WasatchMan

I can see what you're saying about that, because I definitely had similar thoughts. Not only do physics equations/models have goals, they are typically testable to a high level of precision. However, philosophy, and specifically ethics, not being demonstrable to the level that physics is, is not an issue that is created by having a discussion about boundary equations. The goal of the NAP is to provide a logical argument why the initiation of force is immoral, and I think probing boundary conditions of the logic could reinforce its understanding.

A lot of great thoughts here! I don't consider this to be a subjective issue, or one about economic capacity. This is a severe disorder that disables the most fundamental part of being a human. I will attempt address the morality issue better at the end of this post... I hope. So, in my mind, these are the hard questions to ask around the question "Is it immoral not to abort a fetus when you know it will have Down Syndrome?" Besides some randomness in genetic combinations, what would be the fundamental difference between a Down Syndrome fetus now, and a healthy fetus conceived a month from now? At the fetus stage, and given the same parents, are these essentially the same person? They both would enter the world at the same stage in their parents life, in society, and in their parents mind would be no different except for waiting an extra month for a non disabled child. Both now and a month from now fetuses are only potential human beings, and you can't have both, you can only choose one. What is the difference between completing the development (i.e. bringing to term) a person you know will have Down Syndrome, and having an operation at birth to give the child Down Syndrome? Especially if your answer to the first question is they are essentially the same person, how could one think it is an ethical choice to bring their child into the world with a disabled brain when they can restart and give their child a non-disabled brain?

Most of you have probably heard Richard Dawkins newest controversial tweets saying that it is immoral to bring a child to term with down syndrome if you know this going to be the outcome when it is a fetus. While this does seem a tad heartless/brash, I can see the argument. This comes down to the fundamental nature of man as a rational animal. If you know you will create a human with a very limited capacity to live a rational life, is it ethical to bring this human into reality when you can determine this outcome while it is still a fetus? I am still mulling this over (so please don't jump down my throat, I know this is a touchy subject!!), but I would love to hear thoughts on this from the FDR community! Here is a video that shows the tweets: http://youtu.be/w4-GCk6-azM

First of all thanks for the responses EndtheUsurpation, and I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond in turn. I have been buried in some work deadlines that had all my mental energy zapped by the end of the day. I agree that the NAP is clearly universal and preferable. I also completely agree with your points on what lifeboat scenarios are typically constructed to do, and that is typically to fog the implications of an principle All I am asking is if there is some framework, specifically a discussion around boundary conditions, that we can add to philosophical principles to clear this fog, and avoid even confronting these worthless lifeboat scenarios. My thought is that if boundary conditions were clearer, then we wouldn't have people jumping from "since the NAP doesn't seem to work when hanging from a flag pole, how can I be sure it doesn't apply to people wearing uniforms". I agree this statement can be logically disproved a 100 different ways, but I would call trying to disprove that statement a "tailpipe" solution, instead of a foundational solution. In other words, people perceive them as "bandages" but if they were discussed up front that perception would change. My point at discussing physics was to show that even physics principles aren't absolute universals, but rely on a communication framework that includes a discussion of boundary conditions. I am sorry that the physics discussions have derailed my point so much, but I thought I was pretty clear on what the intent of the examples were for. I completely agree with this concern, and I want to be clear that I am not proposing boundary conditions to appease people or make ideas like the NAP more palatable. I am proposing a discussion of boundary conditions because there are boundary conditions. Where there are not, then it would be invalid to use one. Gravity doesn't have boundary conditions because people want to cheat gravity, gravity has boundary conditions because those boundary conditions are true. Here is my response to a similar concern above: "I can see now that how I phrased the problem statement is causing some confusion. To be clear, I am not proposing this as a way to appease/convince the nitpickers, nihilists, and determinists of the world, but as a methodical way to move past them. I am proposing this because I think it is likely the proper way to communicate philosophical principles. Just like detailing out assumptions, and boundary conditions in physics is the proper way to communicate in physics."

I am not saying there are not great answers to life boat scenarios - because there are. What I am trying to address is there seems to be a problem (I could be wrong) with how people perceive things like the NAP, or other philosophical ideas, that is resulting in these non-productive life boat scenario conversations to begin with, as well as other types of miss-applications. I believe science doesn't suffer from this because 1. it is demonstrable, & 2. the scope of the idea is methodically mapped out so it is as clear as possible where it does/does not apply. We obviously can't do much about the demonstrability differences between say physics and philosophy, but we can bring our method of communicating and documenting knowledge closer to that which is done with the scientific method.

Are you asking what philosophical ideas experience analysis paralysis? If so, my answer is most. Lets take the NAP for an example. We can't even establish something as basic as this because people are worried about life boat scenarios. While there are obviously a lot of people that will never be convinced, I believe there are a lot of genuine people who get thrown off philosophy because the lack of concise/methodical/consistent ways of presenting these things. They might not necessarily get completely thrown by the life boat problem as such, but it could throw out enough fog that leads to confusion, like if the NAP does not completely apply to life boat scenarios, why does it completely apply to governance? However, it is my opinion that if part of the conversation about the NAP included that the NAP doesn't apply in the same way for emergency scenarios and the reasons are such-and-such, people won't get thrown off as easy, and are likely not to 'throw the baby out with the bath water' as they say.

I think those are good examples. I am not sure if we could ever create an equation to represent morality, but it would be an interesting model to try to build. This is a philosophy thread dealing epistemology and practical questions on how we communicate philosophical ideas/arguments/principles. The physics stuff was provided to show how the method of communicating scientific principles when dealing with non-absolute principles/unknowns/assumptions have avoided the analysis paralysis we see when trying to discuss philosophical ideas. While I am not claiming that we will ever be able to completely stop this in philosophy (there will always be nihilists), I think the discipline could greatly benefit from conversations around boundary conditions/assumptions similar to how physical theories present these.

Can we at least agree to get rid of imperial rulers? (pun intended )

Alrighty, here is what I was able to put together for this. Let me know if it makes any sense, it was kind of a difficult narrative for me to put together. In fluid mechanics there is an equation called the “Bernoulli Principle” which was developed in 1738 by Daniel Bernoulli and published in Hydrodynamica. It is a derivative of Newton’s laws and conservation of energy/mass principles. One application is that it is used by engineers to design all types of fluid distribution systems, including pressurized water systems which we count on to provide running water when we turn our tap. Here is a definition: “The Bernoulli Equation is an approximate relation between pressure, velocity, and elevation and is valid in steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible… The key approximation in the derivation of the Bernoulli equation is that viscous effects are negligibly small compared to inertial, gravitational, and pressure effects. Since all fluid have viscosity (there is no such thing as a “inviscid fluid”), this approximation cannot be valid for the entire flow field of practical interest… However, it turns out that the approximation is reasonable in certain regions of flow.” [1] Here is the equation: p/ ρ + v2/(2 g) + z = Et where: Et = Total Energy p = static pressure ρ = density γ = specific weight g = acceleration of gravity v = flow velocity z = elevation height Later in the chapter is a list of all of the boundary conditions for this principle: steady flow, frictionless flow, no shaft work (turbines/pumps), incompressible flow, no heat transfer, and flow along a streamline, the conservation of mass, and the conservation of energy. With these boundary conditions the application is pretty constrained, and if it would have not developed from there, it would be useless for pressurized water systems because the frictionless and no shaft work assumptions. However, it still does have a range of applications. Principle was expanded so that the assumptions of frictionless flow, no shaft work, or no heat transfer could be removed. This is generally called the Extended Bernoulli Equation, and allows us to model modern pressurized water distribution systems. Here is the equation: p/ ρ + v2/(2 g) + z + Ep - Ef - Es = Et (General expression ∑Esources = ∑Esinks) where: Ep = Energy added by pumps. This is quantified by several different models to represent energy being added by pumps. Ef = Frictional energy loss. This quantified by several different models depending on the frictional situation, and is also differentiated into two different types of frictions called Minor Losses and major Losses. More on this: http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~alvi/EML3016/Lecture-notes-new/notes_html/week10/pipe%20flow/sld001.htm Es = Energy removed by turbines. This is quantified by several different models to represent energy being removed by turbines. What my purpose of this example is to show how this framework allows principles to be built on over time, while allowing practical application through the building process. Scientists and engineers did not allow themselves to be ham strung into not moving forward by not knowing absolutely everything and providing mitigations for every possible scenario that someone could dream up. They developed a way to clearly distinguish what is known and not known and in what situations this knowledge can, and cannot, be applied. Science has a major difference in that is demonstrable, on a level philosophy is not, however philosophy is demonstrable to a certain level, and logic is demonstrable to the extent it is consistent. So if a politician came to an engineer who was designing water distribution system, and said “I don’t think I can trust your system. I have looked into your assumptions (are you trying to make an ‘ass out of you and me’ or something?) and boundary conditions and I see some fatal flaws in what you are proposing. What-if all of a sudden water turned into Skittles? Skittles are COMPRESSIBLE and therefore your system would fail!!!” The engineer would calmly explain to this politician that “You are right, in that scenario the system would fail. However due to the extremely low probability of that event, and the cost it would take to mitigate against it, the working boundary conditions are sufficient to design and construct a water distribution system that will successfully deliver water to the community.” [1] Fluid Mechanics – Fundamentals and Applications 1st ed 2006, Cengel and Cimbala Thanks for your thoughts Hannibal! Well, I think the distinction is not completely unwarranted, however the ability to understand a principle is pretty important for most ethical principles. My goal is to provide a system to communicate the *is* more effectively and methodically. This is a pragmatic argument. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, however it cannot be universalized. I would say murder is universally immoral as long as the conditions don’t include…. I would say morality is applicable in lifeboat situations, but the conditions are different than normal situations. These conditions would then need to be defined. I completely agree with you that the problems have been poorly or incompletely framed. This is what I am trying to address by proposing a better way to frame philosophical principles/arguments. What I am proposing is using some more of the concepts that scientist and engineers have used to communicate, with wildly successful results. This isn’t an attempt to brush over the need to explain “what morality actually is”, but to find a way to effectively communicate this through a conversation on limiting conditions. Boundary conditions aren’t just stated, and then moved over, but a detailed explanation of why each boundary condition is there and what it means. This would facilitate the conversation around morality, and by giving it a mental shape, hopefully provide a more robust understanding of what it is and what it means. I definitely understand the apprehension to this since it seems like I am trying to get rid universality, but as I have explained above: “this s the reason why I framed it as absolute universality vs delimitated universality, because we are still talking about universality. The difference is we are just being clear, and upfront, about documenting what the boundary conditions and assumptions are, and as long as the situation you are analyzing is within those parameters, and the assumptions are true, then the principle is universal. To keep the gravity analogy going, scientists do not claim that Newton’s gravitational law is not universal, they claim that they are universal as long as it is being used within the limits described in the proof.”

I think the main answer is because they don't have to. Social normalization seems to be sufficient for the general population to accept the power of the State carte blanche. They have the laws, guns, and prisons, so why complicate things?

Thanks for the feedback! This has helped me think through this a lot more. I think this is an excellent example of a reason for documenting a 'boundary condition' in the derivation of a principle. I think another boundary condition on the NAP would probably be that there are limiting conditions when it comes to emergency situations. Now that we have boundary conditions of the basic statement of the NAP, we can now create derivations from the NAP on how to apply it towards living beings that aren't cognitively able to understand the NAP, or for emergency situations. I definitely understand this concern. This is the reason why I framed it as absolute universality vs delimitated universality, because we are still talking about universality. The difference is we are just being clear, and upfront, about documenting what the boundary conditions and assumptions are, and as long as the situation you are analyzing is within those parameters, and the assumptions are true, then the principle is universal. To keep the gravity analogy going, scientists do not claim that Newtons gravitational law is not universal, they claim that it is universal as long as it is being used within the limits described in the derivation/proof. In a lot of ways, this is already done in philosophy proofs, however I think there could be a way of being more direct and methodical about it. So for luxfelix's example, you would say that part of the NAP is that you are assumed to the cognitive ability to understand the NAP. I can see now that how I phrased the problem statement is causing some confusion. To be clear, I am not proposing this as a way to appease/convince the nitpickers, nihilists, and determinists of the world, but as a methodical way to move past them. I am proposing this because I think it is likely the proper way to communicate philosophical principles. Just like detailing out assumptions, and boundary conditions in physics is the proper way to communicate in physics. This is also not to say that we look for things that aren't there, only that there may be a more precise way to approach how we map out a philosophical principle. I attempted to do this in responding to luxfelix's example, by demonstrating how identifying boundary conditions allows the building of a framework to better describe the principle. You don't need a full explanation of the ethics of emergencies to explain why taxations is theft, however if you are trying to understand how the NAP would apply to an emergency situation, a deeper derivation of the NAP is required to probe the boundaries around these extreme and rare occurrences. There is a great historical example in the development of fluid mechanics of how an initial principle can be built upon to provide greater and greater precision as the need for more precision was required. Let me know if you are interested in this example, I don't want to bore anyone with more physics stuff because it would be somewhat technical. Please take a look at luxfelix's example and my response to that, as well as my other responses above. I am hoping I have been able to clear a little bit of the fog in these responses. However feel free to let me know if you have more questions or if it is still too vague to grasp.

I recently received a comment from someone that said “philosophy has to be universal and absolute”, and this got me thinking…. While I agree that some things can be/are universal and absolute, like in ethics where murder, theft, and rape can be universally and absolutely proven to be immoral [see UPB for logical proof]. Not everything can be shown to have an absolute universality, and furthermore, a proof for their absolute universality may not always be immediately available, or practical to develop for the application (i.e. the precision of absolute universality is not required for all applications at all times). Furthermore, I think the standard of absolute universality has directly lead to an analysis paralysis which is freezing the progress of philosophy. The physical sciences do not wait for absolute universal proofs, or a complete understanding of every single mechanism, of their scientific models/theories before they are functional for practical applications. They simply detail out the precision of the model/theory, the assumptions that were made in the derivation, and boundary conditions indicating any and all known limiting factors. This mechanism/process has allowed the physical sciences to take advantage of incremental progress building toward a more detailed and precise understanding of reality, with the ultimate goal of absolute universality. This goal is still on the leading edge of physics and is typically referred to as ‘The Theory of Everything’. A great example of this mechanism/process is the development of our understanding of gravity. As we were all taught, Newton developed the ‘Law of Universal Gravitation’ in 1687, which was able to predict the forces excreted by objects on each other given their mass, separation, and a gravitational constant. These laws have been critical to our understanding of the world around us, and their contribution to technological progress is priceless. However, as many of you probably know, Newton’s law of universal gravitation is hardly absolutely universal from the sense that it is not able to predict gravity for all conditions or to an infinite level of precision. It took Einstein’s work on relativity before a more precise (still not absolute!!) model of gravity could be derived. Newton’s gravitational model does do a good job at predicting gravitational effects, and in most cases provides all the precision one would need. Its predictive power is precise enough that most engineer’s still use it any time a problem requires that gravitational effects be quantified (i.e. skyscrapers). However, if we had tried to create a GPS system before the development of general and special relativity, it would have never worked. Imagine what would have been the course of human civilization if we held the same standard of ‘absolute universality’ to gravitational theories and claimed that because it doesn’t work for GPS systems we can’t use it for skyscrapers? If we had to wait for Einstein before we could start applying our understanding of gravity, there would have arguably never been an Einstein. I am still trying to work this idea out, so I am not even quite sure yet what providing a ‘delimitated’ (boundary conditioned, limiting conditioned, etc.) universality to philosophical theories would even look like practically. However, this does initially seem like it could be a potential tool/organizational mechanism to use against the onslaught of analysis paralysis from the nitpickers who are holding philosophy down in the mud by expecting any theory to immediately be universally absolute and solve any and all “life boat” problems (or equivalent irrelevancy) they can throw at it. If anyone has any thoughts, or potential flaws, about this it would be greatly appreciated.

cap·i·tal·ismnoun ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the governmentcor·po·rat·ismnoun ˈkȯr-p(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəmDefinition of CORPORATISM: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdictionIt would be nice if socialist could get definitions right. It must get very tiresome fighting straw-men.

Can a tiger be put on trial for murder? Nonhuman animals can own certain things. If a monkey throws its poop at you, he owns that action, however it doesn't own the moral consequences of that action, because it is unable to comprehend moral decisions. The concept of property ownership requires the ability to understand, and commit, to that concept.

No, I wasn't raised Mormon. I grew-up down in Moab which is a less LDS, and my family has no LDS ties. By the "as well", I assume that you were once part of the church and have subsequently left it. Kudos to you. That must have been a really hard transformation. One thing a lot of people that don't live in Utah don't realize is how much of a cult it really can be. Just from knowing a lot of Utah Mormons, I understand how much the church dominates your day-to-day life, the relationships you can/can't have, the activities you do etc. It must have felt like leaving your whole history behind.

You could de-rail almost anything by boiling it down to "hormones". Seriously man, IMO, these thoughts of yours are not very constructive.

Are you serious?

"Do you love everything and everyone?" "No." "Why not?" Question answered.

Welcome Jas660! I am 28 and also live in Utah (Murry). I do a fair share of hiking myself and have to agree, Utah is a great place for outdoors. If only we could get rid of this Mormon Borg infestation...

Hey Kason, I have had a similiar ethical delema around my profession. I am a civil engineer and the vast majority of our client pool are governments. Someone would have to go pretty far out of my way to only work for non-government clients. Something I read from Any Rand has always resonated with me on this issue. She said something to the effect of "if what you are doing is not inherhently evil, and would exist in a free society, than if you choose not to do it because the government has taken it over, than you are letting them win two ways instead of just one." I have tried to look for where I saw this quote since, and have not been able to track it down. That is not to suggest that this is the final answer, there are tons of reasons why avioding doing buiessnes with the state could and would be a benefit to yourself and soceity. However, I think it is an important consideration. Best of luck!

“Rules without rulers” is a typical anarchist rebuttal to the statist argument “there is no way anarchism could work because people are inherently bad and without government everyone would rob, rape, murder, and throw burning Molotov cocktails into store front windows”. To the “rules without rulers” argument, the statist will make some statement about “how this sounds good in principle, but in the real world there is no way to put into practice.” In other words, there is this general conception that people are generally nasty little things, and without a gun prodding their center right rib blade, they will try to get away with anything and everything. To these people, there is no concept of non-coercive mechanisms that could hold together society and keep people from “selfishly benefiting at the expense of others”. Their universe is only win lose. At this point in the conversation, I think having some good examples may help to start prying open their preconceived notions. Whatever your opinion is on tipping, I believe it one of the best examples of a rule without a ruler. In the U.S., through social normalization and general human good will, tipping 15-20 percent is considered part of the cost of dining out [1]. This is a substantial cost added to your experience, is completely voluntarily, and 99.5% of customers are reported to tip their waiter [2]. The Waitbutwhy.com article that this statistic comes from also says “If you don’t tip [waiters] you’re.... The worst” and goes onto say “Even if service sucks, never go below 15%...” This implies tipping is not even a bonus for good service, but a mandatory, not forced, part of the exchange. Furthermore, if tipping were to become a forced part of the dining experience, not tipping would be equivalent to shoplifting. Currently in the U.S., 9% of people are reported to shoplift per year [3]. This shows that an enforced rule, with the threat of the loss of freedom, fines, and a criminal record is more likely to be broken than one that is completely voluntarily and is only enforced by social normalization/ostracization. If anyone has any thoughts on this, or other examples of how “Rules without Rulers” is already being practice, it would be greatly appreciated. Even though I am usually not a pragmatist, I think being able to provide practical examples of ways anarchy is already working in society is useful in breaking through someone’s preconceived notions. Most people will never be convinced, but we are here, and as they say “the more the merrier”. http://www.tripadvisor.com http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/04/everything-dont-know-tipping.html. http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/whatnaspoffers/nrc/publiceducstats.htm

Since it was an Any Rand quote, my thoughts on how her ethical system would address this question would be to look at the hierarchy of how these concepts were logically derived. She describes the standard of morality "is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man." From this concept she derives the need for men to make choices "Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality." So man's standard of morality is himself, and must make choices in order to maintain that value. So if someone is making the choice to kill/attack you, the value of "choice" is conflicting with the higher value of "man's life" and therefore your choice to defend yourself is completely consistent with the morality of man's life being an end in itself. In other words, since choice is derived from the standard man's life being the highest value, if your choice is conflicting with this standard then it is no longer a valid derivative of value. I believe UPB would come at this similarly, but since the ethical framework is different from the Randian system and does not accept the "man qua man" rational, it may not even get to this question because attacking someone clearly fails the two man in room test, and therefore cannot be universally preferable. I am still working on understanding UPB better, so someone else probably has a better explanation to how it would analyze this situation.

I always thought this was a good summary of value: "“Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep, “virtue” is the action by which one gains and keeps it. “Value” presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? “Value” presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible." - Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand