Will Torbald Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 To borrow a principle of quantum mechanics called the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which says that position and momentum are mutually uncertain. Knowing the position will leave momentum in uncertainty, while knowing the momentum will leave the location uncertain. This strikes me as eerily similar to what happens in moral philosophy in regards to ethics and justice. I call it the MUP. The Morality Uncertainty Principle says that as the certainty of morality increases, the certainty of punishment decreases. The more you know about morality, the more objective it becomes- the exercise of justice and punishment becomes less known and more subjective. The certainty of morality is the uncertainty of justice, and viceversa. People expect specifically determined punishments and judicial action out of a specifically determined system of universal ethics. However, universal ethics contain no information about the actions to follow after immoral behavior has occurred - and this upsets people. So they codify their laws, try to write down specific criminal justice codes for each and every imaginable situation, and in the process of doing that they create uncertainty of morality. As a psychological note, the preference for certainty of justice over certainty of morality seems to be as a way of managing the anxiety that uncertainty generates in people. Not knowing what to do bothers people, and they don't want to think about it. By having an instruction manual they get to relax their upset sensibilities at the expense of a rational and universal set of ethics. In other words, if it feels good, it is good. But a minority of people reject this paradigm and are perfectly comfortable with the certainty of ethics versus the uncertainty of punitive action. The anarchists, philosophers, libertarians, and so on. It is the inverse way of thinking and even feeling. Back to the topic of certainty, this ambiguity of the right side of the equation is often used as an attack on universal principles. They think that if a violation of property rights, a violation of the NAP, or any other likewise principle is broken then it must be that justice and punishment must follow and this must also be objectively determined. No, it's not like that. Tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, pity. These are all possible outcomes of a violation of ethical principles. Total and utter justice and restitution is also possible for the same crime. It is this 100% to 0% uncertainty of follow-up behavior that bothers people deeply. Some philosophers like Daniel Denett go as far as saying that they simply don't want to live in a world without punishments. It is unthinkable to them because of their feelings, which is rather anti intellectual. The approach I have to the uncertainty of justice in the certainty of morality is one of intensity. The intensity approach is as such: The intensity of a moral problem is inversely proportional to the intensity of justice. Meaning that situations of intense moral duress like life or death scenarios lower the intensity of the desire to proceed with punitive actions. In the classic flagpole example, it is certainly determined that breaking the window to save your life is a violation of property rights - but the intensity of the moral choice was so high that proceeding to prosecute a man for it would be unthinkable since it follows inversely proportional intensities. But what if its the opposite? What if someone who is in no duress whatsoever, no poverty or hunger, someone simply breaks in your window and takes your stuff just because. The moral intensity is so low, so minimal, that the resulting justice intensity increases almost to the max. There is no good reason to break property rights in such low intensity, thus restitution and actions against him are perfectly understandable - but always with the low probability of mercy and forgiveness. Maybe you just don't want to go through the trouble and let it go. In the end, it is the shift from certainty of justice to certainty of morality that can effectively change society, and it begins with individuals capable of standing up saying "I don't know what should be done about this crime, nor do I want to".
sb23rd Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 I think using a QM principle as an analogy re morality is problematic because it infers similarity. The uncertainty principle occupies more of an abstract existence because it's a mathematical assertion. Whilst morality (don't kill, rape, thieve or assault) can be validated or shown true (UPB?). At no time do I feel uncertain if I should violate someone else’s property rights. I've read some good articles on lewrockwell.com talking about justice in a stateless society and some solid points were made for the two teeth for a tooth approach when it comes to property violations. To me what is certain is that the title 'morality uncertainty principle' is uncertain. I find the title confusing. When you say that the more you know about morality the more objective it becomes, could you clarify? Seems unnecessary, since by saying 'the more you know...." already qualifies as objective since there's something to know and it requires to look outward. The rest of your points are curious even though perhaps your premise is faulty. Please correct me if I'm wrong so the first hurdle can be cleared as I want to understand. Maybe it's because I'm conflicted when it comes to QM for its volatility. Just to give you an idea where I'm coming from http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/science/quantum.htm
Will Torbald Posted January 9, 2016 Author Posted January 9, 2016 I think using a QM principle as an analogy re morality is problematic because it infers similarity. The uncertainty principle occupies more of an abstract existence because it's a mathematical assertion. Whilst morality (don't kill, rape, thieve or assault) can be validated or shown true (UPB?). At no time do I feel uncertain if I should violate someone else’s property rights. I've read some good articles on lewrockwell.com talking about justice in a stateless society and some solid points were made for the two teeth for a tooth approach when it comes to property violations. To me what is certain is that the title 'morality uncertainty principle' is uncertain. I find the title confusing. When you say that the more you know about morality the more objective it becomes, could you clarify? Seems unnecessary, since by saying 'the more you know...." already qualifies as objective since there's something to know and it requires to look outward. The rest of your points are curious even though perhaps your premise is faulty. Please correct me if I'm wrong so the first hurdle can be cleared as I want to understand. Maybe it's because I'm conflicted when it comes to QM for its volatility. Just to give you an idea where I'm coming from http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/science/quantum.htm Sure, I'll expand on what I meant. First of all thanks for your comment, I appreciate it. We understand that analogies aren't perfect, but serve the purpose of providing context to another idea. While you can calculate probabilities in QM, it is not the same kind of calculations used for moral judgements. However, when we compare two different, but related and linked, concepts like morality and justice it is possible to make soft inferrences about the nature of their interactions. What I mean by the "certainty of morality" is a system like UPB which provides clear and well limited boundaries for ethics. There is no relativity or personal preference, no "it's their culture". It's very objective in that way. On the other hand you have the opposite of that line of reasoning with the preference for "morality is whatever we say it is and if you disagree we shoot you" approach of statism, utilitarianism, and so on. It puts the punishment before the morality. So if you can imagine how there are two sides of a scale, where if one becomes well defined, the other becomes undefined. Since "rule of law" and "penal codes" are based on the attempt to have a hard code of justice, the examination of the ethical principles behind the total sum of the laws will result in an undefined, arbitrary, subjective, and rather chaotic combination of moral precepts. When you try to define a course of action after a violation has been made as the only enforceable outcome, you lose objectivity in the big picture. I mean, just try to imagine what kind of principles are behind the justice system of any country, and it resolves to nothing but mush. When it comes to the name "Morality Uncertainty Principle" I focused on the uncertainty part, and how it's a principle because it applies universally to any example of a comparison between moral systems and justice systems. I could have given it a cute name like the Torbald Uncertainty Principle, but I didn't want to put a name to it because it loses the information of what it is about. It's just the theme of the conversation. Now, I don't mean by uncertainty that all morality is uncertain. Because you could call other systems that aren't UPB "morality" with huge air quotes as well. Situational ethics, or objectivist ethics, or plain nihilism, you name it. They're all "moralities". What I mean to suggest with the uncertainty is that all of those systems have degrees of certainty and relativity. UPB is one where there is almost certainly no room for opinion, and so it leaves a huge uncertainty area on the right hand of the equation for reactions to immorality. It is a way to codify what Stef has said about flagpole/lifeboat scenarios of how violations of property rights don't have to be a call for violent and punitive reactions because consent can be given after the fact. If you break a window into private property it is not a crime if the owner gives consent after the fact when they find out it was a life or death situation. So for a 100% violation you can get a 0% reaction - and that's what I say that upsets people. They cannot imagine a system of morality where reactions to violations can be no reaction at all. They feel the need to punish, and cannot accept the certainty of objective morality for the desire to have certainty of punishment.
Recommended Posts