Is there an objective divide between moral and immoral?

 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,049 posts
Which is defined by human well-being.
Not really. If you're not suffering, then my job is done, I'd argue. Now, just because you're not suffering, doesn't necessarily mean that you're "well"--while the absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure isn't bad.

From an ethical standpoint, if all suffering is removed in the universe, I don't care if the universe is happy or not. Assuming that's part of the "wellbeing" package.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
If you're not suffering, then my job is done, I'd argue. Now, just because you're not suffering, doesn't necessarily mean that you're "well"--while the absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure isn't bad.
I'd argue the distinction can't be made.

Well-being seems like the absence of suffering; it's what drives us all the time. Every single moral advance being made is an attempt to alleviate some kind of suffering. When you totally eliminate suffering--assuming through channels other than anti-natalism--you've essentially created a kind of utopia.

This, of course, depends on how you define "suffering".

EDIT: I'd also argue that gratuitous, or dysteleological suffering, is the issue. Some suffering might actually contribute to human well-being in the long-run.
Last Edit: July 09, 2015, 07:11:21 PM by Meta Cognition


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,049 posts
EDIT: I'd also argue that gratuitous, or dysteleological suffering, is the issue. Some suffering might actually contribute to human well-being in the long-run.
given that we basically live in a dysteleological universe, i'm gonna need a few examples


Pendulate | Ascended Posting Frenzy
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Pendulate
IP: Logged

460 posts
 
This has nothing to do with ethics. It's not about "increasing wellbeing", whatever that even means. It's about doing the right thing.
In which case the question turns to how we define an action as "right". And as far as I can see, that has to reduce to wellbeing; otherwise you're stuck in an infinite regress.

I'll try to express this in a thought experiment. Assume that:

1. Pleasure can be measured on a linear scale, i.e. in units
2. The greater the units of pleasure, the more ethical the action

So there's you, a stranger, and a slice of cake. You can either choose to give the cake to the stranger or eat yourself. (You can't split it.) You will get 100 units of pleasure from eating the cake; the stranger will get 75.

Now on this basis alone (not accounting for other variables such as how the person will feel if you deny the cake to them etc) the answer clearly looks to be that eating the cake yourself is the most ethical option -- as long as you make the decision for that reason. I really don't see how it could be any other way.

If you're aiming for an empirically verifiable system of ethics, then presupposing that you have to exclude yourself directly conflicts with that aim:

1. Ethical propositions are reducible to facts about experience.
2. If certain experiences are good, and other experiences are bad, it follows logically that it is better to increase the good than increase the bad, and better to minimize the bad than minimize the good
3. It is only ethical to increase the good in others; to increase your own good has no place in ethics.

#3 is the only one that can't be empirically verified. Rather it's an arbitrary ruling suited to a categorical conception of ethics.
Quote
I'm saying it absolutely is.
You still haven't defended this claim, though.
Quote
This is my argument, though. There ARE no selfless deeds. That's what I've been saying from the beginning. That's why I think it nullifies the thread, because even though it's physically impossible to be selfless, you can still try your best. That's our cause.
Well, that's where I think you've got a problem, because if all acts are inherently selfish, there's no clear distinction to make between altruistic/ethical and selfish/unethical. And it seems the best you could do to get around this would be to refer strictly to consequences that affect others rather than yourself -- but that's a non-empirical presupposition. Why do consequences that affect others matter more than the consequences that affect yourself?

Quote
I discuss how we can go about it all the time--that's why I argue veganism and anti-natalism so often here, because I believe they represent the most ethically salient truths in the universe. I'm sure you have some ideas of your own--you're a vegan, and you've discussed veganism on two or three occasions here already.
Of course. This is one of those ideas. Plus it's a good avenue for self-criticism, which is almost always productive.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
given that we basically live in a dysteleological universe, i'm gonna need a few examples
Well, that's the thing really. Given your Schopenhauerean perspective, and my Nietzschean perspective, I doubt we'll be able to come to any agreement.

I can't really give you any solid empirical examples, but let's assume for instance that the nuclear disaster in Japan will lead to more efficient nuclear regulations, preventing a greater loss of lives in the future.


Pendulate | Ascended Posting Frenzy
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Pendulate
IP: Logged

460 posts
 
How much more ethical is donating $101 to charity over donating $100?

$1.
Well, no, because the dollar isn't an evaluative metric for something's moral value. Saying something is "one dollar more ethical" doesn't get us anywhere because it's entirely contingent on circumstance; there's a big consequential difference between giving an extra dollar to a homeless person and giving an extra dollar to a university.

Quote
And besides, if you honestly don't think selfishness is unethical, then you're contradicting yourself here. Why didn't you donate more? Well, because you have to sustain yourself, so that you may be able to donate more in the future, or something.
That's assuming that $100 was your absolute limit and anything over would make sustaining yourself difficult. Which isn't what I meant.

Quote
It's there, but it's too complex for us to define. That's my argument. Fortunately, I feel like a lot of the ethical judgments we make on a day-to-day basis are intuitively obvious.
That's something I'm becoming less convinced of. And as for an objective line between ethical and unethical actually existing? Well no, that doesn't sound right at all. "Ethical" and "unethical" are abstract concepts that serve as blunt instruments to navigate a continuum where a sole "dividing point" cannot logically exist. (At least, not in any way that I can conceive.)


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,049 posts
Assume that:

1. Pleasure can be measured on a linear scale, i.e. in units
2. The greater the units of pleasure, the more ethical the action

So there's you, a stranger, and a slice of cake. You can either choose to give the cake to the stranger or eat yourself. (You can't split it.) You will get 100 units of pleasure from eating the cake; the stranger will get 75.

Now on this basis alone (not accounting for other variables such as how the person will feel if you deny the cake to them etc) the answer clearly looks to be that eating the cake yourself is the most ethical option -- as long as you make the decision for that reason. I really don't see how it could be any other way.
I don't accept your second premise there. Frankly, I don't care about pleasure--there is no ethical imperative to pleasure people; there is only an ethical imperative to eliminate suffering. Because while the presence of pleasure is good, the absence of pleasure isn't bad.

Either way, the bit in parentheses there really bothers me. The bit where you say that you wouldn't be accounting for any other variables, like how they'd feel if you offered it, or how they'd feel if you didn't offer it.

...You must include these variables. Otherwise, it just looks like you're setting up the experiment in such a way that would conveniently help your argument.
Quote
If you're aiming for an empirically verifiable system of ethics, then presupposing that you have to exclude yourself directly conflicts with that aim:

1. Ethical propositions are reducible to facts about experience.
2. If certain experiences are good, and other experiences are bad, it follows logically that it is better to increase the good than increase the bad, and better to minimize the bad than minimize the good
3. It is only ethical to increase the good in others; to increase your own good has no place in ethics.

#3 is the only one that can't be empirically verified. Rather it's an arbitrary ruling suited to a categorical conception of ethics.
For whatever reason, I decided to tackle each of these paragraphs from the bottom up, rather than top-to-bottom. So, I already covered this, on the paragraph beginning with "because you are not worth..."

Quote
Well, that's where I think you've got a problem, because if all acts are inherently selfish, there's no clear distinction to make between altruistic/ethical and selfish/unethical.
Some things are only selfish because you gain personal gratification from them. Donating money might make you feel good inside, for example. This is selfish--it's good that we have these psychological mechanisms that give us the incentive to do good deeds, but the fact that we need incentives to do good deeds in the first place is flawed psychology. We shouldn't need incentives to do good deeds--we should just do that which is intrinsically good.

I'm not just saying "everything we do is selfish"--I'm saying that everything we do is selfish to a certain degree. Even my veganism, to a certain extent, is selfish--I achieve personal gratification from being up on this ethical high ground, and I like to make people feel bad about their addictive meat-eating personalities. That's not a good thing, but it makes me feel good to grandstand. I like knowing that I'm doing a better job at being ethical than another guy. I probably shouldn't be like that.

However, it's possible for the selfishness to be outweighed, so as to make the selfishness nearly invisible. Even though it's selfish to do good deeds because they make you feel good, you're still doing good deeds, and that's what matters.
Quote
Why do consequences that affect others matter more than the consequences that affect yourself?
Because you are not worth others' welfare. Now, if you instead worded the question like, "do consequences that affect an other matter more than the consequences that affect you?" that would've worked better to illustrate your point.

If we're dealing with only one other person, then neither one matters more than the other, assuming they're both Joe Sixpack. Whether one has his leg broken, or the other has his leg broken, there's no distinction. These are not the types of scenarios that I'm referring to, however.

Two Joe Sixpacks are more valuable than one Joe Sixpack.

it's entirely contingent on circumstance
Clearly, I'm referring only to scenarios where giving someone $101 instead of $100 would actually make a difference. The numbers are arbitrary.

Compare the emotive responses you'll receive when giving someone a dollar, and giving someone a thousand dollars. It's academic.
Quote
That's assuming that $100 was your absolute limit and anything over would make sustaining yourself difficult. Which isn't what I meant.
I'm not assuming anything about any sum of money. $100 is, again, arbitrary.

However much money you think you need to get yourself by is the amount you would keep, quite obviously. That's the point.
Last Edit: July 09, 2015, 08:31:49 PM by Verbatim


Pendulate | Ascended Posting Frenzy
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Pendulate
IP: Logged

460 posts
 
...You must include these variables. Otherwise, it just looks like you're setting up the experiment in such a way that would conveniently help your argument.
I only chose not to include them because they weren't necessary to illustrate my point. You can of course tweak it any way you wish; all that matters is that the pleasure gained/pain minimized/overall sum of both sits in favour of you eating the slice of cake.

The point being that if ethics is based on any experiential data, your own experiences are no less important than anyone else's.
Quote
So, I already covered this, on the paragraph beginning with "because you are not worth..."
But why am I not worth others' welfare? We're already assuming that the net pleasure gained (or net pain minimized) would be in favour of choosing my welfare over that of someone else. That's the big problem: we have moral fundamentals, such as pleasure is good and pain is bad (to put it bluntly). There are then more or less moral ways to navigate them. It then logically follows that there are more or less moral ways to act toward yourself. And unless you want to invoke some non-empirical concept, that seems to me an absolute fact.

Quote
However, it's possible for the selfishness to be outweighed, so as to make the selfishness nearly invisible. Even though it's selfish to do good deeds because they make you feel good, you're still doing good deeds, and that's what matters.
I think there's a conflation of intent and consequences here.

On one hand, consequentially good acts, while done for selfish reasons, are still good (albeit psychologically flawed);

Yet on the other, selfish acts done for selfish reasons are bad.

The intent is essentially the same in both. Now we're back at evaluating an action based solely on its consequences, and other than making a distinction between altruism and "personal gratification", I don't think you've sufficiently explained how personal gratification cannot be ethical. Your reasoning has been rather circular so far -- selfishness is bad because it's personal gratification, which is bad because it's selfish, etc.

Quote
Now, if you instead worded the question like, "do consequences that affect an other matter more than the consequences that affect you?" that would've worked better to illustrate your point.
Well yes, of course I wasn't implying that my welfare is worth more just because it's mine. That's exactly what I'm arguing against.

Quote
If we're dealing with only one other person, then neither one matters more than the other, assuming they're both Joe Sixpack. Whether one has his leg broken, or the other has his leg broken, there's no distinction. These are not the types of scenarios that I'm referring to, however.
Nor am I -- a more relevant example would be you and Joe Sixpack, where you would suffer more from a broken leg than he would. But that's still a tortured example. I think my point is clear enough already.

Quote
However much money you think you need to get yourself by is the amount you would keep, quite obviously. That's the point.
Sure -- my point was that donating $100 when you could have spared more is unethical, or at least has unethical elements, or at least is not "ethical" in some objective purist sense.
Last Edit: July 09, 2015, 09:53:51 PM by Pendulate


Matt | Member
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Zanir
IP: Logged

47 posts
 
:D :D :D Daily reminder that morality is subjective and if you don't think so you might as well just remove yourself from the gene pool you waste of space :D :D :D


 
TB
| Hero of the Wild
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: TBlocks
IP: Logged

17,217 posts
#13
:D :D :D Daily reminder that morality is subjective and if you don't think so you might as well just remove yourself from the gene pool you waste of space :D :D :D
I like this guy already.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Daily reminder that morality is subjective
Ha.

No. The fact that a certain presupposition of values must take place before moral reasoning can occur is a non-issue, literally. Physics--as much all of the sciences--also makes presuppositions, yet nobody questions them because they are epistemologically useful to make. Such must be the case with morality, and sentient well-being/suffering.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,049 posts
will try to respond tomorrow, but i'm growing weary of this