Way of the Mind Forum

Continued from the problem of evil thread..

Jim,

The masochist is gaining pleasure from the experience. This is not even a blip on the radar as being a problem for morality. Now you posited that this means that harms are subjective, which is clearly not true. Nothing about this makes any element of it subjective.

You may be expecting absolutism from morality, meaning that if there is any reason ever to excuse or understand any exception then you might conclude that it could not be morality. However morality simply does not behave this way. There are no absolutes in this sense. For instance, we avoid the harm of having our bodies cut into or damaged, yet we consent to surgeries. We determine that the harm from not choosing to have our bodies cut into is greater than the harm from the cuts necessary for the surgery. The basic harms are universal, meaning that they exist with regard to every rational vulnerable entity, but the ordering may to some extent differ between individuals. That the ordering may differ in no way affects the fact that these are basic harms necessitated by rationality.

Like I said, morality is not a mere slogan, so the sort of absolutism or quickie answer you seem to want simply isn't available. That there are times in which we rationally choose some degree of pain, or in which we seem to embrace the illusion of harm in no way changes the facts or makes moraly any less objective. It simply means that we need to take a closer look at the facts and to spell out more carefully the situation in general. So in the case of the masochist, we are calling pleasure by the name of pain. So too with the folks into bondage, they give up the ILLUSION of freedom for the true pleasure they get.

How the conflicts between the harms and the benefits is resolved in a given individual in no way changes the nature of the basic harms and benefits.

Notice how you have avoided the meta level questions? There is a reason.. for if these meta level questions are considered then the possibility of accepting that morality is objective must be allowed, else those elements which are considered objective today (such as gravity or geometry) must be denied. Consider those questions, and ask why the double standard?

I still can't get past this notion that morality is completley subjective, how can there be an objective opinion of something, if there is emotion behind it? The universe, and everything in it, reality if I can hijack that term, has no moral rating. There is nothing "good" or "bad" within the universe, it is our opinions of things,our subjective views that creat the moral "rating".

From what you described your conclusion is necessary for it is the premise as well.

Notice that no where has emotion been placed "behind" or as the source of morality in fact quite the opposite has been shown to be the case. So from a false premise and pure textbook circular reasoning, of course it is never a surprise that the conclusion turns out to be false, unsupported and of course unsupportable.

Morality is not opinion, nothing that has been offered includes opinion..

Actually I was not expecting absolutism! In fact, it was my misreading of what you said earlier that led me to think that was what you meant.

Again - I did not want this. I wanted the clarification you are now giving. Believe it or not, I think we agree on this issue! I do not see morality as an absolute, nor do I see it merely as one persons opinion. I think I am beginning to understand what you mean by objective morality.

I'm sorry I have to show my ignorance again. What is a meta level question? Also, and only for professional reasons (we can continue this in another post or through email) I am curious in what sense you say that geometry is objective (and know that I am not necessarily disagreeing with this statement, I just want to hear what you think makes it objective).

Thanks again for your response. Like I said earlier, I think on this one we can agree. I mistook your description of 'objective morality' to be an 'absolute' morality. My fault.

Meta level questions are questions about the questions of the issue. It is essentially a step up in the heirarchy. For instance to use a math metaphor, a meta level question about the multiplication tables might be something about set theory and how it relates to the tables..

In this instance I was drawing attention to the nature of the questions which spoke to the nature of the objections. The answers were not an enlightening as the questions since the questions necessitated denying virtually everything else we accept about reality. So by questioning the questions we can draw attention to double standards and inconsistencies in positions.

Geometry is objective in many ways but as for the relevance here let's focus on the characteristic which make both geometry and morality completely independent from any individual. A triangle has the same properties even if I do not exist, or you do not exist or even if no one ever existed. The same is true of morality. The properties remain constant regardless of preachers, or even heavy handed and misguided philosophers (or lay persons)..

For what it is worth let's introduce the distinction between absolute and universal. Absolute means allowing of no exceptions, whereas universal means all inclusive. The first applies to actions the latter to actors. So if we accept the (false) common belief that there is some prohibition against killing, then this would apply absolutely allowing no instance in which killing is acceptable. (Clearly absurd, but it makes the point) Now universality looks at the participants, in which case all rational vulnerable beings. What this means for morality is that there may be instances in which acting against the short hand versions of the moral rules is actually acceptable, morality still applies to all individuals.

Hope that helps..

Actually that does help.
Allow me to see if I can put some of these things in my own words.

"What this means for morality is that there may be instances in which acting against the short hand versions of the moral rules is actually acceptable, morality still applies to all individuals."

An example of this would be that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person. However, if allowing this innocent person to live would mean the death of ten other innocent people, killing that innocent person would be the best thing to do morally. This doesn't mean that morals are pushed aside for the instance, it's actually morality that that makes it acceptable to kill this person for the sake of others.

... right?

I doubt that you could make the case for killing an innocent, even or perhaps especially given the parameters you have spelled out. However take "do not kill" and then the exceptions become clear. Self defense being the most obvious. Morality still applies to everyone, and the obligation still applies, but self defense is a justified excusing condition.

Heh, I don't get it.

Killing an innocent, even if it meant saving the lives of ten other innocents wouldn't be morally correct. Yet, protecting myself would be?

Do you disagree that seeking to preserve your own life against those who would take it or otherwise harm you is a good thing?

Um, no I don't disagree with that, but... let me point out that the question asked wasn't only about protecting myself but about protecting others as well. Innocent others actually.
What about the ten other innocents, as apposed to the one?

You are trying to employ utilitarianism to appease emotional reactions. This distracts from the facts.

What makes any one of those ten of greater value than the innocent you are intentionally murdering?

The intentional murder of an innocent is infinitely worse than the accidental death of 10, 100, or 1000. If you do not control the lives of the 10, then you are not responsible for their deaths. If you do, then you can simply refuse to kill them if the other innocent is not murdered.

Acting on what you may believe is an ideal may or may not justify a violation of a moral rule, however they never cancle out one to one. So while it may be justifiable to violate your promise to your mother to meet her for lunch in order to save a busload of people, it is certainly not morally justifiable to steal to buy your mother lunch (for example). I can see no basis for suggesting that intentionally killing an innocent person is morally acceptable.

Ah, but if the choice was to kill one innocent, or let another 10 innocent die, wouldn't you then control thier lives? Control weather or not they live or die?

Would not acting to save those ten be sentencing them to death, while acting to kill that one be saving that ten?

BTW it is "whether" not "weather"

Failure to prevent is a difference of type from actively killing. I can miss an opportunity to do good without ever doing harm. So no failing to commit murder does not constitute murder.

I agree that this is a difference of type, but I disagree that it is necessarily not harmful. If it is within my power to prevent someones death (assuming they are not choosing to die), and I choose not to exercise that, then I believe it is harmful, and wrong.

And no amount of telling me that this view is inconsistent with anything will get me to think otherwise.

And what do we do when we have false beliefs, that is to say beliefs which clearly do not match reality? The rational person drops the false belief. Your own response is quite explicit in that you state that you will just deny reality and accept your own belief regardless of the evidence and the nature of reason. Of course that is your choice with regard to your belief, but just do not try to go beyond the clear and true statement "I believe not helping is identical to harming, despite the fact that in reality it is not the case" and then try to assert that it is in fact that case. That is where you will run into real trouble, just as you would if you were to try to put forth other absurdly false notions such as the earth being flat, or 2+2=98234798374.

Bill Gates could easily give me millions of dollars which would help me out immensely. He has not, and I venture to guess that he will not. He has missed an opportunity to do something beneficial. Now, by your reasoning Ol' Bill has harmed me by not helping me.. Somehow he has harmed me without ever meeting me, without ever interefering with me in any fashion whatsoever. So, tell me how again he has harmed me?

Also, how do you get around the problem of causation. The absence of an action cannot cause anything at all, and if there is no causal link then there cannot be any link of responsibility or any harm resulting. That is simply how reality is, regardless of any emotional reaction. Failure to do good is never identical to causing harm.