Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Are trivial optional choices open to moral evaluation

Rate this topic


DavidOdden

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind that in an Objectivist context, "moral" is equivalent to "life-furthering." You seem to think that if neither choice is immoral, neither can be moral, but if we rephrase this into life-furthering terms it becomes clear that that stance doesn't make sense. "If neither choice is life-hindering, than neither can be life-furthering." It simply does not follow. The resolution is that both choices would further your life, equally in fact, and therefore the choice between the two is optional.

I agree with optional, or subjective, whichever term you are most comfortable with.

I think that all the moral, life furthering, choices in the re-tiling of my kitchen were made leading up to the choice of the size of tile.

I don't see how a choice can have moral implications if neither choice is immoral. What am I missing here?

Can you offer a different context that may make your point more obvious?

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that all the moral, life furthering, choices in the re-tiling of my kitchen were made leading up to the choice of the size of tile.
What if the tile was hugely bigger than the two options or far far smaller than the two options: i.e. either too big or too small to be good? It is not that the choices are not moral ones, it just sounds like there are two that are moral equivalents. So, if you're right that once you're down to these two, there is no more life-enhancement, then it is fine to arbitrarily picking up or the other. Still, the process of choice was the process of making that evaluation of equality: it was a moral evaluation. Then, finally, the last step is to follow that evaluation in action, where you can simply pick one or the other. (And it is often good to pick arbitrarily among two choices that are only roughly equal, but where spending more time getting a better evaluation would not be worth it.)

If one asks: how do I choose between two things that are morally equivalent? I'd say: just pick one and move on. The moral process is the process of coming to the conclusion that those two things are morally equivalent. So, the choice is moral in that sense, but the arbitrary choosing of one over the other -- after both have passed through a moral evaluation and come out equal -- is not a moral action in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it another way, you might say that there is no moral choice in deciding between tile 1 and tile 2, but you can only say this in context of having already performed a (moral) evaluation of choosing one versus the other, and having found them to be equivalent.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the tile was hugely bigger than the two options or far far smaller than the two options: i.e. either too big or too small to be good? It is not that the choices are not moral ones, it just sounds like there are two that are moral equivalents. So, if you're right that once you're down to these two, there is no more life-enhancement, then it is fine to arbitrarily picking up or the other. Still, the process of choice was the process of making that evaluation of equality: it was a moral evaluation. Then, finally, the last step is to follow that evaluation in action, where you can simply pick one or the other. (And it is often good to pick arbitrarily among two choices that are only roughly equal, but where spending more time getting a better evaluation would not be worth it.)

If one asks: how do I choose between two things that are morally equivalent? I'd say: just pick one and move on. The moral process is the process of coming to the conclusion that those two things are morally equivalent. So, the choice is moral in that sense, but the arbitrary choosing of one over the other -- after both have passed through a moral evaluation and come out equal -- is not a moral action in itself.

I agree completely. Therefore one can say that not all choices are open to moral evaluation.

Same applies to chocolate or vanilla, etc...

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it another way, you might say that there is no moral choice in deciding between tile 1 and tile 2, but you can only say this in context of having already performed a (moral) evaluation of choosing one versus the other, and having found them to be equivalent.

Exactly.

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.
Cool! So, the choice is actually open to moral evaluation. If challenged, you might be able to walk someone through the process of moral evaluation to show that these two tiles were the best, and that they were equal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool! So, the choice is actually open to moral evaluation. If challenged, you might be able to walk someone through the process of moral evaluation to show that these two tiles were the best, and that they were equal.

Not the final choice we've been discussing. All leading up to it yes. Size of tile, final choice of chocolate or vanilla, choice to walk through left door or right door...no.

All things being equal, the final decision that must be made, having no moral implication, is not subject to moral evaluation.

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can never be sure you are making a rational choice, since you can always dig deeper? There is another philosophy or two that suscribe to that notion. Objectivists do not.

You've done a great job of not putting words in my mouth while arguing against my position. Until now. If you read up some more on Objectivist epistemology, you'll find that it differentiates between a decision that is rational, and one that is absolutely correct independent of one's context of knowledge. One can be perfectly rational and still make a decision that later (once more knowledge is acquired) turns out to be wrong. That is what I'm basing my claims on. I did not say that one can never be rational.

For instance if you decide to buy the smaller tiles, and in a year they all crack because it turns out they were made from a defective batch of material, that doesn't mean you were irrational when choosing to not investigate further to make sure they aren't defective. But it is clear that you weren't omniscient when making your decision. Had you known the batch was defective, you could've made a better choice.

In some other situation (when the tiles are not meant for the kitchen, but as insulation for the space shuttle), NASA engineers refusing to acknowledge that they have this third option of gathering more data about the tiles, and instead pretending that their current choice is absolutely equal (as opposed to it being equal only in the context of their knowledge, and therefor open to differentiation once more information is gathered), is deeply irrational. In their case, the third option is all of a sudden glaringly apparent, because, unlike in the case of your kitchen tiles, it is the moral choice. Ignoring it is worse than even knowing about it but not choosing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one asks: how do I choose between two things that are morally equivalent? I'd say: just pick one and move on. The moral process is the process of coming to the conclusion that those two things are morally equivalent. So, the choice is moral in that sense, but the arbitrary choosing of one over the other -- after both have passed through a moral evaluation and come out equal -- is not a moral action in itself.

Finally an acceptance of what I and others have been saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've done a great job of not putting words in my mouth while arguing against my position. Until now. If you read up some more on Objectivist epistemology, you'll find that it differentiates between a decision that is rational, and one that is absolutely correct independent of one's context of knowledge. One can be perfectly rational and still make a decision that later (once more knowledge is acquired) turns out to be wrong. That is what I'm basing my claims on. I did not say that one can never be rational.

For instance if you decide to buy the smaller tiles, and in a year they all crack because it turns out they were made from a defective batch of material, that doesn't mean you were irrational when choosing to not investigate further to make sure they aren't defective. But it is clear that you weren't omniscient when making your decision. Had you known the batch was defective, you could've made a better choice.

That choice would still have been a correct one. Knowledge is contextual.

The amoral decision did not later become a moral one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've done a great job of not putting words in my mouth while arguing against my position. Until now. If you read up some more on Objectivist epistemology, you'll find that it differentiates between a decision that is rational, and one that is absolutely correct independent of one's context of knowledge. One can be perfectly rational and still make a decision that later (once more knowledge is acquired) turns out to be wrong. That is what I'm basing my claims on. I did not say that one can never be rational.

For instance if you decide to buy the smaller tiles, and in a year they all crack because it turns out they were made from a defective batch of material, that doesn't mean you were irrational when choosing to not investigate further to make sure they aren't defective. But it is clear that you weren't omniscient when making your decision. Had you known the batch was defective, you could've made a better choice.

In some other situation (when the tiles are not meant for the kitchen, but as insulation for the space shuttle), NASA engineers refusing to acknowledge that they have this third option of gathering more data about the tiles, and instead pretending that their current choice is absolutely equal (as opposed to it being equal only in the context of their knowledge, and therefor open to differentiation once more information is gathered), is deeply irrational. In their case, the third option is all of a sudden glaringly apparent, because, unlike in the case of your kitchen tiles, it is the moral choice. Ignoring it is worse than even knowing about it but not choosing it.

The fact that new evidence may arise a year later than your choice is made is irrelevant. We make decisions based on the evidence at hand. If new evidence arises that shows you made the wrong choice, it was still the right choice at the time you made it. That is to say, it was the rational choice at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that new evidence may arise a year later than your choice is made is irrelevant. We make decisions based on the evidence at hand. If new evidence arises that shows you made the wrong choice, it was still the right choice at the time you made it.

Not necessarily. There are times when the right choice is not to make a decision between the two seemingly equal options, but to instead look for more evidence.

the arbitrary choosing of one over the other

Is there such a thing as arbitrarily choosing? Is the human mind capable of making a decision without any criteria to base it on? I know computers aren't.

And I don't think the existence of volition (the ability to focus or not one's mind) can result in such a "choice". As far as I can tell, our ability to choose is restricted to applying Reason to a problem with two or more potential answers, or unfocusing our minds and allowing our subconscious to apply some other, less than rational method to the same problem.

Either way, we don't just pick, there is a conscious or subconscious process involved. When the problem doesn't have a single solution (because two options are equal within the context of our knowledge), we have several value judgments (choices) to make:

1. Is the problem important enough to learn more before deciding.

2. If it isn't - and since there is no such thing as "just pick one" - what 'less than rational' method should be used to pick the semi-arbitrary answer. Should the whole process be left to the subconscious, or are there rational reasons to focus on this aspect of our mind, and understand it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. There are times when the right choice is not to make a decision between the two seemingly equal options, but to instead look for more evidence.

Is there such a thing as arbitrarily choosing? Is the human mind capable of making a decision without any criteria to base it on? I know computers aren't.

And I don't think the existence of volition (the ability to focus or not one's mind) can result in such a "choice". As far as I can tell, our ability to choose is restricted to applying Reason to a problem with two or more potential answers, or unfocusing our minds and allowing our subconscious to apply some other, less than rational method to the same problem.

Either way, we don't just pick, there is a conscious or subconscious process involved. When the problem doesn't have a single solution (because two options are equal within the context of our knowledge), we have several value judgments (choices) to make:

1. Is the problem important enough to learn more before deciding.

2. If it isn't - and since there is no such thing as "just pick one" - what 'less than rational' method should be used to pick the semi-arbitrary answer. Should the whole process be left to the subconscious, or are there rational reasons to focus on this aspect of our mind, and understand it?

When you reach the stage where you can "just pick one" without consequences, then that pick is not a "moral" pick; yes, that is an arbitrary one. In such cases, all the criteria necessary to evaluate the situation have been addressed. There is no irrationality associated with the "pick".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. There are times when the right choice is not to make a decision between the two seemingly equal options, but to instead look for more evidence.
And there are times when it is a waste of time to look for more evidence. This thread was about trivial options. What other process should you use? Maybe to can take the one that's closest to you? The first tile in the aisle, or the topmost onion. Or maybe the second because you say "let me look at both of them and pick up the other one if I still feel the same way when I see it". Or, maybe the first, because you say, "I'll pick it up on the way back and that way I'll carry things for a less distance". Or maybe the second because you say "I might as well lose one extra calorie". Thing is... even that much thought is a waste if its a trivial decision. It is just not worth formulating a principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

The ethics of ice cream? I love ice cream!

Chocolate versus vanilla is a choice. As such, there is a right choice and a wrong choice, a good choice and an evil choice, a life-affirming choice and a life-destroying choice.

Is that overstating the case? Yes and no.

How do we actually choose what flavor of ice cream to buy? Suppose I go into Baskin Robbins. Prior to my visit, I have already reached one decision which may be evaluated morally: to have ice cream. This may or may not be a good decision for me, depending on a host of factors including diet, expense, and etc. But for our example, I have chosen to eat ice cream, and let us stipulate that it is good for me to do so.

It could be that my desire for ice cream is desire for a certain kind of ice cream. But it also could be a more generalized want for "something sweet and cool"; perhaps I wish to examine alternatives before reaching a final conclusion. I enter the store and...

Egads! There are 31 flavors! What's a man to do? In theory, I should be able to weigh each flavor against one another and come up with a list of all 31 flavors in order of preference from greatest to least. At the conclusion of this effort, the good would clearly be to order #1 on my list, and only a Death Worshiper would order #31. However, there's another consideration to keep in mind: the construction of this list is not automatic. It is a product of effort and thought, and that takes place over time. How long would I need to stand in the ice cream shop to generate my list? I don't know, but prohibitively long. The full context of my desire is not simply ice cream, but ice cream as part of a happy evening as a part of my happy existence. Spending hours to buy an ice cream cone would not make me happy. Rather, I'd like to be in and out in just a few minutes, if I can swing it.

How to save time? Besides strategies that I may employ before entering the shop at all, such as a mental review of typical flavors and consulting of my "favorites," I can abandon the need for a list of #1 - #31. After all, I only actually need to determine #1 -- the rest of the order doesn't matter to my purpose. And so an initial rough sort into categories (such as "very desirable," "desirable," "undesirable," etc.) will help me narrow down the list considerably. But this method will still require a conscious processing of each of the 31 flavors individually (or, if I'm clever, by group, e.g. "coffee-based ice creams" and so on). If only there were a faster method of evaluation available to me... if only there were an immediate method of evaluation...?

But there is! Emotion! Here's the implicit (never verbalized, nor even consciously formed) core of the real decision I make as I enter Baskin Robbins: I have decided that I would like ice cream, but that I would like to enjoy ice cream quickly. Because I know that to select any ice cream from within a rough range will satisfy me, I don't need to consciously differentiate beyond a certain point (such as strictly ruling out those which might kill me through allergy). While emotions are not tools of cognition, they do provide me instantaneous feedback based on my values that it would be cumbersome to sift through. Let me simply look at the available flavors, and when one "calls to me," I will short list it as a potential selection. Finally, I will apply what quick reason I can to determine the winner of the few remaining candidates. (If it's ultimately impossible to tell between two or so flavors, I might require additional evidence in the form of samples to reach my conclusion.)

That's it. Nine times out of ten, chocolate versus vanilla (versus the multiplicity of other flavors) is largely abandoned to whim. Because 1) the consequences of choosing wrongly are judged to be very small in their destructive capacity; and 2) (and this is important) to do anything else would be to sacrifice a far greater value, my time.

And what if I select wrongly? What if I choose chocolate when vanilla would have made me some measure happier? I am free to evade my responsibility in selecting that ice cream which would have made me happiest, but I'm not free to evade the consequences of my decision. When I'm eating that chocolate ice cream, I may well think to myself, "You know... I should've gotten vanilla." Why didn't I? Blank out. A lifetime of such experiences is bound to wreck a person's self-esteem.

And this is why I advocate getting two scoops, minimum.

The more interesting question to me is whether there's anything character-revealing in one's tastes among ice cream flavors. It's something of a cliche to associate certain personality traits with those who prefer vanilla to chocolate, or vice-versa, (or strawberry). Does this mean that the Neapolitan man is wishy-washy -- the agnostic of the ice cream world? Myself, I like the stuff from the green family: mint chocolate chip and pistachio (or green tea, if I'm out for Japanese). Is it because I associate the color with money? Does the brisk (almost shocking) taste of the mint contrasted against the slight bitterness of the chocolate say something foul about my sense of life? Or do I love pistachio as an unexamined relic of childhood trips to Thrifty's...?

I guess that most would say that taste among food is something like metaphysically given... but I'm not sure this is really the case. I'm open to the idea that there may be some relation between taste/value/aesthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...