The Logic of Morality

[pecker]

OK, real quick. Can someone provide the sequence that leads us to believe harming another person is logically wrong?

[haas mark]

OK, real quick. Can someone provide the sequence that leads us to believe harming another person is logically wrong?

Society begins. People kills people. Natural instinct to survive and multiply kicks in. Society finds killing wrong. ^_^

[Vympel]

Couldn't be more simple than how verilon put it. We are social animals after all.

[pecker]

OK, real quick. Can someone provide the sequence that leads us to believe harming another person is logically wrong?

Society begins. People kills people. Natural instinct to survive and multiply kicks in. Society finds killing wrong. ^_^

That's works only so far though. What about bums? Killing them isn't detrimental to society or our survival, and may actually be helpful. Yet that's still seen as immoral by most people. (You'd figure it out soon enough, but this's SD from SB. Just wondering what the SD.net opinion is on that little spat I got into with you guys last night )

[salm]

you dont want to get hurt, so you dont hurt other ones because if you hurt someone else other people are going to notice that you might hurt them as well and so they´re going to remove the threat -> kill you

surviving in a group is easier than surviving alone. you dont want to lose people who help you.

[haas mark]

OK, real quick. Can someone provide the sequence that leads us to believe harming another person is logically wrong?

Society begins. People kills people. Natural instinct to survive and multiply kicks in. Society finds killing wrong. ^_^

That's works only so far though. What about bums? Killing them isn't detrimental to society or our survival, and may actually be helpful. Yet that's still seen as immoral by most people. (You'd figure it out soon enough, but this's SD from SB. Just wondering what the SD.net opinion is on that little spat I got into with you guys last night )

Hey, you asked, I answered.

You never said anything about modern society.

And thanks Vympel.

[pecker]

you dont want to get hurt, so you dont hurt other ones because if you hurt someone else other people are going to notice that you might hurt them as well and so they´re going to remove the threat -> kill you

surviving in a group is easier than surviving alone. you dont want to lose people who help you.

But what if I could secretly kill bums? Say, a virus or something that is spread by bum lifestyle, and I made sure only bums got it.

[Mr Bean]

Bums are a nitpick

The basic idea is this

The greatest Insticnt is survial followed by propgation of the species, Killing a human is logicly wrong as they can contribute to the better-ment of mankind and at which point they no longer contribute to the better-ment of mankind it is logical to kill them or simply ignore them, If they go around activly de-bettering man, then by all means take them out but logcialy unless they present a threat to man-kind you ignore them

Or in other words

Pay Attention
To that whichs helps out your species
Be it basic needs, Mates, or possible improvments to all

Ignore that which
Is know not to help, Does not help(Be it tree, rock or person if it matters not, ignore it)

Destroy that which
Threatens you, Threatens Basic Needs, Threatens your species

[pecker]

Bums are a nitpick

The basic idea is this

The greatest Insticnt is survial followed by propgation of the species, Killing a human is logicly wrong as they can contribute to the better-ment of mankind and at which point they no longer contribute to the better-ment of mankind it is logical to kill them or simply ignore them, If they go around activly de-bettering man, then by all means take them out but logcialy unless they present a threat to man-kind you ignore them

Or in other words

Pay Attention
To that whichs helps out your species
Be it basic needs, Mates, or possible improvments to all

Ignore that which
Is know not to help, Does not help(Be it tree, rock or person if it matters not, ignore it)

Destroy that which
Threatens you, Threatens Basic Needs, Threatens your species

Well, I just used bums as an example of a type of person who does not add anything to society. But I see all of your points, thanks.

[lgot]

Killing other people may be logically correct...
Killing other people is wrong by the view of ethic. You may even be illogical to left some alive but ethical to do so.
Do not confund things.
The survival of humankind logic does not mean you cannt kill someone. Killing a human male, so you can have for you all the females of the group, is the insticts logic, it is the aplication of insticts of survival...
and before the society , there was the ethic vallues devoloped, not as a result of the society.
Do not confund things.

[data_link]

If morality was logical, we wouldn't need morality as any rational person would be inherently moral. This would also mean that all immoral actions are inherently stupid, therefore your entire moral code is that it is immoral to be stupid. You can do this of course, and its internal consistency is superior to that of secular humanism, but it means that if you have the ability to do so without fear of reprisal, there is nothing wrong with killing someone just because they annoy you. Clearly, humanity has a vested interest in adopting humanist morals because otherwise you would risk being killed for being annoying. Because everyone is attempting to impose humanist morals on everyone else, they must obey the same morals in order to avoid losing support due to their own hypocrisy. This is logically why people adopt secular humanism.

On a side note, it is theoretically possible to construct a society in which humanism is unnessecary because a simple moral code (morality = logic) would allow people to funtion well in society. Unfortunately, knowing the results of the last two large-scale social engineering projects in human history, no one wants to try. Oh well

[Mr Bean]

If morality was logical, we wouldn't need morality as any rational person would be inherently moral.

Except Morals realy server as a Do and Do not do list, Don't do this and don't do that, most of these things are "obvious" so one could inded make the aurgment that truely immoral people are immoral beacuse they are stuipded, but of course one has to limit it to basic Logical Instincts and thinks like Children of Rape and Aboritions don't factor in perfeclty into those things(Though you can make a few aurgments either way)

[Darth Wong]

That's works only so far though. What about bums? Killing them isn't detrimental to society or our survival, and may actually be helpful. Yet that's still seen as immoral by most people. (You'd figure it out soon enough, but this's SD from SB. Just wondering what the SD.net opinion is on that little spat I got into with you guys last night )

You know what you fear, and you instinctively fear being killed or wounded. Therefore, unless you are an idiot, you also recognize that the victim of your violence must also fear being killed or wounded. You should recognize that fear is an instinctive mechanism imparting a value judgement upon the action that is feared, ie- we consider it bad. Ergo, it is bad to hurt people. This is not rocket science.

However, this still contains the implicit assumption that if it causes pain and you fear it or suffer from it, then it is bad. That will not go away; logic by itself does not tell us anything; it only leads us from point A to point B. We still need some mechanism for determining point A. Humanists use human rights which are generally derived from "self-evident" principles such as "it's bad to hurt people". Religionists use appeals to authority, ie- "it's bad because God says so", which is basically mindless.

[Darth Wong]

To put it another way, it is impossible to have a system of morality which is based entirely on logic with no other influences whatsoever, because logic is only a method for looking at the ramifications of a premise.

However, it is still possible to differentiate between logical and illogical schemes of morality. A logical scheme of morality is constructed logically from its basic premise, ie- we can construct various systems of morality from the basic premise that it's wrong to hurt people. An illogical scheme of morality is one that contradicts itself or incorporates logical fallacies. For example, fundie morality starts from the premise that the Bible is literally true, and concludes that therefore, God is morally perfect (major leap in logic). It takes this conclusion and generates another conclusion that morality is to follow God's commandments and do as he would do. However, this scheme is self-contradictory: God breaks many of his own commandments in the Bible (particularly the one about killing), so it is impossible to do as God while following every one of his commandments. Moreover, the entire scheme is based upon a leap in logic; it is entirely possible for the Bible to be true without God necessarily being morally perfect; he even admits his own capacity for evil in Exodus. Therefore, fundie morality is irrational, and humanist morality is rational.

To argue that humanist morality is not rational because of the existence of a premise is to disregard the entire concept of logic. If the inclusion of a premise invalidated logic, then nothing would be logical! Logic is a mechanism for analyzing a premise, not eliminating it! I wish these fundie idiots would stop making up these idiotic black/white fallacies.

[Mr Bean]

To put it another way, it is impossible to have a system of morality which is based entirely on logic with no other influences whatsoever, because logic is only a method for looking at the ramifications of a premise.

How about the Ultimate Moraility is the Survial of the Species followed by the Survial of the Family and ending with Survial of the self

Survial is Logical


However if anyone can think of any specfic issues where that does not work out, lemme know

[Nova Andromeda]

--I would point out that there is a basis for morality other than the one described by Darth Wong (though he derides it is too complex for mortals). The basis you start from is objective reality. There are two things you need to realize first. 1. There are other intelligent entities besides yourself who will opperate to further their goals (the set of driving motivations such as instinct, pain, pleasure, etc. for humans). 2. Those entities will react to any of your actions that affect them in a manner according to their goals. One can then use logic, these two things, science, and all applicable RL data to determine a course of action such that one's goals have the best chance of success. This usually leads to things like not killing others (since yet others will react to this type of action and kill you which is generally contrary to your goal).

[Darth Wong]

(sigh) your scheme still incorporates the arbitrary assumption that the course of action which is most effective is moral. As such, it contains an inherent premise which could be easily abused to construct a horrific system of "morality" (unlike my premise, which always treats the minimization of human suffering as the basis, and so cannot be perverted into a system which approves human suffering for the sake of some other moral imperative).

As for its complexity, it is not particularly complex. However, you chose to express it in a particularly long-winded way, which no one had the patience to answer.

[Nova Andromeda]

--However, you make the assumption that the minimization of human suffering is what everyone wants at all times over all other things. This is simply not true. Many people want to endure suffering to accomplish other things. These are things like protecting one's children, supporting your family, surviving, etc. What I'm saying is that due to this conflict your stated basis is far from ideal. My basis should incorporate every aspect of how people weight the goal of avoidng suffering with other goals such as surviving. I could be mistaken in that last sentence, but you have to convince me that is the case. (Yes I may have been long winded, but that was a function of trying to accurately express something that tends to get perverted very easily).

[Darth Wong]

The point remains that it can easily be perverted into a scheme which creates undue suffering. When someone willingly sacrifices in order to prevent a larger amount of suffering (or even death), that HARDLY invalidates my basis of minimizing suffering as the premise for morality. It also does not validate your basis of pragmatism in goal-seeking as the premise for morality.

You still have no real rebuttal to the fact that your system is based upon a different premise than mine, rather than a more "objective" one, or the fact that your premise can potentially be abused to create suffering.

[data_link]

Of course, Nova Andromeda's prmise makes sense to someone who doesn't care about the suffering of other people. There is a name for those who accept this as a premise: amoral.

[Nova Andromeda]

--My point is that your system is simply not realistic. The reason for this is that using a minimization of suffering as your sole premise for morality is contrary to most people's goals at some point in time. For instance, IIRC you support permitting euthanasia for terminally ill people in great suffering. In your system we should mandate euthanasia for terminally ill people in great suffering. However, we could simply elimiate all suffering by killing everyone or stopping reproduction (this is the logical conclusion of your system). I'm sure your RL basis includes many of the considerations that my system implicately includes (when not preverted). These would be things like taking pleasure and self interest into account which often increase overall suffering. In fact, these conflicts between reality and your premise would result in greater suffering than my unperverted system. The reason for this is that those who are in conflict with your system will tend to fight against it (usually resulting in sufferring). In my system equitability is maximized which will minimize conflict AND since most people rank avoiding suffering pretty high it will reduce sufferring.
--You do point out that my system is easily perverted. However, this assumes that it is perverted in a poorly educated/irrational society (still a strong arguement I'd say). Nevertheless, if the society was well educated and rational people would see that my system is the best option and it would be difficult to pervert (i.e., destroy) since people would recognize it is in there interest to maintain an unperverted system.
--You also argue my system is no more objective than yours, however, it appears to be to me since your system chooses a common goal for all people to pursue while mine does not and recogizes people's goals are what they are in addition to recognizing we do have very common goals such as reducing suffering.

P.S. -- It is possible I'm being dense, but I am considering your arguements and if you are correct then I just need more time or explanation for the light to turn on.

[Darth Wong]

--My point is that your system is simply not realistic. The reason for this is that using a minimization of suffering as your sole premise for morality is contrary to most people's goals at some point in time. For instance, IIRC you support permitting euthanasia for terminally ill people in great suffering. In your system we should mandate euthanasia for terminally ill people in great suffering.

No, because death is considered an extreme form of harm, on par with enormous suffering. The point at which suffering is worse than death is open to individual interpretation.

However, we could simply elimiate all suffering by killing everyone or stopping reproduction (this is the logical conclusion of your system).

Stop thinking like a lawyer. The fact that I did not explicitly say "death and/or suffering" did not mean that I did not imply it, or that MOST of the people here did not recognize it. You are looking for loopholes through which to cram your nitpicks, rather than evaluating based on intrinsic merit.

I'm sure your RL basis includes many of the considerations that my system implicately includes (when not preverted). These would be things like taking pleasure and self interest into account which often increase overall suffering. In fact, these conflicts between reality and your premise would result in greater suffering than my unperverted system.

Bullshit. Explain how a system based on minimizing death and suffering can possible generate more death and suffering than one which disregards this factor completely and hopes that it will come about inevitably as a side-effect of working toward some other goal.

The reason for this is that those who are in conflict with your system will tend to fight against it (usually resulting in sufferring).

People who are opposed to minimizing death and suffering? Anyone who would fight for such a cause is a lunatic. And ironically enough, he would be moral in your scheme, since he is working efficiently toward his personal goal (of increasing death/suffering).

In my system equitability is maximized which will minimize conflict AND since most people rank avoiding suffering pretty high it will reduce sufferring.

Wrong. You define goals as each person's individual subjective goals rather than any single goal. For some people, their goals will be best met through death. Osams Bin Laden, Hitler, and Stalin all fell into this category. Under your system of morality, they were moral because they took the most efficient, effective path to reach their personal goals. Your system presumes that societal disincentive will always work to prevent death or suffering as the most efficient path to any goal; this is a naive and historically unjustifiable assumption.

BTW, equitability without compassion is a piss-poor basis of morality.

--You do point out that my system is easily perverted. However, this assumes that it is perverted in a poorly educated/irrational society (still a strong arguement I'd say). Nevertheless, if the society was well educated and rational people would see that my system is the best option and it would be difficult to pervert (i.e., destroy) since people would recognize it is in there interest to maintain an unperverted system.

You sound like Marx, concocting systems which only work if everyone behaves according to your model.

--You also argue my system is no more objective than yours, however, it appears to be to me since your system chooses a common goal for all people to pursue while mine does not and recogizes people's goals are what they are in addition to recognizing we do have very common goals such as reducing suffering.

Since both of our systems incorporate precisely one value judgement (that "death/suffering is bad" for me and "most efficient path to goals is good" for you), they appear to be equally objective. However, by clarifying that the goals can be individual rather than shared, you actually explicitly define your system to be entirely subjective; what is moral or immoral depends entirely on an individual's personal goals. That is now 100% subjective.

P.S. -- It is possible I'm being dense, but I am considering your arguements and if you are correct then I just need more time or explanation for the light to turn on.

I think you need to look up the definitions of subjectivity and objectivity. By defining the goals of your system of morality in terms of individual goals (ie- making morality dependent upon individual viewpoints) rather than a larger societal goal (such as mine), you make it 100% subjective.

[Nova Andromeda]

No, because death is considered an extreme form of harm, on par with enormous suffering. The point at which suffering is worse than death is open to individual interpretation.

Now I see where you are really comming from. Your system is not based on minimizing just suffering. It is based upon minimizing suffering + other stuff you have equated to certain levels of suffering: death=enormous suffering, pleasure=-sufferring, etc. While this may have been apparent to you it was not to me.

You are looking for loopholes through which to cram your nitpicks, rather than evaluating based on intrinsic merit.

This simply pure bullshit! I have no vested interest in wasting my time by knowingly nitpicking your arguement. Looking for loopholes is useful if it is not obvious to me how to plug them.

Explain how a system based on minimizing death and suffering can possible generate more death and suffering than one which disregards this factor completely and hopes that it will come about inevitably as a side-effect of working toward some other goal.

Well that is quite simple. If there are significant numbers of people who are willing to endure sufferring (because they want certain pleasures more or they are fighting for some abstract thing) then the resulting conflict between people who support your system and these other people restricted by it will result in sufferring that would be avoided in my system. This must be true since in my system conflict is minimized by maximizing equitability. In addition two of the primary human goals is to avoid suffering and death. This fact means very strong agreements furthering these goals will arise without forcing those agreements on anyone unnecessarily. In the end, it is these types of agreements plus equitability which would compose my moral system.

People who are opposed to minimizing death and suffering? Anyone who would fight for such a cause is a lunatic. And ironically enough, he would be moral in your scheme, since he is working efficiently toward his personal goal (of increasing death/suffering).

Yet you would fight for the right to reproduce even though it is garanteed to produce more sufferring in the long run and not reproducing does not increase death. Your idea of minimizing sufferring is more complex than you let on. Perhaps you should list everything (or the major ones) you equate to suffering or the opposite thereof. In addition, you fail to understand that my system simply recognizes that people will work toward their goal. However, it also judges those goals as being moral if they are equitable and immoral if they are not. Therefore, this lunatic would be moral if he fought for inflicting pain upon himself and immoral if he fought for inflicting it upon others without due cause.

Your system presumes that societal disincentive will always work to prevent death or suffering as the most efficient path to any goal; this is a naive and historically unjustifiable assumption.

It only makes this presumption if the people understand why equitability is the best they can hope for if they lack the power to simply do what they want (assumming most people prioritize your goal). I have already admitted this problem, and wanted to address how to deal with it (IMO stronger education would go a long way). However, we never got past the first part.

You sound like Marx, concocting systems which only work if everyone behaves according to your model.

I recognize this problem, however, one must first verfiy the basic system before trying to make a more complex system to deal with complications (such as idiocy in society).

Since both of our systems incorporate precisely one value judgement (that "death/suffering is bad" for me and "most efficient path to goals is good" for you), they appear to be equally objective. By defining the goals of your system of morality in terms of individual goals (ie- making morality dependent upon individual viewpoints) rather than a larger societal goal (such as mine), you make it 100% subjective.

Actaully, my value judgement is equitable is good and inequitable is bad which I have tried to show is true regardless of an individual's goals. The fact that people have goals is objective. If you met an alien who demonstrated its goal was to spin in circles are you going to argue that is a worse goal than avoiding pain? The very idea of judging an entity's goal as intrinsically good or bad is idiotic. One MUST first have a criteria (i.e., goal) in order to judge something. You would clearly judge this aliens goal based on whether it fit within minimizing human sufferring where as I would judge it base on whether it was equitable.

[Darth Wong]

Now I see where you are really comming from. Your system is not based on minimizing just suffering. It is based upon minimizing suffering + other stuff you have equated to certain levels of suffering: death=enormous suffering, pleasure=-sufferring, etc. While this may have been apparent to you it was not to me.

This is why talking to you is tiresome. You nitpick and then try to justify the act of nitpicking. You turn everything into legalese.

Well that is quite simple. If there are significant numbers of people who are willing to endure sufferring (because they want certain pleasures more or they are fighting for some abstract thing) then the resulting conflict between people who support your system and these other people restricted by it will result in sufferring that would be avoided in my system.

You are assuming that I would avoid equitability even if it happens to suit the larger stated goal of minimizing death/suffering, thus causing the death/suffering which I am trying to prevent. Explain this bizarre assumption.

This must be true since in my system conflict is minimized by maximizing equitability. In addition two of the primary human goals is to avoid suffering and death. This fact means very strong agreements furthering these goals will arise without forcing those agreements on anyone unnecessarily. In the end, it is these types of agreements plus equitability which would compose my moral system.

In other words, you recognize that your basic premise is unworkable, hence you add in other factors in order to make it work.

Yet you would fight for the right to reproduce even though it is garanteed to produce more sufferring in the long run and not reproducing does not increase death.

How does reproduction necessarily cause suffering or death?

Your idea of minimizing sufferring is more complex than you let on. Perhaps you should list everything (or the major ones) you equate to suffering or the opposite thereof.

Death/suffering <-----> Life/pleasure

What the fuck do you find so goddamned hard to understand about this? Other concepts stem from the basics. Your premise is that morality is found through efficient paths to goals, and when it is pointed out that this doesn't necessarily lead to moral conclusions, you interject that it is if the people mutually recognize goals which happen to be similar to mine. Think about that, you are merely adding a framework of legalese on top of the same basic premises, and then pretending that the legalese is more important than the premise.

In addition, you fail to understand that my system simply recognizes that people will work toward their goal. However, it also judges those goals as being moral if they are equitable and immoral if they are not. Therefore, this lunatic would be moral if he fought for inflicting pain upon himself and immoral if he fought for inflicting it upon others without due cause.

So your system requires the premise that equitability is moral. Again, you are confusing morality with legality; laws are necessary in order to promote equitability for the larger goal of reducing suffering. However, you are confusing the end with the means.

If equitability will reduce suffering, then that serves the ultimate goal of reducing suffering. But that does not mean you can exchange equitability with the reduction of death/suffering as the ultimate end goal. In fact, by justifying your system through showing how it can reduce suffering, you have implicitly conceded the point; that the goal and justification is to reduce suffering.

Let's put it another way: if equitability is necessary in order to reduce death/suffering, then I say it's good. If a certain form of inequitability is necessary in order to reduce death/suffering, then I say that's good too; it depends on the situation. Now, let's use your model; if equitability reduces suffering, then all is well and good; you have satisfied my concept of morality as well as yours. But suppose equitability and death/suffering are contradictory goals in some particular situation? Do you approve death/suffering for the sake of the larger goal of equitability? Do you bury your head in the sand and pretend that this scenario is impossible?

Actaully, my value judgement is equitable is good and inequitable is bad which I have tried to show is true regardless of an individual's goals.

You feel it is impossible for equitability to cause death/suffering? Suppose I could produce an example of a scenario which is equitable but produces death/suffering?

The fact that people have goals is objective.

Actually, it isn't. Every individual person's goals are subjective. It is impossible to observe someone's goals; you can, at best, observe his claims regarding his own goals, or his actions which may or may not be consistent with such goals. You cannot actually observe goals. However, death, mutilation, starvation, injury, etc. are all observable. Hence, my system is based on the objective while your system is based on the subjective.

[Nova Andromeda]

This is why talking to you is tiresome. You nitpick and then try to justify the act of nitpicking. You turn everything into legalese.

The devil is in the details. You simply don't understand that it is possible for people to have communication problems and instead claim it is nitpicking. However, nitpicking is trying to move away from the main arguement intentionally. This is not my goal which is why I admit the miscommunication (just in case I still "don't get it") and let it be. In fact, I'm going to let this side track die here and if I can't help myself I'll start another thread on it.

You are assuming that I would avoid equitability even if it happens to suit the larger stated goal of minimizing death/suffering, thus causing the death/suffering which I am trying to prevent. Explain this bizarre assumption.

Doh! I know this was painful for you, but it was necessary for you to point out that you would conform to my system if it suited your stated goal. Concession offered.

How does reproduction necessarily cause suffering or death?

Everyone dies and suffering is one of the primary ways our neural nets are trained. That is a major part of how people learn.

What the fuck do you find so goddamned hard to understand about this? Other concepts stem from the basics. Your premise is that morality is found through efficient paths to goals, and when it is pointed out that this doesn't necessarily lead to moral conclusions, you interject that it is if the people mutually recognize goals which happen to be similar to mine. Think about that, you are merely adding a framework of legalese on top of the same basic premises, and then pretending that the legalese is more important than the premise.

My system is a moral system only in that it leads to the idea that equitability and mutual cooperation where possible are the best ways to acheive ones goal (regardless of the goal). If we have a stated goal we can refine that system based on the goal (such as minimizing suffering). However, as soon as I do that it is no longer a truly general system.

If equitability will reduce suffering, then that serves the ultimate goal of reducing suffering. But that does not mean you can exchange equitability with the reduction of death/suffering as the ultimate end goal.

Reducing sufferring is our ultimate goal. Equitability is not the goal (this should be clear). Equitability is the best way to get to some generic goal (in theory).

You feel it is impossible for equitability to cause death/suffering? Suppose I could produce an example of a scenario which is equitable but produces death/suffering?

I would very much like to know if you can produce such a scenario if the majority of entities primary goal is to avoid suffering/death.

quote:

The fact that people have goals is objective.

Actually, it isn't. Every individual person's goals are subjective. It is impossible to observe someone's goals; you can, at best, observe his claims regarding his own goals, or his actions which may or may not be consistent with such goals. You cannot actually observe goals. However, death, mutilation, starvation, injury, etc. are all observable. Hence, my system is based on the objective while your system is based on the subjective.

Actually, it is. If you had no goal (literally no goal) you would be dead for all intents and purposes; no better than a rock. The combination of those mental imperatives that cause us to want to do stuff (instinct, love, pain, etc.) are what I consider to be our goal (generally speaking most people's idea of what their goals are don't reflect this and that is why I felt is necessary to define goal in my previous thread, but you derided stuff like that as legalese). An entities claims of their goal probably can't be taken at face value, however, there actions will in the end reflect their goal and that is objective.