Moral Intuitions: which ones are important?

[bugzysegal]

In UPB Stefan recounts Aristotle's declaration that any purposed system of ethics should reflect our most basic of moral intuitions. Moreover any system that regarded rape or murder as good should be disregarded as useful. In NO WAY do I wish to contest that.

 

My actual question is why we view certain moral intuitions as necessarily foundational and indubitable, but not others? Do Utilitarian theories(for example) place greater emphasis on other moral intuitions and what would be a rationale for disregarding subsequent reasoning? That is how do we decide that evaluative systems as a whole are more valuable or "correct"  than others in a non-arbitrary manner? Might there be some scenarios where Utilitarian reasoning does a better job of reflecting our underlying intuitions? 

 

I am only really familiar with virtue ethics, deontology, Utilitarianism, and Libertarian natural rights theories. For the purposes of this discussion I will stick to to Utilitarian thought experiments, but if you have ever thought of or encountered areas of Libertarian thought that are better solved by one of the other ethical theories, please chime in! 

 

My example is the flag pole example: An apartment owner notices a clamoring outside his window. She looks outside and sees a man hanging from a flagpole in distress.  

"Please can I break the window? I'll repay you whatever you ask." asks the dangling man. 

"Not only are you not allowed to destroy my property, but you are not allowed to trespass into this apartment which I own! I won't take your money either." responds the woman. 

As a background, the dangling man slipped off the balcony because a flash freeze had left frost on the outer surfaces of the apartment building. There is no contract or custom establishing that property is forfeit to the saving of a life in this community.  

 

Utilitarian thought would say, the cost of the window and replacing the window would be less than the value of a life. The value of volition and choice in regards to the window and trespassing are outweighed by the value of an actual human being. Society would be better off objectively if the apartment owner acted against her own will and merely obeyed the Utilitarian edict that human life has intrinsic value. It's not wrong when, to avoid some danger, we trespass on the property of others i.e. the frequent trespassing through private property during natural disasters. Conversely it would be wrong for people to keep people from doing so.

[dsayers]

That is how do we decide that evaluative systems as a whole are more valuable or "correct"  than others in a non-arbitrary manner?

 

Careful. This right here is the fundamental trap. Stealing a pencil, raping somebody, and dropping a nuclear bomb are all violations of property right. Obviously the damage done has a gradation making each step up seemingly incomparable to the last. However, none of them are "correct." They are all immoral behaviors.

 

This is really important to understand because this is how utilitarianism gains a foothold. Gang rape is the violation of property rights for the benefit of more people than are harmed. From a utilitarian standpoint, it is a sound proposition.

 

In keeping with that approach, the flag pole scenario is bullshit. For starters, obviously it's something that never happens. Secondly, the answer is simple, but the very scenario being presented is meant to disarm a person's rational thinking. "The answer seems simple to me, but if it was that simple, who would ask the question? It must be a trick question and the answer is more complex." It's not.

 

The man on the flagpole is going to break the window and save his life. In doing so he IS initiating the use of force against the owner of the window and abode it is a part of. Happy to be alive, he's not going to refuse to pay for damages. And the person who was victimized is likely not going to be an ass about it and might even offer the person a blanket, a cup of coffee, a call to emergency services depending on the circumstances. If the person in the abode was a dick about it and tried to press charges and/or milk the occurrence for more than it's worth, people would recognize this and simply dissociate with them. "That loaf of bread is $1, but since you're that guy who was a dick that poor unfortunate fellow, I won't sell it to you for less than $3." The person would likely publicly apologize and others would be dissuaded from being a dick in the future.

 

This sort of question only comes up in a Statist society. Because it takes a State to fool people into believing we are self-sufficient.

[Will Torbald]

Utilitarian thought would say, the cost of the window and replacing the window would be less than the value of a life. The value of volition and choice in regards to the window and trespassing are outweighed by the value of an actual human being.

 

I don't know, can you prove that human life as value? We have bias, as we are human, but would an alien from space think of us with value? A sufficiently advanced alien species could look at us like we look at chickens. We don't think the life of a moss growing on a rock, a snail, a jellyfish, or a tuna has any significant value - but they are all carbon based cellular life forms like us. Without human bias, humans are just another animal. So, can you prove that human life has any objective empirical value outside of the perspective of a human?

[bugzysegal]

 

 

This sort of question only comes up in a Statist society. Because it takes a State to fool people into believing we are self-sufficient.

 

The actual problem is that the person would be morally permitted to prevent the flagpole person from entering....imagine a farm barred by electric fence and someone trying to escape some natural disaster.  The voluntarist can never be required to act. This does not jive with moral intuitions. Positive action can be morally required according to the intuitions of many. Are they all wrong? Why are your intuitions about property more important than others intuitions about life? An unmanned train is headed towards a drive stuck on the track. Are you morally required to flip a switch that would divert the train into an unpopulated ravine? Also you dont own the railroad, you a merely a passerby. Or even simpler are you morally required to tell someone about to be injured of the impending danger? Reframe the question as one of required positive action.  Can you think of no scenarios like this?

I don't know, can you prove that human life as value? We have bias, as we are human, but would an alien from space think of us with value? A sufficiently advanced alien species could look at us like we look at chickens. We don't think the life of a moss growing on a rock, a snail, a jellyfish, or a tuna has any significant value - but they are all carbon based cellular life forms like us. Without human bias, humans are just another animal. So, can you prove that human life has any objective empirical value outside of the perspective of a human?

If "value" has any meaning, it revolves around sentient human life and is necessitated by it. Value simply can't be infinitely flexible, for that would make the word meaningless. There are some situations where there is value and others where there is not. Plain and simple. All cases of the former involve human sentience.

[Will Torbald]

If "value" has any meaning, it revolves around sentient human life and is necessitated by it. Value simply can't be infinitely flexible, for that would make the word meaningless. There are some situations where there is value and others where there is not. Plain and simple. All cases of the former involve human sentience.

 

Well, unless you have a universal definition of value you can't have a universal definition of morality based on value. If your morality is not universal it's just an opinion.

[bugzysegal]

Well, unless you have a universal definition of value you can't have a universal definition of morality based on value. If your morality is not universal it's just an opinion.

I can give you a necessary condition of value....which I did: that it involves and requires human sentience and that is embedded within that sentience. Can I sketch you a perfect definition of "perfect value" or "absolute value", no but that is not necessary. "Value" requires us and is therefore not boundless.

 

I'l borrow from Sam Harris on the connection of value to consciousness: "I think we can know, through reason alone, that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. What is the alternative? I invite you to try to think of a source of value that has absolutely nothing to do with the (actual or potential) experience of conscious beings. Take a moment to think about what this would entail: whatever this alternative is, it cannot affect the experience of any creature (in this life or in any other). Put this thing in a box, and what you have in that box is—it would seem, by definition—the least interesting thing in the universe. So how much time should we spend worrying about such a transcendent source of value? I think the time I will spend typing this sentence is already too much. All other notions of value will bear some relationship to the actual or potential experience of conscious beings."

[Will Torbald]

I can give you a necessary condition of value....which I did: that it involves and requires human sentience and that is embedded within that sentience. Can I sketch you a perfect definition of "perfect value" or "absolute value", no but that is not necessary. "Value" requires us and is therefore not boundless.

 

I'l borrow from Sam Harris on the connection of value to consciousness: "I think we can know, through reason alone, that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. What is the alternative? I invite you to try to think of a source of value that has absolutely nothing to do with the (actual or potential) experience of conscious beings. Take a moment to think about what this would entail: whatever this alternative is, it cannot affect the experience of any creature (in this life or in any other). Put this thing in a box, and what you have in that box is—it would seem, by definition—the least interesting thing in the universe. So how much time should we spend worrying about such a transcendent source of value? I think the time I will spend typing this sentence is already too much. All other notions of value will bear some relationship to the actual or potential experience of conscious beings."

 

Okay, so that only means that value is subjective. If your morality is sitting on top of subjetivity, it can't be considered objective or universal. I consider this to still be on the same level as an opinion. It's just what you value, what you think has no value, what you think is worth more, and so on. Just another personal opinion.

[bugzysegal]

Okay, so that only means that value is subjective. If your morality is sitting on top of subjetivity, it can't be considered objective or universal. I consider this to still be on the same level as an opinion. It's just what you value, what you think has no value, what you think is worth more, and so on. Just another personal opinion.

Nope. You are the one insisting value is subjective. It's not subjective because the value of life isn't determined by people, it is predicated on people's existence.  

[Will Torbald]

Nope. You are the one insisting value is subjective. It's not subjective because the value of life isn't determined by people, it is predicated on people's existence.  

 

I'm saying that comparing the value of two things, and declaring which is more valuable than the other, is an opinion because you haven't provided an objective measure. By subjective value I mean that it only exists in people's minds, not outside them. When making moral judgements you are comparing what's moral vs what's immoral, and you're using a value scale - I'm asking what determines that value. You gave me sentience.

[dsayers]

The actual problem is that the person would be morally permitted to prevent the flagpole person from entering.

 

I already acknowledged that breaking through the window IS the initiation of the use of force. I addressed this scenario. Instead of acknowledging and answering what I put forth, you've just switched to the train track scenario, which is also bullshit both because it never happens and the answer is simple. If you're not going to consider and respond to the input of others, please don't waste their time pretending you are curious or that it is a conversation.

 

And yes, value is inherently subjective. I would even go so far as to say this is axiomatic. Name one thing all people regard as being the exact same value. Since objective morality is valid, there's not even a benefit to trying to pass value off as objection.

 

Since you mentioned sentience, I think you're on the right track. Perhaps I can help you either grasp the concepts better or articulate it better. The way I approach it we know that doctor's centuries ago who did not prescribe antibiotics were not evil because they didn't know of antibiotics. Similarly, we don't hold somebody having a seizure as responsible if their arm should backhand somebody nearby because there weren't in control. Humans possess the capacity for reason; the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. We own our bodies and our actions because we are aware of what all that entails. This is where property begins. In other words, we own ourselves.

 

Humans are not fundamentally different in ways that would mean one person owns themselves but others do not. So everybody owns themselves, which is universal and objective.

 

If I own myself and you own yourself, then any behavior that we engage in that is binding upon the other without their consent is a violation of property rights. This is not subjective! Because the person who is perpetrating theft, assault, rape, or murder is using their property to deny others the use of their property. They are telling you with their very actions that their behavior is immoral. It is internally inconsistent. It is a performative contradiction.

[bugzysegal]

I'm saying that comparing the value of two things, and declaring which is more valuable than the other, is an opinion because you haven't provided an objective measure. By subjective value I mean that it only exists in people's minds, not outside them. When making moral judgements you are comparing what's moral vs what's immoral, and you're using a value scale - I'm asking what determines that value. You gave me sentience.

Sentience is valuable. Can I quantify it, nope. Don't have to. I don't even have to give you a rigid definition of it because you know what I mean. You know there is a difference between a rock and a person. More than that, the bounds of value must exist within the confines of human life. That doesn't mean it is a figure in the mind, to be speculated upon. "Value" and "right" must be deeply connected if "right" has any meaning.

I already acknowledged that breaking through the window IS the initiation of the use of force. I addressed this scenario. Instead of acknowledging and answering what I put forth, you've just switched to the train track scenario, which is also bullshit both because it never happens and the answer is simple. If you're not going to consider and respond to the input of others, please don't waste their time pretending you are curious or that it is a conversation.

 

And yes, value is inherently subjective. I would even go so far as to say this is axiomatic. Name one thing all people regard as being the exact same value. Since objective morality is valid, there's not even a benefit to trying to pass value off as objection.

 

Since you mentioned sentience, I think you're on the right track. Perhaps I can help you either grasp the concepts better or articulate it better. The way I approach it we know that doctor's centuries ago who did not prescribe antibiotics were not evil because they didn't know of antibiotics. Similarly, we don't hold somebody having a seizure as responsible if their arm should backhand somebody nearby because there weren't in control. Humans possess the capacity for reason; the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. We own our bodies and our actions because we are aware of what all that entails. This is where property begins. In other words, we own ourselves.

 

Humans are not fundamentally different in ways that would mean one person owns themselves but others do not. So everybody owns themselves, which is universal and objective.

 

If I own myself and you own yourself, then any behavior that we engage in that is binding upon the other without their consent is a violation of property rights. This is not subjective! Because the person who is perpetrating theft, assault, rape, or murder is using their property to deny others the use of their property. They are telling you with their very actions that their behavior is immoral. It is internally inconsistent. It is a performative contradiction.

Why do our intuitions suggest positive moral requirements? Do they never? 

[Will Torbald]

Sentience is valuable. Can I quantify it, nope. Don't have to. I don't even have to give you a rigid definition of it because you know what I mean. You know there is a difference between a rock and a person. More than that, the bounds of value must exist within the confines of human life. That doesn't mean it is a figure in the mind, to be speculated upon. "Value" and "right" must be deeply connected if "right" has any meaning.

Why do our intuitions suggest positive moral requirements? Do they never? 

 

Sentience is valuable, ok, let's roll with that. Also, sentience is valuable, but it can't be measured how much value it has. So two people with sentience are equally valuable in the eyes of each other. What does it mean for a sentience to attack another sentience? It would mean that sentience A deems itself more valuable than sentience B.  In this way, we'd say that an aggression "devalues" people, and that devaluing people is immoral since you are holding yourself valuable, but another sentience less valuable than you. This would only work if all sentience is equally valuable to each other. Do you agree with that?

[bugzysegal]

Sentience is valuable, ok, let's roll with that. Also, sentience is valuable, but it can't be measured how much value it has. So two people with sentience are equally valuable in the eyes of each other. What does it mean for a sentience to attack another sentience? It would mean that sentience A deems itself more valuable than sentience B.  In this way, we'd say that an aggression "devalues" people, and that devaluing people is immoral since you are holding yourself valuable, but another sentience less valuable than you. This would only work if all sentience is equally valuable to each other. Do you agree with that?

I will grant most of this but...B wouldn't be required to act to defend themselves. Let's say the only method of defense is murder. It is a zero sum calculation. Let's say they are both worth 1 value unit or 1vu. By taking a life person A detracts from the total value of the world 1vu. If B defends, 1vu is not necessarily detracted. It's not necessary that one life actually be worth less by the decisions they make.  Utilitarians might have a way of arguing B would be required to act. I wont digress.

[Will Torbald]

I will grant most of this but...B wouldn't be required to act to defend themselves. Let's say the only method of defense is murder. It is a zero sum calculation. Let's say they are both worth 1 value unit or 1vu. By taking a life person A detracts from the total value of the world 1vu. If B defends, 1vu is not necessarily detracted. It's not necessary that one life actually be worth less by the decisions they make.  Utilitarians might have a way of arguing B would be required to act. I wont digress.

 

Murder and killing are different things. Killing is just the act of taking a person's life, but murder is initiation of agression leading to taking a person's life against the person's interests. If a life wants to die and asks for it, we call that assisted suicide. The act of murder is an imposed devaluation towards another sentient life, and that is why it is immoral. Not because a life has been taken (which can happen with suicide or with assisted suicide, or with an accident), but because a sentience has been devalued by someone else of equal value. This would create a principle which would say "The imposition of devaluation against another sentience is immoral" and that includes all forms of aggressions and attacks.

[dsayers]

Why do our intuitions suggest positive moral requirements? Do they never? 

 

This doesn't address anything I said to you. I won't waste my time trying to have a conversation with somebody who is output only.

[bugzysegal]

This doesn't address anything I said to you. I won't waste my time trying to have a conversation with somebody who is output only.

Your remedy is a practical one, not a moral one. Morality is supposed to guide human behavior, no? Why doesn't morality ever necessitate positive action? Why do we often have intuitions to the contrary? That is the fundamental question I set out to ask. You can A. summarily dismiss this as ever being the case, placing the burden of action on the person in danger or seeking to avoid it, B. devise a tidy thought experiment that fits your constraints, or C. pretend I'm a lunatic/imbecile who has nothing valuable to add.

 

I would like to think that you are morally required to help those in moral danger, whom you can immediately effect (within reason). If I am mistaken, sorry? Explain why your intuition about property supersedes my intuition about life?

[dsayers]

Your remedy is a practical one, not a moral one.

 

I didn't put forth a remedy. You started the thread by 1) acknowledging that any system that leads to rape is good can be dismissed outright and 2) sharing that you were considering a utilitarian approach. I pointed out that from a utilitarian standpoint, gang rape is a sound proposition.

 

And I put forth a proof for objective morality. That was my two main contributions to the thread. You've rejected both, but cannot identify why, and seem eager to move past these contributions were made at all.

 

Morality is supposed to guide human behavior, no?

 

No, objective morality is not an ought. It is merely the acknowledgement that property rights cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously. Theft, assault, rape, and murder ARE internally inconsistent because they accept and reject property rights simultaneously. To derive an ought form an is, you need a qualifying if. As in, IF you wish to be consistent THEN you should not steal, assault, rape, or murder. That's it!

[Des]

I don't know, can you prove that human life as value? We have bias, as we are human, but would an alien from space think of us with value? A sufficiently advanced alien species could look at us like we look at chickens. We don't think the life of a moss growing on a rock, a snail, a jellyfish, or a tuna has any significant value - but they are all carbon based cellular life forms like us. Without human bias, humans are just another animal. So, can you prove that human life has any objective empirical value outside of the perspective of a human?

"A sufficiently advanced alien species could look at us like we look at chickens."

 

The capacity to trade [my] ethical behaviour for [the] ethical behaviour [of others], is a capacity that makes a distinction between some species and other species. Alien species will have this watershed also, as will artificial intelligences. This watershed runs through all organisms and machines.

[Will Torbald]

"A sufficiently advanced alien species could look at us like we look at chickens."

 

The capacity to trade [my] ethical behaviour for [the] ethical behaviour [of others], is a capacity that makes a distinction between some species and other species. Alien species will have this watershed also, as will artificial intelligences. This watershed runs through all organisms and machines.

 

So is a thumb or a pancreas. At the point of distinction it is possible for aliens to develop intelligence beyond optative moral behavior and use entirely new ways of thinking, a super-ethics imbedded through millions of years of ethical selection. At that point moral discussions would be deemed irrelevant because for us morality is a choice, and they already have it as their instinct.

[bugzysegal]

I didn't put forth a remedy. You started the thread by 1) acknowledging that any system that leads to rape is good can be dismissed outright and 2) sharing that you were considering a utilitarian approach. I pointed out that from a utilitarian standpoint, gang rape is a sound proposition.

 

And I put forth a proof for objective morality. That was my two main contributions to the thread. You've rejected both, but cannot identify why, and seem eager to move past these contributions were made at all.

Gang rape is not a problem for utilitarianism. It would be if you just measured the pleasure of the rapists vs. the displeasure, fear, and emotional harm caused to a victim and said "look, more happy people than non-happy people." This is a restatement of the "Utility monster" problem. Mill put forward the notion that we can never treat people merely as means, but each is an end in themselves. 

 

Let's make the arithmetic cleaner shall we? Why should we not consider the pleasure of one psychopath as more valuable, immense as it is, than the suffering of a victim? Easy, pleasure is not the single measure of well-being. Sam Harris puts forth an argument for a "well-being" centered Utilitarianism in "The Moral Landscape" and he seems to do quite a good job. 

 

This fundamental interference with a persons ability to exhibit well-being is going to outweigh any momentary pleasure given to the rapists. In fact, the likelihood of the rapists doing this to others has now increased, if past behavior can be taken to implicate future behavior. The fact that they may be allowed to follow through with the rape without repercussion increases the odds of more similar losses in the future. 

 

If we allowed the sadistic pleasure of psychopaths to dominate our moral decisions, the world would suffer as a net.

 

And I put forth a proof for objective morality. That was my two main contributions to the thread. You've rejected both, but cannot identify why, and seem eager to move past these contributions were made at all.

 

No, objective morality is not an ought. It is merely the acknowledgement that property rights cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously. Theft, assault, rape, and murder ARE internally inconsistent because they accept and reject property rights simultaneously. To derive an ought form an is, you need a qualifying if. As in, IF you wish to be consistent THEN you should not steal, assault, rape, or murder. That's it!

I haven't rejected your "objective" morality.I'll grant you that property rights do a good job of reflecting some intuitions, but not all. Consistent notions can still be inapplicable(do not bring up universality, I'm arguing for plurality and asking where you get your right to demand ethical monism). Also you can't rescue the "ought from is" with an "if/then" statement and think you've done anything but refer to consequences. You are smuggling in your definitions for these terms and saying you've simultaneously proved Utilitarianism inconsistent and that your morality is not.

 

Here are the facts: my intuitions tell me that property rights notions are inconsistent when it comes to positive actions requiring one to help another. You can sit there and pretend that these situations never exist, but stop telling me how I feel. It's condescending in the extreme. You are also delusional if you think no one else feels this way.

 

Your intuitions tell you that Utilitarianism leads to inconsistency in a variety of other situations. Great. 

 

There are arguments on both sides. Here I'll formally put forth an objective argument for Utilitarianism. We ought to do whatever maximizes the well-being of conscious creatures, because if anything has value it is within those bounds. (we are the ones that value things, not rocks, chairs, etc.) Since sentient beings are the ones that value, there is value embedded into the very existence of conscious creatures. Can we now leave the objective foundations of Utilitarianism alone? My question is why your intuitions are more weighty than mine or those of countless millions?

[dsayers]

Gang rape is not a problem for utilitarianism.

 

If this were true, you probably would've been quick to point it out the first time I mentioned it.

 

Of course it is. Utilitarianism is judging something by how useful it is, regardless of its moral identity. Useful is subjective. Gang rape is useful to more people than not, so it is for the so-called "greater good." If you were to reference the harm done to the victim, then you are setting aside utilitarianism and conceding that the moral consideration is paramount.

 

If you find somebody passed out at a party, you might have the intuition to take advantage of them. Then reason takes over. The fact that we have the capacity for reason means "intuition" is not useful when determining right or wrong. Optical illusions are a simple way of demonstrating how intuition can contradict reality. And when the interpretation of the evidence of our senses contradict reality, it is our perspective that must give way, not the other way around.

 

Also, don't weasel out of refuting objective morality by calling it mine (asserting it is subjective). Show me where the proof for objective morality fails.

[bugzysegal]

If this were true, you probably would've been quick to point it out the first time I mentioned it.

 

 

You complained when I didn't address your problems with Utilitarianism, now it's wrong because I have addressed it? Make up your mind.

 

 

Of course it is. Utilitarianism is judging something by how useful it is, regardless of its moral identity. Useful is subjective. Gang rape is useful to more people than not, so it is for the so-called "greater good." If you were to reference the harm done to the victim, then you are setting aside utilitarianism and conceding that the moral consideration is paramount.

 

Utilitarianism is itself a moral theory. That which maximizes well-being is good. The actions which produce consequences of higher net well-being are the good ones. 

 

Yours isn't even close to an accurate representation of Utilitarian thought. Taking into account harm to the victim is a part of net "good" assessment. 

 

Also, don't weasel out of refuting objective morality by calling it mine (asserting it is subjective). Show me where the proof for objective morality fails.

 

I'm not weaseling out of anything. How are you using objective? Do we both recognize property rights? Sure. Are they reasonable to anyone with some semblance of intellect? Sure. That doesn't make them the only reasonable moral positions. That doesn't mean they can't be superseded by other objective moral concerns.

[dsayers]

You complained when I didn't address your problems with Utilitarianism, now it's wrong because I have addressed it? Make up your mind.

 

I was pointing out that I recognize that you don't believe in the merit of your refutation. Because the first time you were offered the opportunity to present it, you chose to act like nothing was said instead of providing a damning refutation.

 

Utilitarianism is itself a moral theory. That which maximizes well-being is good. The actions which produce consequences of higher net well-being are the good ones. 

 

Yours isn't even close to an accurate representation of Utilitarian thought. Taking into account harm to the victim is a part of net "good" assessment. 

 

Claiming to be a moral theory isn't the same as being a moral theory. Also, any theory ceases to be even a theory the moment it's disproven. Because it is predicated on a subjective measurement, it is a matter of opinion and therefore not binding upon others. "Theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights" is always and objectively true.

 

I understand that hearing that your proposition validates gang rape is unsettling. This is a good thing! But only if you use it as a signal that you need to revise your theory to more accurately describe the real world. What do we have in a gang rape? One person has agency over their own body, safety, time, sense of security, faith in humanity, etc violently taken from them for an hour. Then you have X (where X > 1) people who, for that same hour, pretend to have superhuman powers (owning themselves and another person) in a very real way. One person loses their humanity so that more people get to have superhumanity. This is a net good!

 

How are you using objective?

 

Objective means exists outside of individual consciousness.

 

Do we both recognize property rights? Sure. Are they reasonable to anyone with some semblance of intellect? Sure. That doesn't make them the only reasonable moral positions. That doesn't mean they can't be superseded by other objective moral concerns.

 

Sure it does. If my behavior isn't binding upon you without your consent, then it's none of your concern what those behaviors are, why I engage in them, or how "good" they are for others.

 

What is an "objective moral concern"? Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only behaviors that simultaneously accept and reject property rights. Also, concerns are subjective.

 

If the problem is that I don't know what utilitarianism is, why aren't you explaining it starting from first principles and using precise language? Seems like it would be more productive than "nuh uh."

[bugzysegal]

I was pointing out that I recognize that you don't believe in the merit of your refutation. Because the first time you were offered the opportunity to present it, you chose to act like nothing was said instead of providing a damning refutation.

 

Yours was such a gross misrepresentation of Utilitarianism, I didn't deem it important. That was stupid of me. If the conversation is to be productive, I need to remedy the situation.

 

 

 

"Claiming to be a moral theory isn't the same as being a moral theory. Also, any theory ceases to be even a theory the moment it's disproven. Because it is predicated on a subjective measurement, it is a matter of opinion and therefore not binding upon others. "Theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights" is always and objectively true."

 

Just because well-being is hard to define, doesn't mean it's subjective. Utilitarianism is a moral theory in that it proposes intrinsic value of certain things exists. Maximizing that value is making more good, and is thus the superior option in any given circumstance. Evaluation of values is done by people, but that alone doesn't require that all value be necessarily subjective. The value Utilitarianism concerns itself with is objectively valuable if anything is: well-being and lives of conscious creatures. When the choice is to preserve people or property, people (all things being equal) is the best choice. There is nothing subjective about any of this.

 

 

What is an "objective moral concern"? Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only behaviors that simultaneously accept and reject property rights. Also, concerns are subjective.

 

Theft is wrong because the valuation as opposed to a fair trade is zero-sum as opposed to net positive. Economics my dear boy. Rape, assault, and murder can all be evaluated in terms of their harm vs. well-being economic trade offs. 

 

So I slap a child in an effort to hurt them, but in the process I move them out of the way of a bullet. The harm I've done vs the life I saved seem to say I've done something good. It's actually less good than if I had my motivations been different however.  My motivations in my actions indicate what actions I am likely to take in the future. That means that my motivations, if carried out in the future would likely result in net harm, are bad.

[Des]

So is a thumb or a pancreas. At the point of distinction it is possible for aliens to develop intelligence beyond optative moral behavior and use entirely new ways of thinking, a super-ethics imbedded through millions of years of ethical selection. At that point moral discussions would be deemed irrelevant because for us morality is a choice, and they already have it as their instinct.

I'll allow that that is possible. I sincerely doubt that the alternate case of an intelligent alien species arriving near us without at least our primitive understanding of ethics, without having discarded statism (or skipped trying it). I estimate that all the future fiction I can think of is wrong in it's prediction/assumption of galactic statism.

[bugzysegal]

Objective means exists outside of individual consciousness.

While subjective first person experience exists, everything really is objective in that all meaning is something shared. "Objective" doesn't add anything to the conversation. Calling morality "objective" only means that its meaning is understood by both of us. Indeed, people have gone about rephrasing "objective" as "inter-subjective agreement" Think how little the word "objective" adds to any conversation. "I shot you with objective bullets, and you objectively died in objective pain" What are you saying other than you are really right? Also I responded to all your stuff above, but it's being reviewed by discussion monitors.

[dsayers]

Just because well-being is hard to define, doesn't mean it's subjective.

 

The fact that it's different for every person means it's subjective.

 

Value is subjective. So phrases like "intrinsic value" and "objectively valuable" do not accurately describe the real world.

 

When the choice is to preserve people or property

 

People is the plural of person. Person refers to an entity that possesses the capacity for reason. Therefore people ARE property AND you cannot have property without people.

 

Some people want to die. According to you, they are not free to make this choice. In other words, you are using your life to assert that others cannot use their lives. This contradiction reveals you are in error.

 

Theft is wrong because the valuation as opposed to a fair trade is zero-sum as opposed to net positive.

 

Theft is wrong because it contradicts reality. Property rights cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

 

So I slap a child in an effort to hurt them, but in the process I move them out of the way of a bullet.

 

You keep going back to these outlandish scenarios to justify your belief in utilitarianism. Meanwhile, objective morality applies to ALL voluntary behaviors that are binding on other people. Not saying this proves I'm right and you're wrong, but if truth is what you seek, this should give you pause.

 

Also, when you present these outlandish scenarios, you are assuming utilitarianism is valid while trying to demonstrate it. This is called begging the question.

 

Slapping a person is using your body to deprive that person use of their body. This is a true statement. It's true if you mean to harm them. It's true if you mean to save them from a greater harm. I point this out because your last post sounds like you accept objective morality even though you're searching for a more complex explanation that includes it and things that contradict it.

[bugzysegal]

The fact that it's different for every person means it's subjective.

 

Value is subjective. So phrases like "intrinsic value" and "objectively valuable" do not accurately describe the real world.

 

Now who's begging the question?

 

People is the plural of person. Person refers to an entity that possesses the capacity for reason. Therefore people ARE property AND you cannot have property without people.

 

First sentence, agreed. Could you clarify the subsequent deduction please?  How does a person's capacity to reason make them property, let alone property of themselves?

 

Theft is wrong because it contradicts reality. Property rights cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

Again I am limiting the extent to which property rights can be applied. That's the premise of this entire thread. You don't make your point by saying self-ownership and ownership are both necessary apply to all moral problems. You can easily claim that property rights and ownership are theories that apply to all similar sets of circumstances, but I am looking at dissimilar ones. Again you can respond by saying these are unlikely even to the point of being highly unlikely. They are not so unlikely as to render the moral considerations irrelevant. You ought to save a person drowning, despite desiring to keep your cloths dry more than saving the life of another.

[bugzysegal]

The fact that it's different for every person means it's subjective.

 

Value is subjective. So phrases like "intrinsic value" and "objectively valuable" do not accurately describe the real world.

 

Now who's begging the question?

 

People is the plural of person. Person refers to an entity that possesses the capacity for reason. Therefore people ARE property AND you cannot have property without people.

 

First sentence, agreed. Could you clarify the subsequent deduction please?  How does a person's capacity to reason make them property, let alone property of themselves?

 

Theft is wrong because it contradicts reality. Property rights cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

Again I am limiting the extent to which property rights can be applied. That's the premise of this entire thread. You don't make your point by saying self-ownership and ownership are both necessary apply to all moral problems. You can easily claim that property rights and ownership are theories that apply to all similar sets of circumstances, but I am looking at dissimilar ones. Again you can respond by saying these are unlikely even to the point of being highly unlikely. They are not so unlikely as to render the moral considerations irrelevant. You ought to save a person drowning, despite desiring to keep your cloths dry more than saving the life of another.

[Will Torbald]

I'll allow that that is possible. I sincerely doubt that the alternate case of an intelligent alien species arriving near us without at least our primitive understanding of ethics, without having discarded statism (or skipped trying it). I estimate that all the future fiction I can think of is wrong in it's prediction/assumption of galactic statism.

 

Which is why Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that he wonders if aliens have already visited us, but decided there were no signs of intelligent life in this planet, and moved on.

[dsayers]

Now who's begging the question?

 

Show me, don't tell me. I looked over what I said and I see no example of assuming the outcome of a question as part of my answer to the question.

 

Could you clarify the subsequent deduction please?  How does a person's capacity to reason make them property, let alone property of themselves?

 

Again? Okay. Doctors centuries ago didn't provide antibiotics because they weren't aware of them. Somebody in a seizure doesn't assault your if their flailing limbs happen to contact you because they're not in control. Where we are aware and in control, we are responsible. We own our actions.

 

Again I am limiting the extent to which property rights can be applied.

 

Except it's not up to you. We exist within reality, so reality determines what is and it not true.

 

They are not so unlikely as to render the moral considerations irrelevant.

 

When you're determining what is true and what is false, the only consideration is how accurately it describes the real world.

 

The likelihood of the scenarios isn't the problem. The problem is WHY you're bringing them up. You're trying to reject reality because of the ways it makes you uncomfortable. It's not easy for you to admit that the guy on the flagpole is guilty of breaking somebody else's window and entering their home without their consent. I can't even figure out why because there's no reason to expect that he won't compensate them or they would try to punish him for it. Just like ending slavery doesn't mean you're not going to get cotton any more.

 

The moment you say the person in the home HAS to consent, you are imposing an unchosen positive obligation. This is unehtical in proposition and cannot be universalized. It means that as soon as I am hungry, you must be compelled to feed me.

 

When you say "I'm so afraid people won't help each other that I'm going to claim they are forced to" you're literally saying "I cannot make the case to rational people, so I'm going to pretend they don't have a choice." It's absolutely ludicrous because we are interdependent. Just sitting here on my couch, in my heated home, typing this to you on a computer, for you to be able to view it anywhere in the world, this process alone required thousands of people accomplishing various tasks just to be possible. Nobody's going to let the kid drown that has the ability to save him. So relax and be honest about what is true and what is false.

[Des]

Which is why Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that he wonders if aliens have already visited us, but decided there were no signs of intelligent life in this planet, and moved on.

Mmm. Humorous. Why I like to predict the what-ifs about space aliens and intelligent machines, is that I want to know if I should hold hope, or give up hope. These are two different paths for my future, with different planning time-frames. Hope comes from the estimate that minimum ethical standards will be computed by any being with a desire to stay alive, and will probably be followed.

[dsayers]

*redacted* (wrong thread)

[bugzysegal]

*redacted* (wrong thread)

My fault, these issues overlap or they digress...If ADD weren't a total myth I'd say I have it lol