Good and Evil (spam lite)

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:27 am

According to utilitarianism the moral right action would be the one that involves the least suffering (or the most pleasure). I this case it might be very hard to determine what is the right course of action. If the choices cause the same amount of overall pain or pleasure then the choice is morally speaking irrelevant.

The point of Utilitarianism is not to make it easy to figure out what the right thing is. We all know that it is sometimes very hard to know what action is the best. Utilitarianism defines what good and bad is.

You might of course not agree with the definition.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:57 pm

Originally posted by fable
But Tom, it's easy enough to speak of moral principles when (as in your example) it's all drawn with outliners in boldly contrasting colors. This doesn't deal with the issue I raised: "How does one recognize evil if the good you do is evil to me, and vice versa?"

Easy. I'm right, you're wrong.

Works for Dubyah.

More seriously, right and wrong are human conceptions. They're not naturally occurring (I seem to recall someone challenging anyone to say that human ideals of right and wrong weren't natural in another thread floating around about now-human ideals of right and wrong are unnatural) but rather are culturally and individually engendered.
AFAIK.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:32 am

Originally posted by das_hermit
More seriously, right and wrong are human conceptions. They're not naturally occurring (I seem to recall someone challenging anyone to say that human ideals of right and wrong weren't natural in another thread floating around about now-human ideals of right and wrong are unnatural) but rather are culturally and individually engendered.
AFAIK.

Apart for the unhelpful inclusion of; everything we are doing here is a human conception. What about animals? Is it not possible for there to be a right or wrong? Even in nonorganic matters you can have the right conditions for precipitation and the wrong conditions for a volcanic eruption.

Your naturalist arguement will eventually require that you claim human beings (as well as their actions and conceptions) are unnatural, do you? - Curdis !

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:49 am

Originally posted by Tom
If the choices cause the same amount of overall pain or pleasure then the choice is morally speaking irrelevant.

Or at least, beyond the grasp of Utilitarianism's philosophical tools.

The point of Utilitarianism is not to make it easy to figure out what the right thing is. We all know that it is sometimes very hard to know what action is the best. Utilitarianism defines what good and bad is.

I don't know that most people would agree withyour next to last statement. As for the last one, it seems that Utilitarianism, if I understand you correctly, doesn't define good and bad but rather swaps them out for degrees of pleasure or gain. (Not necessarily material gain; but surely a Utilitarian would comprehend the value of learning basic arithmetic in school, even if no pleasure is ever attached to it unless you're my wife?) Good and evil as such appear to have no intrinsic qualities under such a view; rather, they have a strictly social dimension. The "will to do good" vanishes under this concept. Am I missing something, here?

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:38 am

Originally posted by fable
Or at least, beyond the grasp of Utilitarianism's philosophical tools.

The point of Utilitarianism is not to make it easy to figure out what the right thing is. We all know that it is sometimes very hard to know what action is the best. Utilitarianism defines what good and bad is.

I don't know that most people would agree withyour next to last statement. As for the last one, it seems that Utilitarianism, if I understand you correctly, doesn't define good and bad but rather swaps them out for degrees of pleasure or gain. (Not necessarily material gain; but surely a Utilitarian would comprehend the value of learning basic arithmetic in school, even if no pleasure is ever attached to it unless you're my wife?) Good and evil as such appear to have no intrinsic qualities under such a view; rather, they have a strictly social dimension. The "will to do good" vanishes under this concept. Am I missing something, here?

You right, utilitarism is no peacefull way to define good or evil. Especially because it is like democracy. The amouth of wills involved multiply the total.

In other words, in a racist social context, the minorities are going to be supressed in the name of purity. Just because the majority will have more overral pleasure than the pain felt by 2 or 3.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:51 am

Originally posted by Delacroix
You right, utilitarism is no peacefull way to define good or evil. Especially because it is like democracy. The amouth of wills involved multiply the total.

In other words, in a racist social context, the minorities are going to be supressed in the name of purity. Just because the majority will have more overral pleasure than the pain felt by 2 or 3.

Well it could go like that, but in 'classical' utilitarianism (as per - John Stuart Mill) The 'good' for the racist majority even multiplied by a large amount would still be insignificant against the 'bad' of the 2 or 3 minority. This is both a strength and a weakness of the utilitarian view.

The 'classical' utilitarian would have no problem what-so-ever in 1 person dying to save 100 however.

@Fable - your two nations at war over a resource dilema. To make it work (as a dilema) you have to restrict all other choices but one nation against another. This is not the way the world works. It is unfortunately the way most people think the world should work (i.e. Coalition of the willing in Iraq). There will always be another way to deal with a problem even if it seems crazy to the participants. Your dilema I would solve by eliminating the national status of the two countries. Now united as one country the option to fight over the resource does not exist, and (even if the combined population halved as a result) a war and the need for any 'direct' resolution disappears.

@all Philosophy - Please read some of the basics. Most libraries have some basic books. The philosophic questions here are, to put it bluntly, very tired ground once you start to get in amoungst it. Until you can tell me (I know) the diference between Teleological and Deontological ethics and/or whether Utilitarianism is an extreme position, It is a bit like trying to explain tensor calculus to someone who is puzzled by long division. This is not a put down(I'm still puzzled by long division) and I have a long and sorry reputation for saying and doing dumb stuff, I just happen to someone who has read a book or two and written the odd essay. I am not the font of all wisdom and do not claim to be so but as Ian Dury once said "There's people who have read books and there's people who ain't". - Curdis !

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:12 am

Originally posted by Curdis
@Fable - your two nations at war over a resource dilema. To make it work (as a dilema) you have to restrict all other choices but one nation against another.

Not so. You only need people to think as they usually do, unimaginatively, within the box, on both sides. Such limitations of choice are even more thorough and longer-lasting than physical ones, because of the ingenuity of the human mind. Besides, I was using it to illustrate a point, not as a specific example that should be tested under other criteria. As I think you know.

Your dilema I would solve by eliminating the national status of the two countries. Now united as one country the option to fight over the resource does not exist, and (even if the combined population halved as a result) a war and the need for any 'direct' resolution disappears.

Methinks I detect a hint of deliberate irony in the above. -But if not, please do provide me with a copy of the wand you wave to instantly erase all hint of nationalism from both lands, and all mendacity from their leaders. I could accomplish wonders with it!

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:27 am

Originally posted by fable
Methinks I detect a hint of deliberate irony in the above. -But if not, please do provide me with a copy of the wand you wave to instantly erase all hint of nationalism from both lands, and all mendacity from their leaders. I could accomplish wonders with it!

Yes I fell a foul of what I most dislike - sophistry, not quite true. I (when I thought of it) considered this to be a remarkable eloquent solution to the problem as stated, which highlighted the need for lateralism.

A different solution, which highlights the issue of greyness, involves the two sides having at it and the victor then having to deal with the consequences of being the new master of the new uberstate (see the 'wand' really was brute force - but you knew that) The only politically possible solution was the extermination of the 'lesser' people of the conquered land so a ruthless campaign of death camps was instituted. The net result - a nation living within its resources brutalised by the exercise of it's own policies. Pyhric victory? - Curdis !

You can tell when my band's off the road.......

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:21 am

Originally posted by fable

I don't know that most people would agree withyour next to last statement. As for the last one, it seems that Utilitarianism, if I understand you correctly, doesn't define good and bad but rather swaps them out for degrees of pleasure or gain. (Not necessarily material gain; but surely a Utilitarian would comprehend the value of learning basic arithmetic in school, even if no pleasure is ever attached to it unless you're my wife?) Good and evil as such appear to have no intrinsic qualities under such a view; rather, they have a strictly social dimension. The "will to do good" vanishes under this concept. Am I missing something, here?

I think it is a little misleading to say that utilitarianism just swaps out good for pleasure. It is close though.

If you have a definition of what “morally good” is, it should become easier to determine the answer to any given moral question. Thus if you are not sure whether it is wrong for you to hit your neighbour you simply consult your definition and it should tell you.

Thus it is mightily attractive to have such a definition. Bentham was the first great proponent of utilitarianism but I don't think he came up with the idea(not sure who really).

But any way - the point is that utilitarianism is such a definition. Morally best action = the action that produces the most pleasure overall. Your example about basic arithmetic might be explained by a utilitarian like this: It is true that it causes children considerable discomfort to learn arithmetic but the overall gain in pleasure to them in later life and society outweighs the pain making it morally right to teach children arithmetic (the proponent has a cork inserted in a nether orifice causing him to be full of ....).

As curdis and delacroix points out it is a big problem that certain actions we normally assume are morally abhorrent are sanctioned by utilitarianism. Lets say (hypothetically) that the german people gained more in pleasure from the extermination of the jews than the jews suffered, then according to utilitarianism the holocaust is morally right. Hardly a judgement that bodes well for a moral theory.

It is generally accepted that the simple utilitarianism (sometimes called ethical hedonism) is untenable.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:38 am

Originally posted by Tom
I think it is a little misleading to say that utilitarianism just swaps out good for pleasure.

No doubt, but that's not what I said. My phrasing, including "if I understand you correctly," surely appears not as a statement, but an attempt to get confirmation or clarification from Curdis on his statements.

But any way - the point is that utilitarianism is such a definition. Morally best action = the action that produces the most pleasure overall. Your example about basic arithmetic might be explained by a utilitarian like this: It is true that it causes children considerable discomfort to learn arithmetic but the overall gain in pleasure to them in later life...

There's that word again: "pleasure." It just doesn't fit. People don't get pleasure from being able to figure out a 15% tip, or how to add the value of three items they want to buy and compare it to their cash-on-hand. Rather, they do it because it's necessary in contemporary culture. Thus, what is "good," would appear in this example to be what is required to exist in a given culture, and that's not identical to pleasure except in the most semantically tenuous sense.

As curdis and delacroix points out it is a big problem that certain actions we normally assume are morally abhorrent are sanctioned by utilitarianism. Lets say (hypothetically) that the german people gained more in pleasure from the extermination of the jews than the jews suffered, then according to utilitarianism the holocaust is morally right. Hardly a judgement that bodes well for a moral theory.

Exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when I asked, above, "How does one recognize evil if the good you do is evil to me, and vice versa?" No replies on that score, unless you count our sidetrip through the philosophical Care Bear system.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:52 am

Care Bunnies if you please

@Fable - Philosophical Care Bear System!?

It wasn't me you directed the 'If I understand correctly' to. To try and clarify the good(pleasure) of learning arithmatic is that in later life it enables you to access things that not having such an understanding does not. Clear?

It is always possible to make things more complex and confused though. Is a whipping a good or a bad to a masochist? This makes a mockery of any attempt to have an ideals based view of morality (moral code) which acknowledges the individual's preferences.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:27 am

Re: Care Bunnies if you please

Originally posted by Curdis
@Fable - Philosophical Care Bear System!?

It's good to help others, and it makes you feel good, too! -The Care Bears Film. Note the wink emoticon, above. Obviously, utilitarianism is a lot more complex than these horrific, animated escapees from some cartoon nightmare.

It wasn't me you directed the 'If I understand correctly' to. To try and clarify the good(pleasure) of learning arithmatic is that in later life it enables you to access things that not having such an understanding does not. Clear?

It was Tom, and no, having access to cultural functions involving the use of arithmetic is not identical to "pleasure" in any language I am aware of. It is a necessary modern skill, without any positive or negative emotional connotations. To argue that the things one buys with money counted out through arithmetic would constitute pleasure is stretching the example much, much too far. Short of that, I don't see any way to apply the utilitarian argument to the current example, unless we substitute effort/gain for pain/pleasure--and that drops us into an entirely different ethos.

It is always possible to make things more complex and confused though. Is a whipping a good or a bad to a masochist?

Please don't condescend to me by mocking my question, @Curdis. I wouldn't do that to anybody else, and I don't appreciate it being done to me. Nor am I making things more complex or confused; rather, I'm offering questions that I had hoped would reveal how untidy and disorderly definitions of morality can be, and as a result how very sophisticated the human mind is in applying a complex weighting system to evaluate these matters--so complex, that philosophers have been trying to understand and define in words for thousands of years what humans have been doing for as long without much conscious effort.

I have not made a mockery of attempts to have ideals based on moral codes, as you stated. I don't see where you're getting that, or presumably by inference where my previous posts over the last several years could have led you to believe that I am without morally-derived ideals. If an ethical system cannot deal with issues of relative complexity requiring conflict resolution, then it seems to me that such a system isn't quite up to the job for which it was intended. It's not unlike a scientific theory which that fails upon testing and then is discarded, in favor of another theory which more closely corresponds to reality. Pointing out the flaws in such a specific ethical philosophy is not mockery, but a standard, reasoned approach to arriving at a better comprehension of the issue we're discussing. I'm not suggesting good and evil are ultimately relative in the abstract, but by that same token, working out where degrees of good and evil in the multi-colored world of human affairs is far more difficult.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:30 am

@ curdis you seem a bit on edge lately...

this is nothing but a relaxed discussion among friends.

Are they stressing you out down under?

I brought up utilitarianism because it, in its classical formulation, is simple and unambiguous. Rather more complex is the issue whether the truth of moral statements are in some way dependent on opinions/upbringing/species/nationality/etc.

If the truth of moral statements are in some way dependent on us then utilitarianism is false.

This sounds strange because doesn't utilitarianism state that pleasure is the greatest good and isn't what causes pleasure dependent on the person!?

What is meant by dependant in this context is that the truth of a statement depends on the person making it. So I say it is wrong to kill cats - this is MADE true by my opinions/beliefs. It is not MADE true by the fact that it causes the cat pain. Thus the distinction is between a theory that makes truth of moral statements independent (realism) and a theory that makes it dependent on the person (anti-realism) is where the 'truth maker' is.

There is an exactly parallel discussion about physical objects. If you are a realist about physical objects you will hold that statements about physical objects are made true by the physical reality. So I say "the car has four wheels" - what makes the statement true according to the realist is whether the car actually has four wheels.

The person that holds that the truth of statements about physical objects is somehow dependent on us will say that what makes the statement, "the car has four wheels" true, is our belief/state-of-mind/etc. that the car has four wheels.

Thinking that the truth of moral statements is somehow dependent on us is a common position. Thinking the same about physical objects is a lot less common, but not unheard of.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:14 am

Re: Re: Care Bunnies if you please

Originally posted by fable
Please don't condescend to me by mocking my question, @Curdis. I wouldn't do that to anybody else, and I don't appreciate it being done to me.

Not my intention at all and if I have caused you a moment of discomfort I apologise profusely. It will teach me to try to reply to questions which weren't directed to me in the first place. I was trying to give an example of the difficulty of judging from an act alone.

In one work on the issue they look at the following propositions:

Moral priniples cannot be overriden(YES/NO).

Moral principles are objectively valid(YES/NO).

Moral principles must be universalizable(YES/NO).

Moral principles are interpersonal(YES/NO).

Moral principles apply to oneself(YES/NO).

We can know wether there is moral truth(YES/NO).

Given the answers to these questions you can place yourself on a group of possible positions ranging from Absolutism to Objectivism to Subjective Universalism to Conventionalism to Subjectivism to Amoralism to Moral Skepticism. From Beyond Subjective Morality, J. Fishkin, Yale University Press 1984

I would never personally support Utilitarianism because it is completely depersonalised. By this I mean it is all well and good to commit someone to die to support the life of many but when that person is your child? It just doesn't lead to satisfactory outcomes for individuals and leads inevitably to the question of who is doing the adding up.

Originally posted by Tom@ curdis you seem a bit on edge lately...

this is nothing but a relaxed discussion among friends.

Are they stressing you out down under?

Lately

?

No, not at all. (Although I have often asked others to clarify their position and then been ignored) I hope this is still a relaxed discussion among friends. And if there is a feeling that it is not p.m. me and I will step aside.

Who are they? (I work for myself. I know the boss is a clueless bufoon.)

Where I was heading with all this is that, as indeed Fable points out, the difficulties in moral theory are so profound that a system as simple as Utilitarism is bound to fail. However I don't think that means that the project is doomed. I would place myself around.

Moral principles must be universalizable(YES).

Moral principles are interpersonal(YES).

Moral principles apply to oneself(YES).

We can know wether there is moral truth(YES).

And I suppose that I have to accept these to support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but acording to J. Fishkin this makes me a Subjective Universalist. - Curdis

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:51 am

Originally posted by Curdis
Apart for the unhelpful inclusion of; everything we are doing here is a human conception. What about animals? Is it not possible for there to be a right or wrong? Even in nonorganic matters you can have the right conditions for precipitation and the wrong conditions for a volcanic eruption.

Your naturalist arguement will eventually require that you claim human beings (as well as their actions and conceptions) are unnatural, do you? - Curdis !

Sorry it takes me so long to reply to posts nowadays, I don't have access to the 'net much.

Re. my naturalist argument, yes, I do claim that humans, or at any rate many of their actions and conceptions, are unnatural. The problem with this being that it then leads on to a debate about what is/is not natural, and doesn't really answer the question.
As before, apologies for the tardiness of my reply. I enjoy discussions of this sort, fruitless though they often turn out to be.