|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2009 : 10:26:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I wonder how many of the objectivists think that everyone who commits some bad act and who isn't psychopathic must feel guilt. As if Hitler were sitting in his bunker saying, "well, I didn't want to do it, but I really had no choice. This guilt I'll never erase, but the human race will be better off." So the Spartans, undoubtedly, were all wracked with heartbreak over the sick peer-pressure they were under to slaughter their own babies. Maybe. |
Yeah, I think rather they would say "Even if Hitler didn't feel bad, what he did was still wrong." The evidence for that claim is that we feel it was wrong. It's often presented as a challenge. "Are you defending Hitler?" Of course no one wants to make the argument that what Hitler did was moral, so they often are forced to concede to the objectivist view. Personally, I just say I think Hitler acted immorally according to my standards of morality. But it is a temptation to believe that one's own standards are the standards of morality. As Ricky astutely observed, it's all very self-centered.
| Originally posted by H. HumbertI think the trend over time has been for moral systems to be continually revised to consider the most good for the most people... |
Well, that's the problem. If a moral system has no absolute basis against which to measure "goodness," then the phrase "the most good" doesn't mean much, does it?
|
No, I disagree. True, there is no such thing as "absolute" goodness (or if there is, it is necessarily unknowable to us limited humans), exactly like there are no "absolute" truths. But there are small T truths, and we can speak of goodness in narrow, human terms. I think there is a basic kernel of truth in Baxter's observation that most human cultures value certain traits like honesty and fairness. As Marc Houser points out in his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, evolution has instilled a basic moral "grammar" in all of us. That is, rudimentary moral rules that are used as building blocks to comprise larger moral systems.
Again, the corollary is to our sense of taste. We all are born with a predilection for certain basic taste cues: sweet, salty, sour, bitter and savory. However, how individual cultures go about satisfying these basic yearnings is greatly varied, as indicated by all the different cuisines in the various cultures of the world. And there are definite limits regarding what's considered palatable, as I pointed out earlier. No culture ever served up warm excrement. (True, you might mind someone who is mentally ill eating their own excrement, but such aberrations would be by definition exceptions to the rule.)
I think morals work much in the same manner. The basic yearnings are universal, but the manner in which they are expressed widely varies. Even past cultures which appeared to be performing immoral acts by our standards were following a moral rule which made sense within the understanding of their own culture. For instance, burning young women as witches seems barbaric and immoral to us, but within the culture doing the burning they were actually acting to protect their own communities from harm, and that's an impulse we can identify with.
One of the errors people like Baxter do make, in my opinion, is in assuming that our universal moral yearnings should apply universally--which is actually not the case. What I mean is, evolution conditioned us to form strong emotional bonds with our immediate community or "tribe," and it's these emotional bonds which largely drives the engine of our morality. So cultures often develop very different moral systems for in-groups and out-groups. Stealing can be viewed as immoral when done from a neighbor and as an act of courage when done from a competing tribe--and both of these views may be held without moral contradiction. It's only when one tries to formulate universal moral "laws" like "stealing is always wrong" that one runs into trouble. That's why we can have instances like the French praising disloyalty to the Nazi Party while being condemned by the Nazis. It's an in-group/out-group thing.
In order to measure this sense of tribalism in yourself, ask yourself "who would I risk my life for?" For most of us, we would absolutely risk our lives for the sake of our immediate family--our children, spouse, or parents. For our friends? Probably. How about for our more distant family like our cousins? Depends, but maybe. Passing acquaintances? Now, I'm not so sure. This can be extended further and further out. We probably hold greater allegiances to our neighbors than to fellow citizens of our city, our fellow citizens to our countrymen, and our countrymen to foreigners. Rare is the individual willing to give their life for a complete stranger.
When I said that the "trend over time has been for moral systems to be continually revised to consider the most good for the most people," what I meant was that we have largely tried to move beyond these tribal inclinations. Emotionally I may have no direct stake in the well-being of a foreigner living in another country, but rationally I understand that the same values which apply to other members of my tribe should be extended to everyone everywhere if we are to come together as a global community. Thus, morality has moved from being purely emotional tribalism to more of a rational choice, but one still rooted in our evolved moral predispositions.
So, in my opinion, is morality subjective? Yes. Does that mean "anything goes" and we can't talk about "goodness" in any meaningful way? No, not that either. It's somewhere in the middle. Morality is highly plastic but not infinitely plastic.
Sorry, I know this was pretty rambling. I feel that I might have contradicted myself at least once. Hopefully there is enough there to critique and spur further discussion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/01/2009 10:36:59 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2009 : 11:15:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
It's universal to condemn acts of cowardice and praise acts of love, and yes, it's our moral judgments that determine for us what acts would fit into what category. |
That would depend entirely on the situation.
I couldn't condemn an act of cowardice if I could see how such an act is pitted against the person's survival instinct.
A mother shielding her child who committed murder could be acting out of love for her child, but that's not an act I would praise, on the contrary (probably).
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2009 : 13:39:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
When I said that the "trend over time has been for moral systems to be continually revised to consider the most good for the most people," what I meant was that we have largely tried to move beyond these tribal inclinations. Emotionally I may have no direct stake in the well-being of a foreigner living in another country, but rationally I understand that the same values which apply to other members of my tribe should be extended to everyone everywhere if we are to come together as a global community. |
To continue playing Devil's Advocate: is that a "good" thing? If I remember correctly, there are a couple of islands in the Indian Ocean where planes, helicopters and boats are greeted with hails of stone-tipped arrows. Despite the xenophobia, the islanders seem to be getting along okay. They haven't died out. Should a "global community" be a goal of ours? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2009 : 14:39:56 [Permalink]
|
For Baxter, a quote from Jeff Sharlet, who is quoting David Coe of "The Family"They say, "Why do we care about King David? Because he was chosen, not 'cause he was a good guy." And he says (as you say), "Let me illustrate that." He turns to this man and says, "suppose I hear you raped three little girls, what would I think of you?" And you know, this guy, being sane and human, says, "uh, that I'm awful, I'm a monster." And Coe says, "No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't because you're chosen. As a member of the Family, you're chosen, and when you're chosen, the normal rules don't apply. Morality is for the little people." That stunned Bill Maher into silence.
H/T PZ. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 11:26:58 [Permalink]
|
Wow, thanks guys for the challenging responses as I struggle through this issue. I'll reply quickly as I don't foresee having time for a more detailed post in the near future.
Dave, that's a really good point regarding a subjective basis vs. no basis. Ya'll are correct, I didn't really think of it that way. I also appreciate the farmer vs. wolf example.
And Humbert, your comments on consensus were very helpful. I think maybe you've said some of what I was trying to say but articulated it better.
As an INTP, I'm trying to wrap my head around this topic, and I'm closer to doing so now.
This does bring to my mind another question, why be so harsh on the OT god and his atrocities? Wasn't he just a product of the morality of that time? I mean, our morality has generally expanded to include more people. So if we're looking at past cultures and what we see as terrible acts, shouldn't we give them a bit of a break since their morality had not yet expanded to include people of other nations/tribes/whatever? |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
| Edited by - Baxter on 08/06/2009 11:28:26 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 11:39:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
This does bring to my mind another question, why be so harsh on the OT god and his atrocities? Wasn't he just a product of the morality of that time? I mean, our morality has generally expanded to include more people. So if we're looking at past cultures and what we see as terrible acts, shouldn't we give them a bit of a break since their morality had not yet expanded to include people of other nations/tribes/whatever? |
Well, if Yahweh is understood to be an invention of a past culture, then yes, his actions and edicts are completely explainable as manifestations of the culture which invented him. The problem only surfaces when one asserts that Yahweh really is an omniscient, benevolent, eternal being. It's then that his behavior requires further explanation.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/06/2009 11:40:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 11:40:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
Dave, that's a really good point regarding a subjective basis vs. no basis. Ya'll are correct, I didn't really think of it that way. I also appreciate the farmer vs. wolf example. |
You're quite welcome.| As an INTP, I'm trying to wrap my head around this topic, and I'm closer to doing so now. |
You should get the Myers-Briggs stuff out of your head, too. It attempts to pigeonhole everyone into 16 neat little categories (and so is intesely over-simplistic), and it's been shown to be unreliable (retesting often provides different results).| This does bring to my mind another question, why be so harsh on the OT god and his atrocities? Wasn't he just a product of the morality of that time? I mean, our morality has generally expanded to include more people. So if we're looking at past cultures and what we see as terrible acts, shouldn't we give them a bit of a break since their morality had not yet expanded to include people of other nations/tribes/whatever? |
The problem with the OT God is that people today wish to impose that 2,000-plus-year-old morality upon us all. Besides, as an atheist, I'm not harsh on God at all: I don't think one exists. I'm harsh on the living, breathing people who think not only that God exists, but that he's good for us. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 14:41:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
For Baxter, a quote from Jeff Sharlet, who is quoting David Coe of "The Family"They say, "Why do we care about King David? Because he was chosen, not 'cause he was a good guy." And he says (as you say), "Let me illustrate that." He turns to this man and says, "suppose I hear you raped three little girls, what would I think of you?" And you know, this guy, being sane and human, says, "uh, that I'm awful, I'm a monster." And Coe says, "No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't because you're chosen. As a member of the Family, you're chosen, and when you're chosen, the normal rules don't apply. Morality is for the little people." That stunned Bill Maher into silence.
H/T PZ.
|
And I ordered the book that same night. I thought holly shit, stunned silence, this I got to read. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 18:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Another example, Baxter:
Scenario A: There's a runaway trolley coming down some tracks. The tracks split, and there's a switch that you're standing near, that is currently set to allow the trolley to follow the east set of tracks. The problem is that there are five people sleeping on the east tracks, who will all be killed. On the west track, there is only a single person. Do you flip the switch?
Scenario B: There's a runaway trolley coming down some tracks. The tracks go straight under a bridge on which you're standing. There are five people sleeping on the tracks south of the bridge. There's also an immensely fat man standing on the bridge with you, and if you were to push him off the bridge, his body would stop the trolley, but he would die. Do you push him?
Morally, the two scenarios are equivalent: inaction on your part will result in the death of five people, leaving one stranger alive. Action on your part will kill one person, saving five strangers. One would think that if morality were objective, people's responses in both scenarios would be the same.
Yet most people asked the scenario A question say they'd flip the switch (kill one, save five), while most people asked the scenario B question say they would not push the man off the bridge (kill five, save one).
(There's a hypothesis that when asked the scenario B question, people are thinking that the fat man is an "innocent bystander" and so physically forcing him to be the solution to the problem is unfair, but I don't buy it because the guy on the west track in scenario A is an innocent bystander until you flip the switch. In both scenarios, the single person is in no jeopardy whatsoever until you act. And at your wrongful death or manslaughter trial, the prosecution would argue much the same thing.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 09:40:41 [Permalink]
|
That's interesting....I answered push the button and save five; I also answered push one save five.
How about this: Your option is to save one top scientist and kill five card carrying ignorant white supremacists or vice versa? |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 09:48:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Another example, Baxter:
Scenario A: There's a runaway trolley coming down some tracks. The tracks split, and there's a switch that you're standing near, that is currently set to allow the trolley to follow the east set of tracks. The problem is that there are five people sleeping on the east tracks, who will all be killed. On the west track, there is only a single person. Do you flip the switch?
Scenario B: There's a runaway trolley coming down some tracks. The tracks go straight under a bridge on which you're standing. There are five people sleeping on the tracks south of the bridge. There's also an immensely fat man standing on the bridge with you, and if you were to push him off the bridge, his body would stop the trolley, but he would die. Do you push him?
Morally, the two scenarios are equivalent: inaction on your part will result in the death of five people, leaving one stranger alive. Action on your part will kill one person, saving five strangers. One would think that if morality were objective, people's responses in both scenarios would be the same.
Yet most people asked the scenario A question say they'd flip the switch (kill one, save five), while most people asked the scenario B question say they would not push the man off the bridge (kill five, save one).
(There's a hypothesis that when asked the scenario B question, people are thinking that the fat man is an "innocent bystander" and so physically forcing him to be the solution to the problem is unfair, but I don't buy it because the guy on the west track in scenario A is an innocent bystander until you flip the switch. In both scenarios, the single person is in no jeopardy whatsoever until you act. And at your wrongful death or manslaughter trial, the prosecution would argue much the same thing.)
|
Thinking about this a little more (about 2 minutes) there is another argument for saving the fat man.
The fat man is more innocent in the sense that anyone sleeping on a set of tracks gets what they deserve. That is to say that sleeping on a set of tracks is a very moronic thing to do. In scenario A you have two sets of morons and you have to choose whether or not one moron dies or five. (In that sense maybe saving one moron is the "greater good").
In scenario B you have five morons sleeping on the tracks and you have an innocent bystander you can kill to save the morons.
Just another way of looking at it. In the heat of the moment I would most likely follow my original response. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 10:44:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Just another way of looking at it. |
Sure, we can invent all sorts of things which aren't evident in the original questions at all. Like you've invented that the people are sleeping on the tracks because they're morons, as opposed to sleeping on the tracks because they've been drugged by an evil villain.
If they were bound and gagged and laid across the tracks by Snidley Whiplash, would it make them more or less sympathetic? Couldn't we say that they were morons for getting caught by such a buffoonish bad-guy?
Seriously, we can't say why any person is there, doing what they're doing, even "you," the hypothetical moral decision-maker. (What the hell are you doing standing between the tracks, next to the switch? Doesn't that seem a little... convenient? How do we know that you didn't tell those poor people to sleep on the tracks?) So really, making a moral judgement based upon criteria that aren't included in the questions (judgements of the reasons for peoples' presence near the tracks) is to make a judgement based on nothing at all. Undoubtedly, people do make that sort of snap-judgement all the time, and it's probably a part (if not all) of the explanation of the different answers to the questions, but I don't think it's a good thing.
By the way, every time I think of scenario B, the fat man I imagine is eating an ice-cream cone and cheerfully humming to himself. Very sympathetic character. I push him over the side, anyway. I hope those other five people won't be assholes, if I ever find myself in this situation in real life. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 12:47:35 [Permalink]
|
| Yet most people asked the scenario A question say they'd flip the switch (kill one, save five), while most people asked the scenario B question say they would not push the man off the bridge (kill five, save one). |
It sounds like this was part of a study, is that the case? If so, what is the title/journal it's in?
| Sure, we can invent all sorts of things which aren't evident in the original questions at all. |
Saying that someone is sleeping on the tracks, without any further qualification, suggests to me that they are willfully sleeping there. I would imagine people bound and gagged and placed on train tracks would not readily fall asleep, and there is a difference between sleeping and being drugged.
It may be reading between the lines, a little, but again to me the word "sleeping" suggests that it is willful. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 08:17:06 [Permalink]
|
| Option C: Just when you are about to act, a fat man pushes you off the bridge into the path of the upcoming trolley slowing the train enough to save two of the five people bound and drugged on the tracks. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 23:13:01 [Permalink]
|
Damn kids with their lack of Google skillz!Originally posted by Ricky
It sounds like this was part of a study, is that the case? If so, what is the title/journal it's in? |
Apparently, it's been done and re-done dozens or hundreds of times over the years. I imagine it's a rather basic study for people to do in low-numbered psychology, philosophy and/or ethics classes. It's also been re-done on the Web a zillion times. A representative example has 88% of respondents flipping the switch, but only 4% of respondents pushing the fat man. Of course, in that example, the trolley is a train (and since trains will barrel through 18-wheelers unimpeded, it must be an incredibly fat man), and the people on the tracks are workers (who seem to be deaf and blind).| It may be reading between the lines, a little, but again to me the word "sleeping" suggests that it is willful. |
The real problem is just with the way the problem is set up, with a trolley (or train). Somehow, the person posing the problem must get the people onto the tracks to be killed. Deaf-and-blind, or sleeping, or bound-and-gagged, or whatever, the scenarios have to be set-up somehow.
But the trolley part is an important part of the problem, because it's a machine and so can't be argued out of its murderous intent. If the problem were set up with a homicidal maniac threatening to kill one person or five (and perhaps threatening to kill a million if you refuse to choose), people will have a different reaction because they'll think that the bad guy is a person who can be reasoned with. The trolley/train scenarios offer a familiar inanimate object as the method of death, focusing people's attention on their own actions ("familiar" being important, also, because we can dream up all sorts of killing machines that will present the same problems, but if the description of the devices overwhelms the rest of the questions, you won't be testing what you want to test).
By the way, I'm not surprised that nobody here came up with the third option for scenario B, throwing oneself off the bridge to stop the trolley. Perhaps everyone reading thinks that they're thinner than necessary?  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Moral absolutes?
