarianism is that sexual abuse does not necessarily cause harm and increases the general happiness in the community.

That is certainly an illusion, but I don't think it exalts anybody or trumps anything.

I see... one must have a pretty strong need to critique Utilitarianism to come up with such a premise, I guess.

And since it doesn't cause harm in this invented premise, then per Fiona's own statement* she respects anyone involved in making such a decision and she would not steal the choice from the person making it.

*"I do believe that if a person makes any kind of choice at all which does no harm I must respect it: and I do believe that I must not steal someone else's choice, whether that choice is right or wrong"

Interesting "morality"... but that's what happens I guess when you base your morality on illusions I suppose.

All the more reason for me to prefer the single truth over the 10,000 illusions that make people feel more moral without having to actual behave in a way that makes life better for anyone.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

By your own hypothetical it does no harm-so you "must respect it".

How exactly is rape not causing harm? I'm curious.

 

[porch]

How exactly is rape not causing harm? I'm curious.

You'd have to ask Herzblut, it's his hypothetical scenario from post #99. He came up with this right after his "harmless pedophilia" scenario. Somewhat disturbing, really, but the whole thing was actually an ingenious setup to for his clever trap. It goes something like this:

"Imagine a situation where rape is okay. Is it okay?"

"Uh, that's kind of weird and creepy, but, sure, if it's okay then it's okay."

"HA! I just got you to say that rape is okay when everybody knows it's not okay! GOTCHA!!"

But someone must have given away spoilers for that story, because most people seemed to realize how dumb it was before he even got to the punchline, and everybody lost brain points just by having been subjected to it, and now it's hard to remember that the male nurse in the story is a male nurse, and whenever it's brought up it has to be pointed out that it's a male nurse, because the nurse is a male.

 

[articulett]

Thanks Porch. I think you've tied things up fabulously for me.

Rock on.

 

[rocketdodger]

I see... one must have a pretty strong need to critique Utilitarianism to come up with such a premise, I guess.

Or nothing better to do.

There are two kinds of people in the world -- those that try to create what they want and those that try to destroy what they don't want.

 

[Fiona]

You can't have it both ways.

You have stated that the hypothetical rape does no harm*.

So the male nurse's decision is a decision that does no harm.

And you have stated that you must respect any kind of choice at all that does no harm.

So you must respect the male nurse's choice.

[edit]* In fact you have stenuously denied at some length that it does harm[/edit]

No I haven't.

I do think it is morally wrong. So do you.

He keeps it secret yes. I think he does so because he knows it is morally wrong.

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.

The nurse steals the woman's choice.

As it is perfectly clear you are intent on misrepresenting all and everything I say, I will bow out gracefully. I had hoped to learn something of utilitarianism from you and others here, but since you are certainly less reliable than SEP I do not think it is wise to rely on you

 

[articulett]

Yes, you will bow out gracefully and you will tell yourself it's for the reasons you mention. I think the rest of us know that you are bowing out because you were trapped by your own bit of disingenuousness. I find Robin amazingly reliable, well reasoned, and having gone through exceeding effort on your behalf to help you "learn about utilitarianism" as you pretend to have been interested in. (We all know that you thought you understood utilitarianism and what you understood was a straw man designed to make skeptics who subscribe to utilitarinaism into people "less moral" then you IMAGINE yourself.

What's so hard about admitting you might have a bias? Suppose you just assumed that it was so and that you wanted to fix it? What harm could that cause? People like those who are humble enough to admit their issues-- those trying to cover for them come off as defensive blowhards.

Wouldn't presuming you may have been inadvertently biased give you the best chance at addressing this bigotry if you possessed it? Examine the OP for bias rather them to convince yourself that there isn't any. Do you think your maligning of others isn't a transparent attempt at hiding this possibility from yourself? Do you think you and Blauregen and Herzy have been some sort of model of decorum or conveyed understanding to anyone regarding utilitarianism, the quote in the OP or anything else? What was your real goal on this thread really? Surely you didn't start posting because of your eagerness to learn about utilitarianism.

If you really want to learn something you might try examining very closely that thing you don't want to examine. What's the harm? If you aren't biased, what's the harm in considering that you might be and explore from there? Perhaps testing the null hypothesis will support your belief that you are not biased. Arguing vehemently that you are not biased, however, cannot make that belief "true"... nor can it help you become aware of a flaw in your thinking of which you may have been previously unaware. Aren't skeptics interested in correcting their irrationalities. Even the smartest people have them, you know.

I think you've only managed to convince yourself of your last paragraph, Fiona. You sure haven't convinced me. And I think you've been far more offensive than the people you've criticized on this particular thread. I recommend you bow out until you are brave enough to examine whether you might have a bias you are afraid to examine.

No one has misrepresented you. You have misrepresented a large number of people in order to raise your illusions of your moral superiority in your head from my reading.

Oh, and by the way... you never apologized for treating me like I was crazy or didn't speak English because I said there was no such thing as a "moral truth". You also never defined it and no one else stepped up to the plate to agree that this is a legitimate term that everyone understands as you alleged.

What comes around; goes around-- is that a "moral truth" Fiona? Is that one of those illusions that exalts you?

I like a lot of your posts. I really don't like the way you've treated me and posters I've come to respect on this thread or the fact that you dragged your issues to another thread to embarrass yourself further and blame me for that. I do not share your opinion of who the "bad guys" and "misrepresenters" are... much less your opinion that illusions trump truths. I think you've been your own worst enemy in regard to peoples treatment of you in this thread. You are doing exactly what porch has illustrated so humorously and now you are trapped. But you are lucky-- you are smart-- you can't change other people, but you can change yourself. And then everyone can kiss and make up.

 

[Herzblut]

How exactly is rape not causing harm? I'm curious.

I'd say that, in general, the stronger the victim's physical resistence the more severe will be her injuries.

Does that make raping defenseless people any better?

 

[Robin]

No I haven't.

*sigh*. You haven't denied that the woman is harmed?

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

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

No objective harm can be demonstrated, as Herzblut has pointed out.

And I questioned this, I said I wish people wouldn't keep claiming the woman was not harmed. You stuck to your guns.

You eventually claimed I was stretching the definition of harm to suggest she or her relatives or friends or his co-workers were harmed.

Do you remember this?

My second problem is the use of the word harm. Let us think about those you mention. Might they be angry? Is anger then harm? Might they be sad? And therefore harm includes sadness? Might they feel vengeful or frightened or indignant or murderous? Are all of these to fall within the definition of harm? Might they be bewildered or feel betrayed? Might they be remorseful that they did not take active steps to prevent it? Might the woman be joyful that the nurse loves her and they will then get married and live happily ever after? If harm is to include all of these possiblities I do not really see it retains any meaning.

And yes, I am quite serious, I assure you

And now, when you find yourself cornered by your own position you get all holier than now and offended that I point out what you have been arguing!

So which is it? Has harm been done (as you now claim). Or is there no harm (as you have been arguing for the past few pages).

As it is perfectly clear you are intent on misrepresenting all and everything I say, I will bow out gracefully. I had hoped to learn something of utilitarianism from you and others here, but since you are certainly less reliable than SEP I do not think it is wise to rely on you

Oh pullease. Do you remember this?

but since you are currently founding on the idea that people are incapable of being happy if that happiness is founded on another's misery, plausibility does not seem to come into it.

Again, please feel completely free to quote the part where I said that. Seriously.

Did you even acknowledge that I had asked you to back this misrepresentation up? No. You ignored me.

So you feel perfectly justified in misrepresenting me.

Yet when repeat back what you have specifically said you cry misrepresentation, throw a fit of the sulks and take your ball home.

I will remember not to waste time on such as you in the future.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'd say that, in general, the stronger the victim's physical resistence the more severe will be her injuries.

Does that make raping defenseless people any better?

Is your definition of harm limited to physical damage?

If so -- you have a very different definition than the rest of the educated world (note that the Bush administration is not part of the educated world).

If not -- what is the point of your question?

 

[Sceptic Realist]

I'd say that, in general, the stronger the victim's physical resistence the more severe will be her injuries.

Does that make raping defenseless people any better?

You don't think there's a psychological component to the harm as well?

ETA: Damn, rocket beat me to it. ><

 

[Sceptic Realist]

double post

 

[Herzblut]

You don't think there's a psychological component to the harm as well?

Of course I do. But my argument was about physical harm.

Do you deny there might be physical harm? Do you deny my severeness argument is reasonable?

 

[Herzblut]

And I questioned this, I said I wish people wouldn't keep claiming the woman was not harmed. You stuck to your guns.

We stick to reality, not to wishful thinking.

1. Please specify what kind of objective, medical harm the comatose patient will be diagnosed with.
2. Please describe the harm difference to a role play, where the woman voluntarily acts as if she were comatose.

The correct answers are

1. None.
2. None.

which clearly demonstrates how invalid your standpoint is.

 

[Fiona]

Ok. You do not like it if I bow out, so I will try once again.

Herzblut proposed a hypothetical situation. This is quite a helpful way to explore an idea, and so that is what I think we were doing. I did not know very much about the utilitarian position then, but what I understood of it seemed to say that one must, as a matter of moral good, pursue happiness and minimise harm. Since harm is defined in terms of pleasure and pain the harm in the hypothetical situation cannot be demonstrated if the focus is on the two people most concerned. And so the pursuit of the nurse's pleasure is a moral act within the terms of the system

To deal with that rather obvious consequence Utilitarianism has been modified to include wider harm than the two people directly concerned, and so we now move to the aggregate happiness of a wider group including the nurse's employers and the patient's family and, for all I know, our lizard overlords on alpha centauri. The pleasure or pain each of these entities derives from the nurse's actions must be brought into the equation, and if the aggregate of these is more pain than pleasure the action is immoral.

It is assumed that this will be the case, and so the action is said to be immoral. There is no practical way to prove this and it is not a certain outcome at all. Many will be indifferent:many will find that voyeurism is very pleasurable: many will feel negative emotions too. So we need to add these up. As there is no measure we can use to do this, it seems to me it is an assumption. Is it an assumption I happen to agree with but it does not rescue the system. So the moral implications must be worked out hypothetically too

In physics people learned a lot about the laws of motions by asking themselves "what if there were no friction". Similarly it is useful in this case to ask oneself "what if there were no harm?" or "what if there was less harm than pleasure?". And so I asked it. I do not think it is legitimate to make either of the moves made here: ie 1. to deny the premise of the hypothetical on the grounds that the harm is self evident: friction exists but the hypothetical case in which it does not does teach us things, and that is the point.2. to expand the scope of the harm till it has no meaning, in order to demonstrate that all things fit with the theory.

I now see that it is the utilitarian point of view that indeed, if there is no harm then there is no moral problem. This is in keeping with what I first thought and I do not think there are any who have denied this is the outcome for a utilitarian point of view.

I do not accept this. I think that even where there was no harm the action would still be wrong. Therefore I am not a utilitarian, whatever else I might be. And that is all that has happened.

In the course of this discussion I have learned a lot more about utilitarianism as presented by Bentham and Mill. I think Bentham was saying something substantive but I think he was wrong. I think Mill tried to rescue the idea by expanding its scope. But in doing so I think he lost the substantive point. According to him the whole of the utilitarian ethic is summed up in "love they neighbour" and "do as you would be done by", as propounded by Jesus of Nazareth. In that case he has done nothing new and all we have is new big word which does not have a meaning beyond ethical systems which went before.

 

[Herzblut]

Herzblut proposed a hypothetical situation. This is quite a helpful way to explore an idea, and so that is what I think we were doing. I did not know very much about the utilitarian position then, but what I understood of it seemed to say that one must, as a matter of moral good, pursue happiness and minimise harm. Since harm is defined in terms of pleasure and pain the harm in the hypothetical situation cannot be demonstrated if the focus is on the two people most concerned. And so the pursuit of the nurse's pleasure is a moral act within the terms of the system

Excellent post, Fiona.

Please let me add that the most fashionable branch of today's consequentialism does one further step, a huge one, to include the happiness/suffering of "non-human animals" into the equation, judging eg the moral position of porks related to "human animals".

This is where there's only one response from my side, adamant rejection. Peter Singer is the leading voice in this area, and Richard Dawkins and his "brights" follow Singer. Please remember this and you will recognize next time articulett and others talk ethics and our "fellow creatures" or what have you.

 

[rocketdodger]

Of course I do. But my argument was about physical harm.

Do you deny there might be physical harm? Do you deny my severeness argument is reasonable?

No, I don't deny it. I also want to ask -- who cares? What is your point here? What point have you been trying to make this whole thread? Because quite honestly that post by porch perfectly sums up your participation thus far.

All you have done is show that utilitarianism is flawed, according to you, because people can <somehow, magically, in a way you refuse to define> be harmed by behaviors that don't lead to any harm. If you think that makes any sense then great, I guess ... but you would be the only one.

 

[rocketdodger]

Since harm is defined in terms of pleasure and pain the harm in the hypothetical situation cannot be demonstrated if the focus is on the two people most concerned. And so the pursuit of the nurse's pleasure is a moral act within the terms of the system.

Correct.

To deal with that rather obvious consequence Utilitarianism has been modified to include wider harm than the two people directly concerned, and so we now move to the aggregate happiness of a wider group including the nurse's employers and the patient's family and, for all I know, our lizard overlords on alpha centauri. The pleasure or pain each of these entities derives from the nurse's actions must be brought into the equation, and if the aggregate of these is more pain than pleasure the action is immoral.

But you are missing an essential piece of the puzzle here -- the moral agent only needs to bring the pleasure or pain of any other entity into the equation if the moral agent thinks they will gain utility from such a consideration. We are not talking about maximizing overall happiness objectively -- we are talking about maximizing it from the standpoint of the moral agent.

It is the ultimate form of selfishness, but leads to good deeds from good people. Why? Because good people typically place great utility in considering the pleasure of others.

I do not think it is legitimate to make either of the moves made here: ie
...snip...
2. to expand the scope of the harm till it has no meaning, in order to demonstrate that all things fit with the theory.

We are not expanding the scope of harm until it has no meaning. We are simply letting everyone who is affected by an action define whether or not it harms them, rather than applying some kind of an objective measurement.

What is wrong with such an approach? I really don't get why you insist that there is a absolute measure of harm -- what happens when someone claims you are harming them and your measurement says otherwise? What happens when someone insists something is not harming them and your measurement says otherwise? I asked herzblut this question and of course he dodged it, but really it is the heart of the issue here. Shouldn't people get to define what harms them?

I do not accept this. I think that even where there was no harm the action would still be wrong.

But you (like herzblut) refuse to explain how this could be. We have asked you two to give us some examples of actions that cause no harm yet you consider wrong.

So far, both of you have failed to do so. What you have done is given us examples of actions that others may consider harmless and you consider wrong. We want examples of actions you consider harmless.

As an example, herzblut has said that he thinks it is possible to breach human dignity, thereby making an immoral choice, without harming anyone. Yet, he has consistently ignored all our questions as to how this is possible. He has not given a single example of an action that he considers 1) to be a breach of human dignity and 2) not to harm anyone. If he can't think of any examples, given his penchant for wild hypotheticals, then why is he so sure of the position?