Can this moral proof stand up to scrutiny?

[Grizwald]

So one of my college homework questions asked us to analyze an action or inaction as moral or immoral. Before I analyzed it I strove to define what is moral or immoral. My conclusion was that moral behavior is that which serves the self-interest of all individuals involved. Immoral behavior is that which does not serve the self-interest of all individuals involved. Would this stand up to scrutiny? Am I correct?

 

"The definition for morality is “how humans ought to act.” But this runs into problems when you ask if a human can be immoral by them self? If a single human is isolated and alone on an island then their behavior can never be immoral. Every action they take can never be scrutinized as immoral as it does not in any way effect any other person. Every action the isolated human takes is therefore classified as moral because it would be beneficial to the one human. Because of this I believe the definition for morality should be extended to include “how humans ought to act with one another.” If two humans live on the island together, then what is beneficial in regards to the two may be in conflict. One human may want to kill the other which would be beneficial (moral) to one and harmful (immoral) to the other. By this logic, any behavior which is beneficial to a human is moral while any behavior which is harmful is immoral. So why should the one human not kill the other? They should not kill them because it would be harmful (immoral) to the victim. While the killing may be beneficial to one human it is not mutual. While it served the interest of one it did not serve the interest of the other. This would mean that the action of killing the other human cannot be universally justified as moral since it inflicted harm upon another human. It is only relative to one. To justify a behavior as moral it must be universally beneficial to all humans involved. Any action which in some way is harmful to a human must automatically be classified as immoral even if it does lead to a greater number of humans benefitting. For example, killing one human to save the lives of a thousand is immoral no matter how many more thousands of humans are added on. If it is in some way harmful it is not universally justified and therefore immoral. What is universally moral is that which serves the self-interest of the individual humans involved. This is because any action which universally serves the self-interest of individual humans must be beneficial." - Grizwald

 

One possible contradiction I observed was this. My moral behavior might not be in the self-interest of others. For instance, if I sell an item for $10, the person I'm selling it to might want me to sell it at a cheaper price. This would mean that I'm not serving the self-interest of the person I'm selling it to. But of course selling it at a cheaper price would mean my self-interest is not being served. So what do you guys think?

[NotDarkYet]

"killing the other human cannot be universally justified as moral since it inflicted harm upon another human"

1) Not quite.  It's wrong because it can't be universalizable.  (you can't both be alive to kill, and alive to be killed, for example)

 

2) Harm is subjective:  So who gets to define 'harm'?    On what time-scale?  1 day?  1 year?  10 years?

Some action might hurt me this week, but eventually be the best thing that happened.  (ie, losing my house in a fire...but meeting my dream lover at the homeless shelter)

 

Thus, subjective judgement can't be used as a universal standard.

[shirgall]

One possible contradiction I observed was this. My moral behavior might not be in the self-interest of others. For instance, if I sell an item for $10, the person I'm selling it to might want me to sell it at a cheaper price. This would mean that I'm not serving the self-interest of the person I'm selling it to. But of course selling it at a cheaper price would mean my self-interest is not being served. So what do you guys think?

 

Actually, in any free transaction the participants are getting something they want more than what they are trading away. They may desire a better deal, and they can freely refuse a worse one, but if they do decide to exchange, it's always for mutual advantage.

[Pepin]

"The definition for morality is “how humans ought to act.” But this runs into problems when you ask if a human can be immoral by them self? If a single human is isolated and alone on an island then their behavior can never be immoral. Every action they take can never be scrutinized as immoral as it does not in any way effect any other person. Every action the isolated human takes is therefore classified as moral because it would be beneficial to the one human. Because of this I believe the definition for morality should be extended to include “how humans ought to act with one another.”

 

There are a few ways of defining ethics. In a more general sense, it would be more accurate to define it in terms of human interaction as opposed to human action. I think it would be most accurate to define it in a UPB sort of way, such as "ethics is comprised of claims of behavior which can or cannot be universalized according to individual preference". It may sound a little complex, but essentially any ethical claim can be put through the test of universalization and other simple tests in order to be classified as ethical, unethical, or unrelated.

 

If two humans live on the island together, then what is beneficial in regards to the two may be in conflict. One human may want to kill the other which would be beneficial (moral) to one and harmful (immoral) to the other. By this logic, any behavior which is beneficial to a human is moral while any behavior which is harmful is immoral. So why should the one human not kill the other? They should not kill them because it would be harmful (immoral) to the victim. While the killing may be beneficial to one human it is not mutual. While it served the interest of one it did not serve the interest of the other. This would mean that the action of killing the other human cannot be universally justified as moral since it inflicted harm upon another human.

 

If you are writing this for a paper, I would reword it to make it a little more clear. There is the objective concept of beneficial which considers what is best regardless of individual preference, and then there is the concept of what individual benefit. As an example, in Game Theory there is a scenario called the prisoner's dilemma, which considers the overall benefit to both parties against the individual benefits.

 

What I think you want to say is that if we consider the ethical theory that what is beneficial to a person is what is ethical, then we can then test this by applying it universally.

 

You might want to rephrase the paragraph as responses might be "what does Bob the murderer care about the other's preference?" or "there is nothing stopping Bob from murdering Jane" and so on.

 

I might advise setting up the scenario in a way which both parties will behave according to the rules

 

1. Both people consider follow the rule of "individual benefit"

2. Both parties will follow any ethical conclusion

3. The rule applies to all people and not just them

 

This positions you to go through each person's preference and to derive their actions according to their preferences.

 

 

 

One possible contradiction I observed was this. My moral behavior might not be in the self-interest of others. For instance, if I sell an item for $10, the person I'm selling it to might want me to sell it at a cheaper price. This would mean that I'm not serving the self-interest of the person I'm selling it to. But of course selling it at a cheaper price would mean my self-interest is not being served. So what do you guys think?

 

Yeah, the contradiction there is that the theory which is supposed to rely on self-interest would depend totally on another's interest. The solution is just to realize that a conflict of self-interests defaults to no action.

 

If Bob wants to kill Jane and Jane does not want to be murdered, then the answer is for no interaction to occur; Bob is not to murder Jane because each individual's interests are not aligned. In the case of trade, if Jane wants a cheaper price than Bob is willing to sell, then the answer is for no interaction to occur; they are not to trade as each individual's interests are not aligned.

 

Personally I might put it more it more in the context of UPB, but what you are arguing is in many ways the same.

[Pepin]

Some action might hurt me this week, but eventually be the best thing that happened.  (ie, losing my house in a fire...but meeting my dream lover at the homeless shelter)

 

Thus, subjective judgement can't be used as a universal standard.

 

Harm is subjective, but preference is the essential measurement in regard to ethics. How one determines if an interaction is rape is by looking at the individual preferences. One person's wanting or not wanting to have sex with the other is the only way of telling if it was rape or love making. What matters in 99% of circumstances are the preferences involved at the moment of interaction, not future unforeseeable benefits.

 

The 1% of exceptions are cases where you have to push people out of the way of a car to save their life. It may violate their immediate preference, but this is only due to the lack of knowledge of the situation.

[dsayers]

My conclusion was that moral behavior is that which serves the self-interest of all individuals involved.

 

You tried this same bollocks over here. It was challenged before you created this 2nd thread on the subject. I asked you to clarify. Why did you not?

 

One of the requisites of moral consideration is other people. To be moral, a behavior must be binding upon another and NOT violate their property rights. I see you repackaged it as self-interest instead of selfish, but how do you arrive at that conclusion? If you cannot provide sound methodology, the conclusion is meaningless even if you guess right (which you haven't).

[Grizwald]

 

You tried this same bollocks over here. It was challenged before you created this 2nd thread on the subject. I asked you to clarify. Why did you not?

 

One of the requisites of moral consideration is other people. To be moral, a behavior must be binding upon another and NOT violate their property rights. I see you repackaged it as self-interest instead of selfish, but how do you arrive at that conclusion? If you cannot provide sound methodology, the conclusion is meaningless even if you guess right (which you haven't).

 

Well I never repackaged anything. This particular section of my paper was written before the fact. I created that thread about intervention as a thought anaylisis for this subject.