tjfields
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tjfields
-
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
From post #200:
“Only value achievements which further the ultimate value are valid and to flourish is to retain that value indefinitely.
The ultimate value is ones love of ones own life and that's the only way to integrate survival and happiness without conflict; conflictary desires necessitate misery.
You don't have to live and you don't have to be happy.
But if you want both then there is only one way to have them both.”I think I understand what your premise is and from where your logic comes. I am not necessarily questioning your logic. I have asked and I am asking from where your premise comes and why is it correct. So far, the answers and explanations you have provided contain subjective, undefined terms that mean different things to different people.
For example, from post #201, “Killing random strangers is immoral (makes it more difficult to live and love life) for the same reason it's immoral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot.”
What is the definition of “live” as you are using it here? I am alive after killing the man who washed up on the beach so I am still living. What does “love life” mean? If it means to love the fact that I am alive, then I love life even after killing the man who washed up on the beach because I am still alive. What does “difficult” mean as you are using it here? Is everything that makes it more difficult to live immoral? What if the difficultly is temporary, would it still be immoral? Is an action, such as intentionally shooting yourself in the foot, always immoral or can it be a moral action if it makes it easier to live and love life as in the case of shooting yourself in the foot so that you will be removed from a life threatening battlefield? There are many other questions that could be asked in response to you statement.
I do not understand how someone can make ethical or moral judgments, such as it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach, when the basis for those judgments is subjective. I am trying to learn and understand.
-
Eiuol,
From post #197, “Basically, indefinitely into the future and in this case the span of your lifetime with everything that extends it, while short-term is a delimited range of time, like one month for example.”
Thank you for the definition.
Now, to continue from the earlier posts:
In post #184, I reformed the moral question to an ought statement of : “If you choose to live, you ought to not kill the man who washed up on the beach. Since you killed the man who washed up on the beach, your action was wrong or immoral”
I continued in post #184 with, “, this statement cannot be used to determine that the action was immoral if “furthers life” is defined as enabling a human to remain alive. Killing the man that washed up on the beach did not stop me from living; I am still alive.”
You responded in post #186 in part with, “I mean furthers your ability to live at all which isn't measured only in terms of being alive or not at this moment. I'm talking about being able to continue living long-term.”
Now we apply your definition of “long-term” to your statement from post #186 and re-write it as: I mean furthers your ability to live at all which isn't measured only in terms of being alive or not at this moment. I'm talking about being able to continue living indefinitely into the future and in this case the span of your lifetime with everything that extends it.
Do you agree?
Is so, we can now re-write the ought statement from above as: If you choose to live, you ought to not kill the man who washed up on the beach. Since you killed the man who washed up on the beach, your action was wrong or immoral because the action did not further your ability to continue living indefinitely into the future.
Do you agree or do you think the statement should be written in another way (if so, please write it the way you think it should read)?
However, the rewritten statement, including the concept of long-term, still does not address the position from post #184: Killing the man that washed up on the beach did not stop me from living; I am still alive.
Now with the introduction of the concept of long-term, is it your argument that it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because it is possible that over the course of “indefinitely into the future”, a future which is unknown, there may be some way, somehow, at some point, that the act of killing the man may affect my ability to continue living?
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
From post #195, “If you know the batting average of a baseball player you can surmise their future athletic success. You cannot use that information to predict a hurricane in Cuba.”
What does this mean and how is it relevant? Does this answer the questions of how one determines what the right kind of happiness is, whether it is moral or immoral, given that happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality?
Also from post #195:
“As to the validity of such feelings, i don't consider them to be ends in themselves.
To flourish rationally necessarily entails happiness but that's not its justification.
To flourish is the end in itself.”
You have introduced another undefined and subjective term: “flourish.” Is there an objective definition for “flourish” or does one simple feel what it is like happiness? -
Harrison Danneskjold,
From post #190 (my questions are in italics)
1: happiness is actually something you just feel. You can't determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality; only the facts of your own mind, observable through introspection.
How is this different from God? You cannot determine God whether or not God exists from the facts of reality it is something you just feel.
If happiness is something that I just feel, how do I know that I am happy?
If I feel happy but you say that I am not happy or my happiness is wrong, who is right and how do we know?
2: happiness is immoral when it's irrational or harmful.
If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you are happy from the facts of reality (point 1), how do you determine that happiness is immoral when it’s irrational or harmful? If I feel happy, because happiness is something that I just feel, then how can it be immoral? If happiness is something that cannot be determined from the facts of reality, then how can you determine what it isn't?
A Christian who is happy to have been baptized is irrationality happy because that emotion has nothing to do with facts or logic.
If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality (point 1), then why and how is a Christian irrationality happy since you can’t determine happiness from the facts of reality? If a Christian feels happy then the Christian is happy.
A heroine addict who is happy to get their fix is harmfully happy for obvious reasons.
If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality (point 1), then why and how is a heroin addict harmfully happy since you can’t determine happiness from the facts of reality? If a herion addict feels happy then the herion addict is happy.
A suicide bomber who happily anticipates the afterlife is both.
If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality (point 1), then why and how is a suicide bomber both irrationality and harmfully happy since you can’t determine happiness from the facts of reality? If a suicide bomber feels happy then the suicide bomber is happy.
Only rationally selfish happiness is valid.
If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality (point 1), then why and how is rationally selfish happiness the only happiness that is valid? If I feel happy, then I am happy - there can be no caveats or qualifiers to this since, as you stated, happiness is something that I just feel and I can't determine whether or not I am happy from the facts of reality.
-
Eiuol,
You wrote in post #186, “I don't mean furthers life as "the kind of actions that are in accord with the type of life I like", or "being fulfilled", or "being happy". I mean furthers your ability to live at all which isn't measured only in terms of being alive or not at this moment. I'm talking about being able to continue living long-term.”
You have simply added a new, subjective term to your explanation. What does “long-term” mean?
-
Eiuol,
In post #180 you wrote, “All I'm really saying is that a code of what one "ought" to do is morality, and that the only way to get to an ought is in reference to a goal. Are you asking why life is the goal, or are you asking why a code of action that furthers life should be morality?”
The phrase “a code of action that furthers life” is of importance here. What does it mean?
The example that I gave of “If I choose to live, I ought to breathe” is a statement of fact. This fact is determined by the nature of being human; if a human does not ever breathe the human dies. This fact is not subjective; it can be consistently confirmed through the observation of reality. Since a human will die if a human does not ever breathe, then breathing “furthers life” assuming that “furthers life” is defined as enabling a human to remain alive.
Now back to the question in the original post: was it wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach? Most of those who answered this post, including you, say that it is wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach. To determine the whether or not your answer is morally, or ethically, correct, we will make an “ought” statement: “If you choose to live, you ought to not kill the man who washed up on the beach. Since you killed the man who washed up on the beach, your action was wrong or immoral” Do you agree with this statement?
If you do agree, this statement cannot be used to determine that the action was immoral if “furthers life” is defined as enabling a human to remain alive. Killing the man that washed up on the beach did not stop me from living; I am still alive. At most, the answer would be that killing the man on the beach would be amoral because while it did not prevent me from living, it did not enable me to remain alive either.
If, however, you define “furthers life” as “living a good life”, or “being fulfilled”, or “being happy” or anything other than enabling a human to remain alive, as it appears that others who answered this post do, your definition becomes subjective. It can mean different things to different people.
What am I missing? Please explain so that I can understand from where you are coming.
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
From post #179, “Happiness is a state of mind which is pleasurable and self evident to whomever experiences it.
True happiness, as distinct from immoral forms of happiness, stems from the joy of the fact of existence and isn't irrational or self destructive in any way.
I contend that almost all of the conceivable reasons one could give for the op's action would ultimately be unrealistic, illogical or self destructive.”This post raises many questions and it appears that the subjective is still present. Please help me understand.
How is happiness self evident to whomever experiences it? Is there a way that I can come to the realization that I am happy by examining the facts of reality or is it something that I just “know” or “feel”? Can one examine the facts of reality and come to the realization that they are not happy?
If happiness is a state of mind which is pleasurable and self evident to whomever experiences it, how can it be immoral? Is an immoral form of happiness immoral for everyone or only the one who experiences it?
What is the joy of the fact of existence? Since existence exists and your, or mine or anyone’s, thoughts about existence whether good or bad, joyful or not joyful, does not change anything about the fact of existence, how does “joy” apply to existence? Are you implying that I, or anyone, should experience joy, and therefore happiness, by the mere fact of existence?
What do you mean by, “isn’t irrational or self destructive in any way”? Are you suggesting that a person cannot have true happiness if they are self destructive in any way? What does “self-destructive” mean? Is “self destructive” something that applies to everyone or only the one that experiences it? What if someone is unknowingly or mistakenly self destructive (e.g. a person who smoked cigarettes before the health consequences were known or understood)? Are they not truly happy and are experiencing a form of immoral happiness, and therefore not moral or ethical, because of error or ignorance?
You stated that you contend that almost all of the conceivable reasons one could give for the actions taken in the original post would ultimately be unrealistic, illogical or self destructive. If someone experiences a pleasurable state of mind and it is self evident that he or she is happy and he or she contends that almost all of the conceivable reasons one could give for the actions taken in the original post would ultimately not be unrealistic, illogical or self destructive, would his or her answer to the question in the original post be as valid as yours?
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
In post #174, you wrote, “If I asked you to explain the mechanics of gravity, given enough time and detail, we would find fuzzy approximates in YOUR knowledge as well. This doesn't make them invalid. You're comparing a half formed but rational concept with blatant irrationality.”
If you asked me to explain the mechanics of gravity and I only had fuzzy approximates and subjective, undefined terms for my answers, I would not attempt to explain the mechanics of gravity, I would simple say that I am not capable of answering the question or providing an explaination.
When I asked in the original post if it was wrong to kill the man who washed up n the beach, you answered (from post #33), “Yes, it would've been wrong to kill the man on the beach.” You did not include any disclaimers stating that your answer was a half formed but rational concept. If you had included such a disclaimer, I would not have asked you any questions, but I took your answer at face value and, through the proceeding posts, asked you to explain you answer and help me to understand from where you answer came. I am not accusing you of being irrational nor crediting you with omniscience, your straight forward and direct answer to the question in the original post lead me to believe that you could explain your answer.
Also from post #174 you wrote, “As for objectively defining happiness- NO!!
You've officially depleted my patience with that request; nobody who speaks English needs such a definition.”Can you explain why you will not define happiness with anything other than everyone who speaks English knows the definition? I asked you to provide a definition of happiness because the four quotes from post #148 indicate that your answer to the question in the original post was based on or relied on the concept of happiness. Happiness, however, is a subjective terms since it means different things to different people. If there is one universal, objective definition of happiness, please tell me what it is because I am missing something.
-
Eiuol,
From post #172:
“What Rand does is not using an "is" to define an "ought", what she does is explain a goal of life is to live based on the fundamental choice between your existence or nonexistence. Death needs no action, so morality for that just... makes no sense, it takes no planning, nothing is even required as a code of action. Life needs action, so a code of action is required there. [...] With a goal of life requiring action, one would need to take actions that will further one's life. In reality, only certain actions will further life, so that's where you can get a non-subjective answer to what one ought to do. In other words, it's deriving an ought from a goal of life, not simply a descriptive fact/statement.”
I understand what you wrote. Can you explain how or why a code of action needed to further one’s life translates into morality or ethical behavior? For example, if I choose to live, I ought to breathe. Does this make breathing a moral or ethical action? If so, how?
Also from post #172:
“I said that you would not know at all if the stranger will be a value or not, but you'd never find out either way if you just go off and kill them just because you slept on a rock the night before. Like anything in life, usually acting on an impulse without any thought is just plain irrational. It's a good, positive thing to find out because at best, other people may be a great value to you, and destroying them accomplishes absolutely nothing except an irreparable loss. You are almost right about what I said, I'd just clarify that it's short-sighted to make *any* assumption of the value others is or might be before gathering any information. As you said in the scenario, nothing at all is known, so it would be foolish to kill them - other people existing is not a threat to you. I hope you can see how you might reason from here to think about rights in a much larger social context.”
It sounds like you are saying that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because it may be “an irreparable loss”. If we assume that you are correct and it is a fact that the killing of the man is an irreparable loss, how does this translate into a wrong ethical action?
-
Eiuol,
In post #163, you wrote:
“I wouldn't say a person can be "no" value whatsoever, so let's leave the question at people of actively negative value to you. An easy case is someone trying to kill you, just kill them first. But then there are cases of people being verbally cruel people or people who lie to you. Those people are disvalues, it wouldn't justify murder though. My thinking is that unless someone is going as far as to use force, you are always able to ignore another person, yet still extract some value from because all of their sustaining efforts for their own life. This is premised on the idea that the only way to be outright denied values is by force (and/or fraud, just in case you didn't consider fraud to be force really). Keep in mind that we can abstract here to start considering what rights are, but since the topic is about only two people, we don't need to go down that road. If you do though, I've got book recommendations.
*Because* you don't know anything about this stranger, you don't know if the person would be a value or even a disvalue. The rational and therefore moral thing to do would be to learn more about them. This isn't a battlefield where you have only seconds to make a decision - the stranger is unconscious.”So do I understand that your answer to the question in the original post is that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I do not know how they will be of value to me but I know that they have some value? If so, I will ask you what I asked others in previous posts, if I am able to, “extract some value from [someone] because all of their sustaining efforts for their own life” then can I not stretch the definition of value to such an extent that it covers everyone therefore, it would be wrong to kill anyone because he or she has some kind of value?
-
StricklyLogical,
In post# 159 you wrote: “I would suggest that if and when you truly understand and take to heart the correctness of Rand's ideas, that ingrained subconscious feeling will be dismissed, and you will have the knowledge that morality is simply knowledge, knowledge of a special kind for your own use and benefit.”
I do not understand how substituting one feeling that cannot be define or understood with another feeling that cannot be defined or understood gets you any closer to being able to answer the questions posed in the original post. Can you explain it to me?
Additionally, I have heard similar arguments from advocates of religion: I can’t define what God is or what God means, it is fuzzy, but I feel that what God says is correct and if you read our holy book(s) you will feel that God is correct and you will believe. Based on what you have written, it appears that you have simply replaced the Bible with Atlas Shrugged and Jesus with Ayn Rand. Is this the case?
You also wrote in post# 159” Ayn Rand starts by defining an Ought in a non-imperative, non-mystical way. Clearly there is no way to arrive at a mystical prescriptive "fact" from descriptive facts (truths about reality) because the mystical does not exist. Getting to an Ought which is reality based from an IS which of course must be reality based is thus completely logical. the oughts Rand identifies are ones which are based on reality and the nature of man and are grounded in what is sought. i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y. Note: others have also provided solutions in other contexts, but Rand did in the context of her Objectivism.”
How the merely stating that something is non-mystical make it non-mystical especially when you provide no basis for this statement other than Ayn Rand said that this is what she did and you feel it is correct?
What is the meaning of “i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y”? How is this related to the is-ought problem? “If you want to achieve” something is not the same as something “is”. How does changing the question and then answering your changed question provide an answer to the original question?
-
StrictlyLogical,
Since I was asking questions based on what you wrote, I did not realize I was asking you too many questions. I apologize and will limit the number of questions that I ask you in the future. For this post, I will only ask three questions.
From post #145, “So what feeling replaces it? The one that throws out the irrational baseless idea of morality, accepts Ayn Rand's solution to the IS-ought problem, and the true basis of morality. Morality IS an intimately personal thing and it is discoverable but it is not simple... I wont try to define it here.. but believe me there are good definitions/principles that others can provide.”
Are you suggesting that I dismiss the “ingrained subconscious feeling” about morality that I received by the world in which have been raised and currently live, and replace that feeling with the felling that Ayn Rand solved the Is-ought problem and found the true basis of morality?
What do you feel or believe is Ayn Rand’s solution to the “is-ought” problem?
When you asked what texts related to Objectivism I have read, are you suggesting that if I read these texts then I will get the correct feeling about morality?
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
From post #136, “I don't have a firm grasp of long-term principles. I know what it would be moral or immoral to do, in any given instance; I have fuzzy approximates of what it's moral to be.”
If you do not have a firm grasp of long-term principles but you can tell me what would be moral or immoral to do in any given instance, how is this different than saying: I feel that this is moral and I feel that that is immoral? To the questions in the original post, your answer seems to be: it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I feel it would be wrong. Or, conversely: it would be right to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I feel it would be right. Do you agree?
From post #139:
“Think of it this way. You choose your own values, much like everyone has their own eating preferences. And a wide variety of these preferences are perfectly legitimate.
But no matter how you define or redefine poison, it will remain poison.
In exactly the same way, you could declare that you value death instead of life- but that won't make it good or healthy for you to pursue that value.
In exactly the same way, you could declare that you value killing- but that won't make killing good.”
If I choose my own values and I choose to value death i.e. I want to die, then why would it not be good for me to pursue that value and die?
Please explain why killing is not good if I choose my own values and I value killing (“you could declare that you value killing- but that won't make killing good).
From post #148:
“Happiness is NOT another factor in this teleological fitness function; it is the goal and the final product!”
“Rational selfishness isn't about survival vs. happiness or survival with coincidental happiness; rational selfishness IS being happy ABOUT LIFE!
Be happy THAT you're alive, and find the best way to continue living as much as you can- happiness is derived from and corresponds to health!”
“… it would be immoral to kill the stranger (because it's Objectively unfit)- specifically because the desire for murder is irrational, because it pits happiness against survival.”
Please objectively define “happiness”
-
Eiuol,
From post #134, “Yeah, it would be immoral to toss away a hammer without any evaluation of what it may be able to do. The only difference from a human, albeit a huge one at that, is the range of ways people can act to provide value is greater than that of a hammer.”
I will ask you a question that I asked others earlier, if your determination of moral or immoral, or right and wrong, is based on the value that someone or something provides you, then if you determine that someone is not a value to you, or if they are a threat to your values, then it is right to kill them, or at least not ethically wrong?
To the original post, if I determined that the man who washed up on the beach provided no value to me, it would not be wrong to kill him?
Now, based on other responses received to similar questions, do you think that because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine all of the ways that another person could be valuable to you, it would be wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach?
If so, then how does this position differ from a form of faith in something i.e. I do not know all of the ways that this person may be of value to me, I do not know how or when this person will be of value to me, but I believe, or have faith, that this person will be of value to me so it is wrong to kill the person?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
From post #130, “…a hammer isn't offended by misuse, or destruction; a hammer wouldn't care if you went about your day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking the hammer off the island; a person would care, and that's the difference.”
Does this ethical position apply to other things? An animal cares if I kill it, evidenced by the fact that the animal will fight or flee for its life if given the chance. Is it ethically wrong to kill an animal? If a person tells you that he or she does not care if you kill them, is it ethically wrong to kill that person?
You wrote, “It wouldn't be ethically wrong not to collect useful objects in terms of self-preservation…”
How does this statement fit with all of your previous posts concerning value and the ethical considerations of not utilizing someone of value? Should your statement read: It wouldn't be ethically wrong not to collect useful objects in terms of self-preservation but it would be ethically wrong not to utilize the value provided by other people? Is so, why is this true?
You wrote, “Suppose however you went about your day collecting coconuts and pitching the ones you don't want into the sea? Now you are actively working against the ability of others who may follow in your footsteps to preserve their lives.”
What if I went about my day collecting and eating coconuts? Am I also actively working against the ability of other who may follow in my footsteps?
-
Eiuol,
Your response in post #125 seems to be saying that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I do not know what kind of value that person could provide. If I knew for certain that the person who washed up on the beach was going to wake up and attempt to kill me, it may be right to kill the person but because I do not know anything about this person and what he may or may not do and any value that he may provide, it would be wrong to kill him.
Have I summed up your position accurately?
You wrote, “Objectivist ethics presumes that ethical actions help or improve your life and that you can make such decisions objectively.” In post #26 I ask a question that I will restate here. If the situation in the original post were to be changed to say that instead of a man washing up on the beach it was a hammer that washed up on the beach. I saw the hammer, ignored it, went about my day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking the hammer off the island. Would this be ethically wrong?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
In post #120 you wrote, “The issue you are scrambling to avoid is that the temperature of the water in the well IS known to you by pulling it from the well (that is your empirical evidence); you are simply choosing to ignore that knowledge; and if the well water means nothing to you, why are you pulling it from the well??”
In this situation, the temperature of the water in the well is not known to me with certainty. I pulled water from the well and the temperature of that water was hot. That is what I know with certainty. I do not know if the water was hot when it was in the well or if the water became hot during the process of removing it from the well or if the water became hot after I removed it from the well. The empirical evidence available would suggest that the temperature of the water in the well is hot and it is most likely the case, but I do not know for certain what the temperature of the water in the well is. I am not ignoring the knowledge that the water that I pulled from the well is hot, but I cannot rely on that knowledge alone to state with certainty that the water in the well is hot.
As to your question, “…if the well water means nothing to you, why are you pulling it from the well??” the water that I pulled from the well means something to me but the water in the well does not mean anything to me. For example, if the water that I pulled from the well represented all of the water that I would ever need or want, then the water in the well means nothing to me. Even if I did, at some point, need to draw more water from the well, it still would not mean that the water in the well means anything to me, it only means that any additional water that I take from the well means something to me.
How does this analogy relate to the questions asked in the original post?
-
StrictlyLogical,
In post #118, you wrote, “Morality is SELFserving, NOT self denying. It is NOT a MYSTICAL source of IMPERATIVES floating in the cosmos. Until you get a REAL feeling for this you will be playing around with definitions and worrying about who said exactly what etc. and wondering about the importance of things ONLY YOU can discover FOR your self. “
A “feeling” for what? From where do I get this feeling; where does it come from? How do I know that the feeling that I have is a “Real feeling”? Are you implying that you have a real feeling about what morality is therefore you know what is moral?
You also wrote, “Try to always keep in mind THERE IS ONLY REALITY, no gods, no ghosts, no commandments, no duty, no floating obligations, no MYSTICAL "just because". There IS the choice to LIVE. If you wish to do so to the utmost (you exist only once and only in reality) you need to understand REALITY and the consequences, all possible long range consequences, on your life. If YOU CANNOT DEFINE what life is TO YOU and WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF IT... ONLY you are the one who suffers from that inability.”
What does it mean to live my life to the utmost? Is it possible for you to know “all possible long range consequences” of reality on your life? If you do not know all of the possible long range consequences does that mean that you cannot live your life to the utmost? How long is “long range”? Is long range different for you than it is for me?
You also state, “To the extent you are a human there are basic principles of morality based on that fact and all the facts of reality.”
What are the basic principals of morality? Where do they come from and how do we know that they are the basic principals of morality? Do I discover what these basic principals are or do I get a real feeling for them?
I do not think that I am on the verge of rationalizing anything nor am I asking you, or anyone, to tell me what is right and wrong. I am just trying to learn. I am confused by your answers and I am trying to make sense of your answers.
When you write, “…THERE IS ONLY REALITY, no gods, no ghosts, no commandments, no duty, no floating obligations, no MYSTICAL "just because", and “To the extent you are a human there are basic principles of morality based on that fact and all the facts of reality.”, it leads me to think that you know of some objective means to answer the questions posed in the original post. However, you then write things like, “Until you get a real feeling…” and “I tend to think of life as life and happiness, the whole issue of your existence including the quantity, quality and enjoyment of your existence, in a sense a sum a totality of flourishing or self-actualization” and other statements that are not objective but subjective.
I am asking for objective definitions because without objective definitions, we get what we have here: a collection of phrases that can and do mean different things to different people. I do not understand how you can answer the questions posed in the original post with certainty and then support that certainty with phrases that mean different things to different people.
-
Devil’s Advocate,
From post #113, “Ever hear of empirical evidence??”
Yes, I have heard of empirical evidence. That is why I included the statement, “I can speculate and make a reasoned guess” in my rewrite of your saying.
I could rewrite your statement as: the water I pulled from the well is hot, but the temperature of the water in the well is unknown to me, although I can use the empirical evidence available to me in or to speculate and make a reasoned guess. Regardless of the temperature, the water in the well does not mean anything to me.
-
StricklyLogical,
From post #105, “I think I concluded that the act WOULD be self-destructive and irrational for many reasons.”
I do not understand this statement. Are you referring to post #98 where you made your argument or some other post(s)?
It appears to me that in post #98, your entire argument for why it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach is because it would be self-destructive behavior on my part. If one can show that the behavior is not self-destructive then the killing of the man on the beach would not be wrong. Have I missed something?
You continue in post #105, “I tend to think of life as life and happiness, the whole issue of your existence including the quantity, quality and enjoyment of your existence, in a sense a sum a totality of flourishing or self-actualization. I cannot tell you WHY you should live, only that your CHOICE to live is a fundamental one.”
This statement is full of subjective terms, e.g. flourishing, self-actualization, enjoyment. The definition of these terms can and do mean different things to different people and constantly change. If your argument is that it is wrong for me to kill the man who washed up on the beach because that action is self-destructive behavior, and it is self-destructive behavior because it negatively impacts the quantity, quality and enjoyment of my existence as you define it and you are assuming that I define these terms the same way, then would your argument change and be that it was right to kill the man who washed up on the beach because you learned that my definition of terms is different so it was not self-destructive behavior because it does not negatively impact the quantity, quality and enjoyment of my existence as I define it?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
From post #104, “Not 'must' because of free-will, but essentially yes. If life, or life in general is amoral, then ones life cannot be moral, e.g., one cannot say my life is good, but life is amoral; that would be like saying, the water I pulled from the well is hot, but the water in the well has no temperature.”
Are you stating that “life” or “life in general” is either good or bad or has some other ethical and/or moral stance? If so, how do you derive this?
As for your saying, I would rewrite it as: the water I pulled from the well is hot, but the temperature of the water in the well is not only unknown to me, although I can speculate and make a reasoned guess, but the water in the well does not mean anything to me.
To answer your questions:
“Do you notice how we've moved from the morality of a solitary life, to the morality of lives in general?”
I have notice that you are talking about the morality of lives in general.
“Do you understand how any action you make after discovering another on the beach effects life in general??”
No, I do not understand. I understand that “life” is made up of a bunch of individuals (unless you are including all forms of live when you say life in general) and that any action I make could affect an individual or even a large number of individuals. I do not understand how the actions I make affect this thing which you call life in general.
-
StricklyLogical,
In post #98 you wrote,
“Q: In context (I), is action (II) "right" or "wrong"?
R1: Action (II) in Context (I) is "wrong" because:
A. In Context (I) the facts of reality are such that Action (II) actually constitutes self-destructive behavior which is NOT in accordance with the rational self-interest of the individual actor with the life of that individual SOLELY as the standard.
B. Any action which in any context constitutes self-destructive behavior which is NOT in accordance with the rational self-interest of the individual actor with life of that individual SOLELY as the standard, is WRONG for the individual to engage in BECAUSE and TO THE EXTENT that it is self -destructive.”
What is the definition of “life” as used in the context of your quote? Referring to the original post, there was nothing self-destructive about my behavior. The facts of reality did not change after I killed the man who washed up on shore. I continue to breathe, to drink, to eat, and do everything that I did prior to the man washing up on the beach.
Since there was no self-destructive behavior, Action (II) was not wrong. Do you agree?
-
Plasmatic,
My statement concerning a vague notion of empathy in post #97 was a reference to Devil’s Advocates’ definition of ethical reciprocity made in post #15. I wished to avoid receiving the two word answer of “ethical reciprocity” to the question I asked at the end of post #97.
I do not think that any notion of empathy must be vague. I think that “empathy”, along with many terms, needs to be clearly and, if possible, objectively defined especially when a term is used as a basis for making ethical decisions.
If someone were to answer the question in the original post with it would be wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because you should or ought to have empathy for them, I would need much more clarification.
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
In post #82, in response to my request for a clarification of life and happiness as the ultimate value, you wrote, “Unfortunately, that's exactly what I can't do; I only have a rather fuzzy approximation of this ultimate value. I know it's directly related to living as "man qua man" but, aside from acting in accordance with man's metaphysical nature (primarily your rational mind), I really couldn't define it for you.”
How can you base your ethical arguments on a fuzzy approximation?
You further state in post #82, “The primary issue is that killing someone for the sake of solitude requires that you value solitude above human life- which isn't rational and hinders the ultimate value.” If you only have a fuzzy approximation of this ultimate value then how can you make a statement that valuing solitude above human life is not rational and hinders the ultimate value?
You further state in post #82, “The right to life does apply to this situation; Devil's Advocate and Plasmatic are correct. But if you don't have a firm grasp of the moral principles, first, then knowing about that right isn't going to clarify anything at all.” If the ultimate value is the source of moral principals, and you have a fuzzy approximation of ultimate value, how can you have a firm grasp of moral principals?
Simple questions of right and wrong
in Ethics
Posted
Devil’s Advocate,
From post #203:
“Given the scenario, our islander chose to kill rather than walk past, which means the act of killing was intentional...[…]... then what was the motivation? Unknown, but there had to be some reason for the islander not to ignore the body. Initially I considered it unlikely that the act of killing was irrational, but if it was, was it wrong? Yes
Why? Because there is apparently no correct answer. That is not to say that ethics depends on some moral absolute; only that ethics requires being accountable for ones actions; specifically having some reason to act correctly. The OP provides none, in fact no action in the scenario is declared to be correct, therefore every action in the senario is wrong until there's something correct to compare it to.”
Can you please explain why it is the proper to take the moral or ethical position that every action in the scenario is wrong until there is something correct to compare it to? Couldn’t one say that every action in the scenario is correct until there is something wrong to compare it to? Wouldn’t this be a proper starting position to take or at least as proper as the position you take?