Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Simple questions of right and wrong

Rate this topic


tjfields

Recommended Posts

Skylab72,

 

Thank you for your answer. It is very interesting but I would like some more information to make it clear.

 

You state in post #300: "I find that when the thinking ones and I share a goal like staying alive, and cooperate, the goal is more readily achieved."

 

In regards to the original post, my goal of staying alive is already being achieved before the man washes up on the beach, and my life does not end because I killed the man. So why is it immoral to kill the man who washes up on the beach when my goal of staying alive is being achieved?

 

What does "readily achieved" mean in this context? My goal of staying alive was being achieved on the island. Are you suggesting that that the goal was not being "readily" achieved therefore it was immoral to kill the man who washed up on the beach?  Who decides, and by what standard is it decided, whether or not something is being "readily achieved"?  

 

What does "cooperate" mean in this context? Cooperate how? Since the man who washed up on the beach was unconscious and did not do anything, he did not cooperate with me in achieving my goal. Does this mean that it was not immoral to kill him? What would it mean if the man woke up and did not cooperate with me? Would it be moral to kill the man if that was the case?

 

You then state, "I value life, all life, my own is simply the instance of it most valuable to me. If you disagree expect mortal animus."

 

Please clarify. When you state that your own life is the instance of life that is most valuable to you, does this mean that you do not value all instances of life equally? If you do not deem all instances of life equally valuable, is that how you justify destroying some instances of life in order to further your own, like when you eat something? How do you determine the value that you assign to a particular instance of life? How do you then know that the value that you have assigned to a particular instance of life is the correct value? What if there is disagreement between you and another instance of life as to the value that should be assigned to a particular instance of life? How does this get resolved?

 

In regards to the original post, my life is the instance of life that is the most valuable to me, therefore the instance of life that is the man who washed up on the beach is less valuable than my life. Since I destroy instances of life that are not as valuable as my life all of the time, every time I eat for example, why is destroying another instance of life that is less valuable than my life immoral?

 

You go on to state, "I find consistency promotes my value. I find awareness promotes my values. I therefore value the trustworthy and knowledgeable among the sentients. If you disagree you gain potential threat points."

 

Please clarify: "Consistency" with what? and "Awareness" of what? Please define "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable" as used in this context. Do you judge whether or not someone is trustworthy and/or knowledgeable? If so, by what standard do you make that judgment and how do you know that your judgment is correct? Once you have made your judgement, if you do so, is everyone required to agree with your judgement? Does your statement mean that if someone does not meet your definition of trustworthy and/or knowledgeable you do not value that person or you value that person less? Would it then become moral to kill someone who you judge not to be trustworthy and/or knowledgeable? If I judged the man who washed up on the beach to not be trustworthy or knowledgeable would it then be moral to kill him? Who or what decided that "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable" are the traits to value? Are there any other traits to value or are we limited to "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable"? Why is this correct?

 

What are "threat points"? How do "threat points" work? What are the consequences of gaining "threat points"? Who decides what the consequences, if any, are and who carries out those consequences? Is it moral or immoral to inflict the consequences, if any, of gaining threat points on someone? Why? In regard to the original post, how do "threat points" work on the island?

 

You then state, "In order to promote these values and my life to the maximum I can, I logically must consistently behave in a manner supportive of their logic."

 

Please define "maximum." Does your definition of "maximum" apply only to you or does it apply to everyone? What if my definition of "maximum" is different than your definition? Who is right? In regard to the original post, if I define what it means to promote my life to the maximum I can, and my definition includes killing anyone and everyone who washes up on the beach and I carry this out consistently, does this mean that it is not immoral, in fact it is moral, to kill the man who washed up on the beach?   

 

You then state, "Your desert island is simply an attempt to resurrect the brain-a-vat argument, and it consistently breaks down as much more difficult to support logically than admitting that reality exists."

 

Please show me where in the original post, or any other place, that I do not admit, or that I deny that, reality exists? To my knowledge, I have never denied that reality exists.

 

You then state, "Believing that it is O.K. to kill anyone without a very good reason to kill them, is to me, adequate reason enough to kill you."

 

What constitutes a "very good reason" to kill someone? Who decides if a reason to kill someone is "very good" or "good" or "somewhat good" or any other description? How do they make that decision, how do they know that it is correct, and why do they get to make the decision?

 

Does this statement mean that you believe that it is moral to kill someone because of his or her beliefs? I have not stated that it is my belief that it is O.K. to kill anyone. Nor have I actually killed anyone. But even if I did believe that it was O.K. to kill someone without a "very good reason" and did not actually kill anyone, do you believe that it is moral to kill me? If a person has different beliefs than you is that a "very good reason" for killing him or her?

 

Additionally, if you believe that someone's belief that it is it is O.K. to kill someone without a very good reason is an "adequate reason" to kill that person, then is it then O.K. to kill you because it is your belief that it is O.K. to kill someone with only an "adequate reason" and not a "very good reason"?

 

On a side note and purely to help me better understand human behavior, what was the purpose of the statement, "Pardon me son, but I'm gonna cut you off at the pass"?

Why did you use the word "son"? I am not your son, so you were not making a statement of fact. It appears that your use of the word "son" is some kind of attempt to belittle me or cast me in an unfavorable light or to imply that I am a child therefore anything that I write should be taken as childish. Is this, or something like it, what you intended to do? If so why? If not, then why did you use the phrase, "Pardon me son..."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

whyNOT:  The method Descartes used to arrive at CeS was flawed, to say the least, but the conclusion itself is valid; whatever is conscious must necessarily exist.

While in general the man was a gibbering mystic, that specific deduction actually implies the primacy of existence.  For the primacy of consciousness to hold true, someone who didn't want to exist would have to be capable of wishing themselves out of it.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Line by line, I am truly sorry folks, feel free to skip this post.

 

TJF said>>>Thank you for your answer. It is very interesting but I would like some more information to make it clear.

 

You state in post #300: "I find that when the thinking ones and I share a goal like staying alive, and cooperate, the goal is more readily achieved."

 

In regards to the original post, my goal of staying alive is already being achieved before the man washes up on the beach, and my life does not end because I killed the man. So why is it immoral to kill the man who washes up on the beach when my goal of staying alive is being achieved?

>SL72> False premise. Survival is never "achieved" it is a process. By killing the newcomer you have reduced the probability you will survive. Stupid as well as immoral.<

 

What does "readily achieved" mean in this context? My goal of staying alive was being achieved on the island. Are you suggesting that that the goal was not being "readily" achieved therefore it was immoral to kill the man who washed up on the beach?  Who decides, and by what standard is it decided, whether or not something is being "readily achieved"?  

>SL72> RED HERRING see above<

 

What does "cooperate" mean in this context?

>SL72> look it up, it is in the dictionary. <

Cooperate how? 

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium <

Since the man who washed up on the beach was unconscious and did not do anything, he did not cooperate with me in achieving my goal. 

>SL72> Moot you never gave him the chance.<

Does this mean that it was not immoral to kill him?

>SL72> No, it means you are being argumentative with no apparent motive. <

What would it mean if the man woke up and did not cooperate with me?

>SL72> It would mean you would have to use your brain to deal with the situation as it arose. <

Would it be moral to kill the man if that was the case?

>SL72> Not unless he initiated the use of force, and the force he used was potentially a threat to your life. < 

 

You then state, "I value life, all life, my own is simply the instance of it most valuable to me. If you disagree expect mortal animus."

 

Please clarify. 

>SL72> Why? It is a simple statement.

When you state that your own life is the instance of life that is most valuable to you, does this mean that you do not value all instances of life equally? 

>SL72> Duh! Geez your tedious. (preempt, yes, that was ad hominem) Yes, of course. I have been known to step on ants and swat flies.  reducto ad absurdium <

If you do not deem all instances of life equally valuable, is that how you justify destroying some instances of life in order to further your own, like when you eat something? 

>SL72> Sustainability, replacible, contribution to the ecosystem, contribution to the economy, cuteness, any concomitant values involved. Do you have trouble understanding the difference between ants and people or are you being deliberately obtuse? <

How do you determine the value that you assign to a particular instance of life?

>SL72> That is both complex and subtle, from the preponderance of your previous posts I chose not to address it, not because I have not thought it through, I have, but because I am a combat veteran and am offended you treat such a serious subject with such a flippant attitude. <

How do you then know that the value that you have assigned to a particular instance of life is the correct value?

>SL72>see previous answer<

What if there is disagreement between you and another instance of life as to the value that should be assigned to a particular instance of life?

>SL72> Good example of your flip attitude, too many variables to formulate a meaningful answer, other than, 'depends'. <

How does this get resolved?

>SL72> see above answer. <

 

In regards to the original post, my life is the instance of life that is the most valuable to me, therefore the instance of life that is the man who washed up on the beach is less valuable than my life. Since I destroy instances of life that are not as valuable as my life all of the time, every time I eat for example, why is destroying another instance of life that is less valuable than my life immoral?

>SL72>reducto ad absurdium   Have you ever considered becoming a vegetarian?<

 

You go on to state, "I find consistency promotes my value. I find awareness promotes my values. I therefore value the trustworthy and knowledgeable among the sentients. If you disagree you gain potential threat points."

 

Please clarify: "Consistency" with what?

>SL72> Internal consistency of epistemology, philosophy, ethics. <

 and "Awareness" of what? <

>SL72> Reality. < 

Please define "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable" as used in this context.

>SL72> Context here, does not modify the meaning. See Dictionary<

Do you judge whether or not someone is trustworthy and/or knowledgeable?

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium <

If so, by what standard do you make that judgment and how do you know that your judgment is correct?

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium    in an absolute sense one never knows. But I trust the confidence levels I live within. <

Once you have made your judgement, if you do so, is everyone required to agree with your judgement?

>SL72> No, why should they? The caveat of course being, some disagreements signal issues fundamental enough to have real world consequences. <

Does your statement mean that if someone does not meet your definition of trustworthy and/or knowledgeable you do not value that person or you value that person less? 

>SL72> Their life, no, their opinion absolutely, my willingness to interact with them or seek common goals, for sure. <

Would it then become moral to kill someone who you judge not to be trustworthy and/or knowledgeable? 

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium   Same question again, same answer, NO. <

If I judged the man who washed up on the beach to not be trustworthy or knowledgeable would it then be moral to kill him?

>SL72>  absurdium    How many times are you going to ask this same question, which has already had multiple cogent responses, all agreeing in a resounding "NO". <

Who or what decided that "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable" are the traits to value?

>SL72> I did, you got any better ideas? <

Are there any other traits to value or are we limited to "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable"?

>SL72>reducto ad absurdium  Of course there are others, why do YOU not list a few? <

Why is this correct?

>SL72> Why is what correct?<

 

---What are "threat points"? How do "threat points" work? What are the consequences of gaining "threat points"? Who decides what the consequences, if any, are and who carries out those consequences? Is it moral or immoral to inflict the consequences, if any, of gaining threat points on someone? Why? In regard to the original post, how do "threat points" work on the island?---

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium  If it is not self evident, this is a case where it can be safely ignored.<

 

You then state, "In order to promote these values and my life to the maximum I can, I logically must consistently behave in a manner supportive of their logic."

 

Please define "maximum." 

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium   It is in the dictionary.<

Does your definition of "maximum" apply only to you or does it apply to everyone?

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium <

What if my definition of "maximum" is different than your definition? 

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium   again, I refer you to the dictionary. <

Who is right? 

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium  The people who use the word enough to get it included in the dictionary. <

In regard to the original post, if I define what it means to promote my life to the maximum I can, and my definition includes killing anyone and everyone who washes up on the beach and I carry this out consistently, does this mean that it is not immoral, in fact it is moral, to kill the man who washed up on the beach?

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium  Same question, same answer. Boring<  

 

You then state, "Your desert island is simply an attempt to resurrect the brain-a-vat argument, and it consistently breaks down as much more difficult to support logically than admitting that reality exists."

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium  The reality is: other people do exist, being isolated on an island does not change that fact, nor the morality of murder. <

 

Please show me where in the original post, or any other place, that I do not admit, or that I deny that, reality exists? To my knowledge, I have never denied that reality exists.

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium  Every subsequent time you have asked the same question.  <

You then state, "Believing that it is O.K. to kill anyone without a very good reason to kill them, is to me, adequate reason enough to kill you."

 

What constitutes a "very good reason" to kill someone?

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium   When they pose, in an O'ist best judgement, a mortal threat. <

 Who decides if a reason to kill someone is "very good" or "good" or "somewhat good" or any other description? How do they make that decision, how do they know that it is correct, and why do they get to make the decision?

>SL72> red herring + reducto ad absurdium     The individual under threat. <

 

Does this statement mean that you believe that it is moral to kill someone because of his or her beliefs? 

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium   Only when those beliefs are stated, and when they support a viable mortal threat hypothesis.<

 

I have not stated that it is my belief that it is O.K. to kill anyone. Nor have I actually killed anyone. But even if I did believe that it was O.K. to kill someone without a "very good reason" and did not actually kill anyone, do you believe that it is moral to kill me? 

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium    No, not unless you convince the killer you intend to act on the belief. You have however, asked repeatedly why it is NOT O.K. to kill anyone. <

 If a person has different beliefs than you is that a "very good reason" for killing him or her?

 >SL72> reducto ad absurdium   Previously answered, NO. Nixon and his cronies did try to convince me that was true once. <

Additionally, if you believe that someone's belief that it is it is O.K. to kill someone without a very good reason is an "adequate reason" to kill that person, then is it then O.K. to kill you because it is your belief that it is O.K. to kill someone with only an "adequate reason" and not a "very good reason"?

>SL72> reducto ad absurdium   seriously <

On a side note and purely to help me better understand human behavior, what was the purpose of the statement, "Pardon me son, but I'm gonna cut you off at the pass"?

Why did you use the word "son"? I am not your son, so you were not making a statement of fact. It appears that your use of the word "son" is some kind of attempt to belittle me or cast me in an unfavorable light or to imply that I am a child therefore anything that I write should be taken as childish. Is this, or something like it, what you intended to do? If so why? If not, then why did you use the phrase, "Pardon me son..."?

It was meant as levity, an old John Wayne quote.  Clearly I failed as a comedian. Sorry.

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...