Moral Behaviour is Irrational

[Freeman Stephen]

Please dont say UPB blah blah blah, elucidate it yourself instead of referring me to someone else.

 

For some reason, I cant bring myself to harm people for my own gain but I notice this is not a universal human quality - some people are "evil".

 

I often find myself justifying a certain stance as rational because only this stance supports what is morally right. For exsmple, dont support coersive organisations because coersion is morally wrong, therefor it is irrational to support governments and lesser forms of organised crime but .... whats wrong with behaviour that isnt moral?

 

If you have a chocolate bar and I want a chocolate bar, if I stab you to death and take the chocolate bar, am I not better off to the tune of one chocolate bar? Okay it didnt work so well for you because your now dead but for me, well this chocolate bar is very tasty, and I have no one but myself to thank for it because your dead now.

 

My point is that this behaviour is completely immoral and psychopathic but is it irrational? You could say "yes" because the cops will now be chasing me but suppose I was the boss of cops or I had some other schrme meaning I wasnt getting caught? Ive made a gain at someones expense and although its completely evil, is it irrational? Are psychopaths mad or just evil? Is being conscientious actually a disability - the psychopath gets more free chocolate!

[Pepin]

Actions can't be irrational, only claims and intentions can be. Is it irrational to hoard straw wrappers? No, the concept of rationality gives no answer. Is it rational to hoard straw wrappers because in the 22nd alien invasion they will spare the one who hoarded the most? No, because the motive makes no sense.

 

It is similar to a rain dance in that the implicit claim is that rain and dancing are correlated, which it is proven to not be, therefore doing a rain dance is irrational. Superstition is irrational not because the actions are irrational, yet because the claim is disconnected from the actions. The intention of throwing salt behind your back might be to ward off bad luck, but the foundation the claim is built upon is completely faulty.

 

It is easy to take the term "ethics" and to simply apply it to all humans, but there are criteria that a person must necessitate in order for ethics to apply to them. The first and foremost is an understanding of ethics. This is why a bear cannot be tried for murder that camp of hunters. A true hedonistic psychopath that lacks all basis for ethical thinking is not immoral or evil for killing a family, rather she falls into the same category as the bear.

 

A politician on the other hand shows quite a knowledge of ethics and will constantly make arguments based on ethics. If a politician makes the claim to general public that murder is immoral, and then murders her wife, then it is clear that based off her own claim: she is immoral. Furthermore, she can't argue to have no moral capacity as she had demonstrated quite well that she understood ethics. But is she irrational for the committing murder though? I'd say again, no because rationality doesn't apply to actions.

 

Where does the irrationality come into play with ethics then? The answer to this is the arguments. If a politician was to make the claim that murder is wrong, but that it is acceptable for them to do, that claim is irrational because it contradicts its self. If murder is wrong for people to commit, and the politician is a person, then the exception being made is irrational.

 

To continue this further, arguing that it is immoral if you are not in Hong Kong or Brazil at the same time is irrational because it contradicts physical law. Arguing that physical desire is immoral is irrational because it is part of our biological programming.

 

I hoped this helped

[bootoo]

Unless you are psychopathic or a sociopath  then you will immediately FEEL whats wrong with behavior that isnt moral when you do it, especially you example of stabbing someone for a chocolate bar. 

 

In the long run immoral behavior doesnt work out because you need people to make you the chocolate bar that you stole, and that knife that you used to stab the person in your example. You cannot get a society that produces these for you with this kind of mass anti-social behavior happening, id expect you'd find yourself left with sustenance living or a massive police/prison state. or with really shitty chocolate bars no one can eat or really shitty knifes that dont stab good

 

Its not a difficult thing to understand, you act morally because you care about the well being of others, even the most selfish of people cares about the well being of others because almost everything of value we have in this world was discovered, designed or delivered by happy healthy motivated humans. Act immorally, meaning you are willing to inflict suffering on others to pursue your wants, and you only motivate people to destroy you at worst or do a shitty job at best. 

 

No-Brainer it seems to me?

[june]

In the long run immoral behavior doesnt work out because you need people to make you the chocolate bar that you stole, and that knife that you used to stab the person in your example. You cannot get a society that produces these for you with this kind of mass anti-social behavior happening, id expect you'd find yourself left with sustenance living or a massive police/prison state. or with really shitty chocolate bars no one can eat or really shitty knifes that dont stab good

 

isn't this then an argument of practicality, not ethics? stabbing people for food might not work in the long-run, i agree, but what if you're hungry or thirsty now, so that your goals are only aimed at the short-term.

[Freeman Stephen]

I only used the "stab someone to death for a chocolate bar" scenario just to emphasise the point. More realistically, think about conning someone out of a hundred bank notes. The conscientious are at a great material disadvantage. It seems that the unjust fair better than the just, yet to behave justly is perceived as the rational way to live.

 

Ive been in dire poverty and couldnt bring myself to steal, yet there are those living the high life who seem to have no moral problem whatsoever stealing from people if they can get away with it. Is it not maybe me who is in someway stunted by what would appear an irrational need to be conscientious and not steal (or murder people for chocolate bars). If I was a pickpocket or a hitman or any number of occupations which require injustice, would I not be better off than earning an honest living.

 

This, what I say, even if society or others are worse off. Without a conscience, it doesnt matter how badly these others are affected because Im at a gain and it wouldnt matter if anyone else is at a loss because of me. Is my own gain not a rational pursuit and the loss of others neither rational nor irrational?

[Pepin]

Unless you are psychopathic or a sociopath  then you will immediately FEEL whats wrong with behavior that isnt moral when you do it, especially you example of stabbing someone for a chocolate bar.

 

Feelings aren't objective, which doesn't meant that they can't be right, but putting ethical weight on what would feel immoral can't be universalized nor rationalized.

 

In the long run immoral behavior doesn't work out because you need people to make you the chocolate bar that you stole, and that knife that you used to stab the person in your example...

 

This doesn't address any of the concerns of the original post. It's not a bad pragmatic argument in favor of acting ethically, but it isn't objective nor does it deal with the topic of irrationality. The argument really doesn't work because of many economic concepts such as diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. The long term success of thieves is certainly predicated on people not stealing, but this does not stop a thief from stealing. Rather, you are likely to get the argument "they make plenty of money, what I am stealing is barely a drop in the bucket, plus the management accounts for a certain amount stolen every month".

[Holo Cene]

So this argument for the rationality of "cheating", basically stealing in your example, is not an evolutionary advantage. A population of cheaters invariably does itself in as everyone is trying to steal from each other. A population of "selflessness" also does itself in because all it takes is one cheater to do the whole group in. Rather human's have developed a balancing between the two strategies. It always pays to be a cheater, but only if you can get away with it and only if the cheaters don't start taking over a population. Cheaters can only maintain in small numbers in any given population, because as soon as they get too noticeable they get eradicated out of the gene pool. Humans have also evolved sophisticated cheating detection mechanisms to combat the "cheater" and to maximize beneficial relationships. Why is cooperation rational? Because it is extraordinarily successful. 

 

This is just the general gist of "game theory" which is thoroughly fascinating and probably what you are looking for in terms of your question.

[TheRobin]

Conscience is just another way of saying, that one has empathy for others, which is another way of saying one has an emotional connection to other human beings.Without a conscience you're not better off, you're forever alone in a meaningless world, where ultimately nothing you do matters, cause you won't have anyone to share it with.I can't imagine any non-life-boat scenario where one could be considered "better off" living like that.

[Pepin]

This, what I say, even if society or others are worse off. Without a conscience, it doesnt matter how badly these others are affected because Im at a gain and it wouldnt matter if anyone else is at a loss because of me. Is my own gain not a rational pursuit and the loss of others neither rational nor irrational?

 

I wouldn't disagree with the feel of the argument, but again I would disagree with the with the use of the term rational. Rational applies to arguments and motives.

 

Might stealing seem like a good idea to someone who is on the brink of hunger and has failed getting food through voluntary means? Yes. Is it rational for him to steal? The question doesn't make sense.

 

Might stealing a large sum of money without possibility of detection be a good idea for someone who wants a large sum of money? Yes. Is it rational for him to steal? The question doesn't make sense.

 

Might raping a young man seem like a good idea for a woman who wants to envelop his naught bits? Yes. Is it rational for her to rape? Is that even a question?

[Freeman Stephen]

So being just is not neccessarily rational. To be unjust seems more rational as it brings greater material rewards than being just. To hinge a society justly may be a materially beneficial thing but to hinge an individual justly, is this not to cause harm to that individual, or at least to deny them what is beneficial - the ability to do injustice.

 

Is the promotion of justice in society not to sacrifice the benefit of the individual for the benefit of society.

 

(It scares me where this going too. Are we retards to behave justly?)

[Pepin]

To be unjust seems more rational as it brings greater material rewards than being just.

 

Ignoring the use of the word "rational" and instead substituting it with "advantageous", it depends on the definition of just and unjust and the circumstance. In most circumstances, even more in a free society, the ability to make any substantial and continual income through immoral actions is improbable. Circumstances that ensure a low probability of getting caught might appear once in a blue moon, but in general you are taking a huge risk in acting immorally. This would indicate that it is not adventurous. There is a lot a large amount of research on criminals, and even in the current system they tend to make less than minimum wage.

 

The elephant in the room is how my argument relates to government as they clearly profit from violence and almost no chance of retribution, but I feel like it can be ignored in this discussion.

 

To hinge a society justly may be a materially beneficial thing but to hinge an individual justly, is this not to cause harm to that individual, or at least to deny them what is beneficial - the ability to do injustice.

 

Not really certain what the first part of the sentence means, but there is no harm to an individual through ethics. It is like saying, "by not permitting rape, isn't this denying what is benefit an individual would gain through rape", which is to completely ignore that there is a victim. Ethical violations are win-lose, what is beneficial for the perpetrator is detrimental to the victim.

 

Is the promotion of justice in society not to sacrifice the benefit of the individual for the benefit of society.

 

Is promoting a message against rape to the benefit of the individuals in society and to the detriment of the rapist? Yes. Is that a sacrifice? No.

[Wuzzums]

Everything you do has a reason behind it , like wearing tinfoil hats and other haberdashery. Thus by the semantics of the word you can judge any action as "rational". But I think you're implying reason = logic.

 

So let's check the logic behind stabbing someone to get their chocolate bar. You didn't take in account all the other factors like the dangers of having to fight someone to the death, dealing with the aftermath, etc. Why is it logical to stab that someone to get the chocolate? Why not just take the chocolate forcefully? Why not convince the other person to give you the chocolate? Why not trade?

 

If having the "I use brute force for my own gain" kind of approach gives you an evolutionary advantage then all of us would be doing it. But we don't, empathy and a consciousness are far more beneficial than brute force thus it is logical for you to employ them for success. Of course because we live in such a world then those who are evil do get away with it but they're in the minority, (4% of the population give or take). Much like thieves get away with it because nobody likes thieving, but if we all were to steal then stealing wouldn't exist so no one benefits.

[Freeman Stephen]

Part of my overall point is "victim? so what, this is a tasty chocolate bar". Its like an argument against behaving unethically built upon the fact it would be unethical. IE A matter of choice for those without conscience. Victims dont matter in the context as they dont affect the enjoyment of the stolen chocolate bar unless you care about being ethical.

 

The only good argument youve provided is the consequences of getting caught which must be something of greater importance than doing injustice. IE Its not the rape or the murder or the theft thats a problem, but getting caught.

 

Modern societies provide no disinsentive to being unjust, only disincentives for being caught being unjust.

 

Is there not some argument that says that behaving justly is preferable to behaving unjustly?

 

Suppose you had the power to make yourself invisible and through this special power you became aware that a very rich man had a chest of gold in a his vault and he didnt even realise it was there. Using this power you could easily steal the chest of gold with no chance of being caught or even suspected later when you came to sell it. A hypothetical circumstance where your unjust action will be to your advantage and it is not possible you will suffer any consequences by being caught. Is there not some argument to say that it would infact be disadvantageous to steal the chest?

 

Maybe my hypothetical scenario is too strict to allow the disadvantage of injustice to be shown. Feel free to create your own if this is so, but remember Im not talking about the disadvantage of being caught but looking for the disadvantage of injustice in and of itself.

[june]

(It scares me where this going too. Are we retards to behave justly?)

essentially, yes (retard is a strong word, but regardless i understand your intent)this is because ethics are not empirical. killing may be wrong a lot of the time, but there are scenarios where killing is in fact 'just' (self-defense for one), so to say "thou shall not kill" is to make a rash, hollow blanket statement. to just declare "do not kill" completely ignores the reasons of why one might need to kill.this relates to the ancap position of "do not use the initiation of force" also.... because why should one not use force?! why just declare that, what about the reasons? i started a thread relating to this topic in which i argued that it's likely impossible to raise a child with absolutely zero force (picking up the child against it's will; stopping the child from chewing a small plastic toy... these are initiations of force)

[Marcus Clarke]

Please dont say UPB blah blah blah, elucidate it yourself instead of referring me to someone else.

 

This sentence is not logical.  If you say "Please don't say UPB" and then "instead of referring me to someone else", you have implied that UPB is a person, and that is not true.  UPB is a system of morality that is scientific, logical, rational, and empirical.  I feel like this sentence was intended to disarm the arguments in UPB without having to do the work to disprove the system.

 

If you have a chocolate bar and I want a chocolate bar, if I stab you to death and take the chocolate bar, am I not better off to the tune of one chocolate bar? Okay it didnt work so well for you because your now dead but for me, well this chocolate bar is very tasty, and I have no one but myself to thank for it because your dead now.

 

The term "better off" is totally subjective.  I would say that you are not better off because you would have allowed your mind to decay to a point where it could not process rational thoughts.  However, you are ignoring this person's property rights to their own body while asserting that you have property rights over your own body.  How can you logically claim to own your body if you do not recognize that the other person also owns their body?

 

My point is that this behaviour is completely immoral and psychopathic but is it irrational? You could say "yes" because the cops will now be chasing me but suppose I was the boss of cops or I had some other schrme meaning I wasnt getting caught? Ive made a gain at someones expense and although its completely evil, is it irrational? Are psychopaths mad or just evil? Is being conscientious actually a disability - the psychopath gets more free chocolate!

 

Yes, it is irrational.  That free chocolate comes at the cost of your logical, rational mind.  You could tell yourself that you are being rational and logical, but people tell themselves lies all the time to justify their actions.

 

I only used the "stab someone to death for a chocolate bar" scenario just to emphasise the point. More realistically, think about conning someone out of a hundred bank notes. The conscientious are at a great material disadvantage. It seems that the unjust fair better than the just, yet to behave justly is perceived as the rational way to live.

 

Yes, thieves, assaulters, murderers, and rapists do material advantage, but that advantage is multiplied hundreds of times when people can not see or understand that theft, assault, murder, and rape are immoral.  That is the society that exists today.  The science of morality is not about figuring out how to gain the greatest amount of materials for the least amount of work (see the economic sciences), it is about researching which human actions can truly be called moral, immoral, or morally neutral.

 

Ive been in dire poverty and couldnt bring myself to steal, yet there are those living the high life who seem to have no moral problem whatsoever stealing from people if they can get away with it. Is it not maybe me who is in someway stunted by what would appear an irrational need to be conscientious and not steal (or murder people for chocolate bars). If I was a pickpocket or a hitman or any number of occupations which require injustice, would I not be better off than earning an honest living.

 

You are not "stunted" in your mind.  I would argue that it requires a great deal of intelligence to never steal.

 

This, what I say, even if society or others are worse off. Without a conscience, it doesnt matter how badly these others are affected because Im at a gain and it wouldnt matter if anyone else is at a loss because of me. Is my own gain not a rational pursuit and the loss of others neither rational nor irrational?

 

So being just is not neccessarily rational. To be unjust seems more rational as it brings greater material rewards than being just. To hinge a society justly may be a materially beneficial thing but to hinge an individual justly, is this not to cause harm to that individual, or at least to deny them what is beneficial - the ability to do injustice.Is the promotion of justice in society not to sacrifice the benefit of the individual for the benefit of society.(It scares me where this going too. Are we retards to behave justly?)

 

Part of my overall point is "victim? so what, this is a tasty chocolate bar". Its like an argument against behaving unethically built upon the fact it would be unethical. IE A matter of choice for those without conscience. Victims dont matter in the context as they dont affect the enjoyment of the stolen chocolate bar unless you care about being ethical.The only good argument youve provided is the consequences of getting caught which must be something of greater importance than doing injustice. IE Its not the rape or the murder or the theft thats a problem, but getting caught.Modern societies provide no disinsentive to being unjust, only disincentives for being caught being unjust.Is there not some argument that says that behaving justly is preferable to behaving unjustly?

 

No, it is not rational to ignore the losses of other people, and no, no one is “retarded” for acting morally. 

 

So, in the scenarios you present, you exempt yourself from retribution.  Basically, you say, well I do this, I benefit, and no one can hurt me after that.  Well, that is not reality.  There is no reason why the family of the person that you murdered would not murder you if they found you.

 

The science of morality serves a fundamental and nearly impenetrable defense against murders, assaulters, thieves, and rapists.  It goes beyond the concept of the “Nuclear Option”.   It attacks these immoral actions not with physical force, but with mental force.  “Mental force”, or course, would mean rational argumentation.  Once it is understood to most people that scientifically-based morality proves that beyond a shadow of a scientific doubt that murders, assault, theft, and rape is immoral after someone reads the Morality Science textbooks, then your defense, your shield against the immoral people no longer requires armies, tanks, battleships, and nuclear weapons.  It will only require a scientific, reasonable, logical people, and the arguments for scientific morality. 

 

But, here we are in the world of unscientific, unreasonable, illogical people.  I would rather be in the peaceful world, but I am glad to be helping to build the peaceful world.  Otherwise, if no one tries to build the peaceful world, then it will have a true zero per cent chance of occurring.  The fact is that the chance of it occurring is much more than zero right now.

[Freeman Stephen]

I think most of your points are outwith the remit of the question such as "being caught" as an argument favouring justice or "a better society" being the reason individuals should behave justly despite clear advantages to the individuals who behave unjust. You also make the same mistake as me in saying morality is rational because its moral.

 

The one good argument youve given is that immorality goads to insanity, though Im not convinced of your argument but still interested in investigating what can be arrived at.

 

You said that I lose the belief in the rights over my own body when I disrespect those same rights in others (or words to that affect). This would be a great argument in showing just conduct is preferable to unjust conduct despite the free chocolate and would perhaps explain the consistant dehumanisation of enemies which is practiced by the barbaric forces which pervade our world. Is it an argument which can be made to stand against the barbarians attempt to justify their own acts as somehow good?

 

I will ponder this.

[justice seeker]

i havent read upb, but who says criminals are not rational? To me it is not about rational, it is strictly about moral...

[Marcus Clarke]

I think most of your points are outwith the remit of the question such as "being caught" as an argument favouring justice or "a better society" being the reason individuals should behave justly despite clear advantages to the individuals who behave unjust. You also make the same mistake as me in saying morality is rational because its moral.

 

If we are using the same word “morality”, but we are not using the same definition, therefore we can have a different basis for morality.

 

If you conform to religious Christian morality, then you have categorization of human actions based on the Bible, and then those actions have the attributes that say that they are moral, immoral, or neither. However, the stories in the Bible are not real, the consequences of immoral actions are not real, and thus the theory of religious Christian morality fails for many reasons.

 

The theory of scientific morality requires rationality if you are trying to develop morality in the context of science. Morality can best be compared to Biology. I do not know if I can convince you that modern Biology is the best methodology for categorizing biological organisms and characteristics because you personally will gain some material advantage from this. However, I can tell you irrational biology could have you call dogs and cats the same animal, fish and dinosaurs the same species, etc. Irrational morality would say that spanking is not hitting, kidnapping is a moral punishment for non-violent actions, and that war is peace. When you leave out science, you leave out your guards against crazy. Crazy should not infect your life and mind: it is not healthy, not satisfying, and can be dangerous to your self. Crazy takes your individual life, and puts it in jeopardy in quite a variety of ways.

 

You said that I lose the belief in the rights over my own body when I disrespect those same rights in others (or words to that affect). This would be a great argument in showing just conduct is preferable to unjust conduct despite the free chocolate and would perhaps explain the consistant dehumanisation of enemies which is practiced by the barbaric forces which pervade our world. Is it an argument which can be made to stand against the barbarians attempt to justify their own acts as somehow good?

 

If they are barbarians (in the context that I think that you are thinking), then they already have a theory of morality that says that they can murder and steal from whomever they want to. The argument for property rights does try to stand against people who want to ignore the property rights of others or frankly do not care it. There is no magic switch to make people just start caring about morality (and especially not right before they are about to violate your property rights!). No one can make someone care about biology or evolution if they believe in a god that circumvents all the reasoning for those arguments.

 

i havent read upb, but who says criminals are not rational? To me it is not about rational, it is strictly about moral...

 

People who commit immoral actions are not rational because they have decided to violate property rights, which are rational and logical. If the criminal does this action, then they have decided that their right to someone's property does exist, and that that person no longer has a right to that property. However, this is a self-destructive statement. If no one else owns anything, then you do not own anything either, and thus would not steal it because it will not be yours. You can not create a valid theory of morality where stealing is moral. So, you can steal the item, but you can not pretend that stealing is moral, logical, rational, or scientific. You could also state that morality does not exist, and that you are going to take whatever you want, but if I present you with an argument that morality does exist, then you are either need to try to understand the argument, or just say, to hell with you, I am going to steal your stuff whenever I want to and I do not care what anyone says about it.

[justice seeker]

There is a certain aspect of irrationality in morality as well. I may say that i will refrain from stealing because it is wrong, but now i am short a new television set. Is it not rational as well that all people seek to improve their lives, which basically is what mises argued is why people act in the first place. The act of theft is not to deny property exists, it is to coerce a transfer of ownership. By coercing ownership transfers i can enjoy more leisure time and expend less energy producing. There may be a hint of irrationality to theft, but you see there is also a hint of irrationality to being moral...