Ethics based on achieving goals

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas

User avatar
Terralthra
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4636
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Ethics based on achieving goals

Postby Terralthra » 2016-11-18 05:37am

Elaro wrote:
Terralthra wrote:Sure, but would the world be better if you ate the cookie, or I ate the cookie? The world is equally +1 goal satisfied in either case. Neither case is distinguished in your logic, and that's only the basest level, which doesn't take into account things like the fact that I paid for the cookie, or you could easily buy ten cookies, and so on confounding factors. That's what people are trying to express to you, and it's not getting through.


Yes it is, because the goal of "me eating a cookie" and "you eating a cookie" are different, and must be evaluated individually. How many goals are helped along by you eating the cookie versus me? And this theory encompasses everything that is real, so it does count emotional state, especially if you need to not be distressed to achieve goals, and if me stealing a cookie would distress you, then this theory gives a clear answer as to why you shouldn't steal the cookie.
Wait, so your ethical system based on achieving goals also has the concept of personal property? How and why did you arrive at the conclusion that the idea of personal property would achieve more goals than not having personal property?

Do you seriously have no idea what it means to start from first principles in an ethical system? You can't say everything comes from achieving goals, then later on say "but PERSONAL PROPERTY" as if that went without saying. It doesn't.

Also, holy necro.

User avatar
Elaro
Padawan Learner
Posts: 493
Joined: 2006-06-03 12:34pm
Location: Reality, apparently

Re: Ethics based on achieving goals

Postby Elaro » 2016-11-21 01:11pm

No, the only thing in my ethical system are "goals" and "state of the world". But since "state of person p" is in "state of the world", and "state of the mind of person p" is in "state of person p", then what person p believes in does count.

So if person p does believe in personal property, and somebody takes what p considers to be "p's stuff", then p is going to be upset, and that might affect p's behavior, which might affect p's ability to achieve goals, which might diminish our total goal achievement ability.

However, if I'm starving, and "me eating a cookie" would mean I get an hour more to live (and there's no other food around), then that definitely affects my ability to achieve goals, which definitely increases our total goal achievement ability.

In other words, it's okay to piss people off if it's going to save one or more lives.

Also, re: necro: Yeah, I know, but I'm not going to make a new thread every few months just because I've had a breakthrough in nailing down this thing.
"The surest sign that the world was not created by an omnipotent Being who loves us is that the Earth is not an infinite plane and it does not rain meat."

"Lo, how free the madman is! He can observe beyond mere reality, and cogitates untroubled by the bounds of relevance."

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28484
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Ethics based on achieving goals

Postby Simon_Jester » 2016-11-21 01:19pm

...Remind me again what your breakthrough was? I'm not really seeing a difference between this and the stuff you were saying in July.

User avatar
Terralthra
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4636
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Ethics based on achieving goals

Postby Terralthra » 2016-11-26 07:07am

Elaro wrote:No, the only thing in my ethical system are "goals" and "state of the world". But since "state of person p" is in "state of the world", and "state of the mind of person p" is in "state of person p", then what person p believes in does count.

So if person p does believe in personal property, and somebody takes what p considers to be "p's stuff", then p is going to be upset, and that might affect p's behavior, which might affect p's ability to achieve goals, which might diminish our total goal achievement ability.
This is an extremely ambivalent and poorly-thought-out reason to have personal property. As I said, there's no particular evidence here that personal property, as a notion worth of a respect, would increase goal-achieving capability vs. not having it. Your chain of reasoning here is "if people already think of personal property as a notion worth respecting, then..." which is begging the question of whether personal property is a notion worth respecting. Does the schema of personal property (here schema referring to a set of interconnected ideas; personal property is a rather complex thing) actually increase goal-achievement?

Elaro wrote:However, if I'm starving, and "me eating a cookie" would mean I get an hour more to live (and there's no other food around), then that definitely affects my ability to achieve goals, which definitely increases our total goal achievement ability.
Unless you suck at achieving goals, compared to the person who thinks that cookie is theirs, and might be way better at achieving goals, but will now no longer work to achieve goals because they're petty and vindictive.


Return to “Science, Logic, And Morality”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests