tjfields
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tjfields
-
-
Plasmatic,
Is your answer to the questions asked in the original post is that it is wrong for me to kill the man who washed up on the beach because the man who washed up on the beach has individual rights, including the right to life, and I violate those rights by killing him?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
In post #64 I asked, “How do I affect the value of life in general as I do things to further the value of my life?” And you answer in post #70 with “Cause and effect…” I am still confused. Perhaps I should narrow the question to the original post and ask: How do I, living alone and furthering my own life on the island affect the value of life in general? How does killing the man who washed up on shore affect the value of life in general?
As for the rest of your response in post #70, I am going to need more.
I asked, “Even if I do affect the value of life in general as you claim, why does this mean that I ought to value life in general?” And you answered, “Ethical reciprocity”.
I asked, “Why can I not value my life as a moral element of an amoral whole?” And you answered, “Consistency”.
Answers like these, without explanation, evidence, or even examples, are, to me, no different than a Christian answering the questions with “Because God said so.” Please help me by explaining your position more fully and more clearly.
-
Eiuol,
In post #56 you wrote, “If you want a moral evaluation of your scenario, we need to know motivations.”
Can you please explain why the knowledge of motivations can help to answer the question in the original post? Does the answer to was the killing of the man who washed up on the beach wrong change if I killed the man because I thought it would be fun, or if I was bored, or if I was cranky because my breakfast did not agree with me, or for some other reason?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
You wrote in post #57, “The logic is one of consistancy in intent and action; as you do things to further the value of your life, you effect the value of life in general. Again, you cannot value your life as a moral element of an amoral whole (life in general).”
I need some clarification. How do I affect the value of life in general as I do things to further the value of my life? What affect do I have: good or bad? Is it always the case that I affect the value of life in general? Does the reverse hold true: if I do things that do not further the value of my life do I still affect the value of life in general?
Even if I do affect the value of life in general as you claim, why does this mean that I ought to value life in general? Why can I not value my life as a moral element of an amoral whole? Can you please explain what seems to be an absolute prohibition in context with your last part of your post “Free-will trumps moral absolutes”?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
Thank you for clarifying that your argument is not forwarded as an Objectivist.
In post #43 you wrote, “Following a moral compass means that actions towards a goal are morally consistant with achieving that goal. In your scenario you took actions to meet your need to live, and later took actions to make your life better, i.e., you not only chose to live, but to live well. The moral implication is that life is a value; that living is good, and flourishing is better. All of your actions prior to the arrival of another were consistant with that moral goal.”
If I took actions to meet my need to live, and I took action to make my life better, how does this translate to a moral implication that I value anyone else’s life, or life in general? Why does the fact that I took actions to further my own life mean anything other than that I value my own life? Please explain the logic that leads from, since I do things for myself to further my life I (do? Must? am required to?) value everyone else’s life and life in general?
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
Based on what you wrote in post #42 and post #44, are you suggesting that the ultimate value is life and happiness, which means full, guiltless and long-term happiness, and that your other values, while they could be anything, should be chosen to support the ultimate value and that a judgment of whether or not a chosen value is good or bad or right or wrong would be based on how that value supports or does not support the ultimate value?
If this is the case, the definition of life and happiness needs to be clearer. To use your writings, what is the definition of “LIFE!” and “full” and “guiltless” and “long-term”? Are these definitions universal or are the definitions, like values, something that the individual can choose? Is it possible that my definition of full, guiltless and long-term happiness could be different from your definition and, therefore, the values that I choose to achieve my definition of happiness could be the complete opposite of values that you choose to achieve your definition of happiness?
Based on your posts, would your answers to the questions asked in the original post be different if the original post included lines that read, “I value solitude. Solitude allows me to achieve full, guiltless and long-term happiness.”? If those sentences were included in the original post, would your answer be that it would not be wrong for me to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I value solitude and killing this man is a means for me to achieve full, guiltless and long-term happiness?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
I do not understand your statement, “Since you asked if killing is wrong, I presumed you had some understanding of good vs bad and right vs wrong in terms of ethical responses to scenarios like the one you presented.”
While I have an understanding of how I define “good” and “bad” and “right” and “wrong”, it is possible that my understanding of the terms and your understanding of the terms and anyone else’s understanding of the terms could be different. For example, when you wrote, “If life is good, then the unnecessary destruction of life is bad; there is your moral compass in simple terms,” did “good” in this context mean that I was alive? Did “good” mean that I met the basic requirements of life (oxygen, water, food, and shelter) for the day? Did “good” mean that I was free from pain and discomfort for the moment? Did “good” mean something completely different?
But regardless of how anyone but you defines the terms in your quote, the other two questions that I asked in post #39, (Does this moral compass imply that if life is bad, then the unnecessary destruction of life is good? Does the condition of life, either good or bad, determine whether or not the necessary destruction of life is bad?) still apply and remain unanswered.
As for your response of, “Two wrongs don't make a right,” my first question, similar to the question that I asked before concerning definitions and asked for the same reason, is what are the definitions of “right” and “wrong” in the context of your quote? My second question is why is this true and how does this answer the questions asked in the original post?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
You wrote, “If life is good, then the unnecessary destruction of life is bad; there is your moral compass in simple terms.” What does “good” mean? What does “unnecessary” mean? What does “bad” mean? Are these objective definitions that every rational person will agree to? Or are these subjective definitions that will change not only when defined by different people but when defined by the same people under differing circumstances? Does this moral compass imply that if life is bad, then the unnecessary destruction of life is good? Does the condition of life, either good or bad, determine whether or not the necessary destruction of life is bad?
As to your second point, when you wrote, “The difference is you stated, "I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself". Your history now includes an act of murder which isn't consistant with all your prior actions, e.g., eating, reading and other goods that enhanced your life.” I still do not understand how this relates to the questions in the original post since it can be true of many other things. If I eat a food that I have not eaten before, my history now includes an act which is not consistent with all of my prior actions. If I learn and practice a new skill, my history now includes an act which is not consistent with all of my prior actions. Furthermore, anything thing that I do, including an act of murder, is a part of the circumstances in which I find myself at the present moment. If I state that that I am living my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself, that can be a true statement regardless of what is in the past. You may argue that my life could be fuller if my past did not include an action such as murder, but it would not change the fact that I could be living my life to the fullest given the circumstances. I do not understand how an act that is not consistent with my prior actions translates into that act being wrong.
Additionally, does your statement imply that if my history already included an act of murder, then any future murders would be consistent with my prior actions and therefore right (or at least not wrong)?
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
Thank you for your answer.
Others have stated, that it would be wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because that person has value and it would be irrational, and therefore immoral, to kill the and destroy that value. You appear to be in agreement with that position (“So, it would be harmful (thusly wrong) to hurt other people- because that hurts you too, in various ways which have already been mentioned.”). I am correct?
If so, can you help explain this concept of value?
In post #33, you wrote, “…Objectivist ethics is based on rational selfishness. Basically you logically figure out whatever would benefit you the most (in every conceivable sense of 'beneficial) and then you do it.” How does this work? Is it possible for me, or you, or anyone, to figure out what is the most beneficial in “every conceivable sense?”
This statement, like those in some previous posts concerning value, sounds so vague that it can mean anything.
For example, it could be argued that the person who washed up on the beach is still alive, and because the nature of human beings require that a living human being inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants and trees, via their nature, use carbon dioxide to produce oxygen, and I, as a human, need oxygen and if I choose to stay alive value oxygen because oxygen is needed in order for me to stay alive, the person who washed up on the beach is of value to me because I value oxygen and this person is contributing to the production of oxygen in the world, therefore the person on the beach has value and it would be irrational, hence immoral, to kill that person and destroy something that is of value to me. So even if the person on the beach never wakes up, never does anything other than the automatic natural process of inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide, it could be argued that this person has value.
Do you agree that the example that I provided is one of “every conceivable sense” that the person who washed up on the beach provides benefit to me? If so, do you think that that this example demonstrates that the concept of benefit or value can be stretch to such an extent that it covers everything?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
In post #32, you stated, “Is your life as a murderer (after the arrival of another) more secure than it was before you murdered? You keep saying that your life goes on as it did before, and it's no more true now than it was in your original scenario; you've added murder to your history. Perhaps you believe the arrival of your victim marks the only interaction with others you will ever have??”
Should I infer from this post that you are saying it would be wrong to kill the person that washed up on the beach because it does not make my life more secure or that it is wrong because I may, at some point in the future, have interaction with others who think that killing the person is wrong? Are you saying that it is wrong to kill the man on the beach because of the consequences that it may have? If so, is this the only reason not to kill someone else?
I am confused by your statement, “You keep saying that your life goes on as it did before, and it's no more true now than it was in your original scenario; you've added murder to your history.” What does this mean? This statement could be applied to anything that I do. I ate eggs for breakfast this morning so my life does not go on as it did before because I have added eating eggs to my history. I read the entire Harry Potter book series so my life does not go on as it did before because I have added reading about Harry Potter to my history. How does your statement apply to the question of whether or not it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach?
-
StricklyLogical,
Thank you for your answer. Although the questions regarding the arbitrary nature of determining whether something or someone has value or not and whether value simply replaces god (or some other subjective notion) in the moral framework still linger, your responses has given me food for thought.
-
StricklyLogical,
Does your statement in post #25, “IF you ACTUALLY determine the person has NO VALUE… your appropriate action/reaction in regard to this person is to simply ignore the person. …[A]ny attempts to interact with the person would be ineffective, and a waste of time/energy.”, imply, with regard to the question in the original post, that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because if I had determined that he has no value it would be a waste of time/energy to kill the person and the appropriate thing to do would be to simply to ignore the person, but if I determined that the person who washed up on the beach had at least some value, then it would be wrong to kill that person because that person could provide some value?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
I do not understand how your statement, “And yet you dispose of a resource that may help you to pursue that value?” answers the question why would the killing of another person means that I value my life any less than I did before I killed the other person. My life on the island goes on as it did before. The person who washed up on the beach may have provided infinite value to me or may have provided no value or may have been a detriment to my values or somewhere in between. So what? Why would this cause me to value my life any less? You would say that I value my life any less if hammer washed up on the beach and I saw the hammer, ignored it, went about my day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking it off the island? Since I disposed of a resource that may have helped me pursue my values does this mean that I value my life any less? And if so, why?
-
StricklyLogical,
My use of the word ‘determine’ was based on your post #14 where you stated, “The nature of man is complex hence to determine the nature of a person and hence value of that person in the context to you is not easy.. i.e. it takes time.” So I was using the word in the same manner that you used it.
My answer to your question, “If you convince yourself the moon is made of cheese have you "determined" that the moon is made of cheese?” is no. Convincing yourself that the moon is made of cheese is not the same as determining whether or not the moon is made of cheese.
-
Nicky,
In post #17, you mentioned the concept of “people's fundamental right to life.” This is an interesting concept that would answer the question posed in the original post. If your concept is valid, then the answer would be, it is wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because this person has a fundamental right to life. If you could please explain this concept of a fundamental right to life and why people have it, I would greatly appreciate it. Of course, a simple, easy to understand explanation would be the most helpful.
-
Devil’s Advocate,
Thank you for clarifying your position.
However, I am still unclear about what you mean when you state, “Because of the contradictory position this assumes towards the value you pursue.” What is the contradictory position? I value my life and I pursue that value.
As to your Aristotle quote with regard to the original post, the man who washed up on the beach was not my friend. However, if you wish to interpret ‘friend’ to mean anyone, I can see the similarity to Christ’s Golden Rule. What I do not understand is the concept of empathy based on personal experience as a guide to ethical behavior. Is empathy that is based on personal experience objective? Or would everyone have different personal experiences therefore have a different feeling of empathy therefore a different code of ethical behavior? To the question in the original post, if I did not have any empathy for the person who washed up on the beach because my personal experience did not give me a base for any empathy for this person, would you agree that killing the person would not be wrong?
-
StricklyLogical,
In post #14, you stated, “The value ANY existent in reality has for you depends upon its nature. It IS objective. The nature of man is complex hence to determine the nature of a person and hence value of that person in the context to you is not easy.. i.e. it takes time.”
For clarification, when you state, “It IS objective.” what are you claiming is objective? Do you mean that value of any existent is objective, or do you mean that the nature of an existent is objective?
Further, does your statement mean that I, as an individual, must determine whether or not an existent has value and that in the case of another human it will take time to determine if and what that value is?
You then state, “The NATURE of man is also NOT STATIC. So a person's value to you may be change, or may change over time.” Are you saying the determination of value, in the case of a person, that I make, may or may not change based on the changing nature of that person?
If the answer to the two questions above is yes, does this mean that I could determine that an existent, even another human, has value and you could determine that the exact same existent, even the exact same human, does not have value? Does this mean that my determination of value and your determination of value could at some point change to be the exact opposite of what you and I first determined?
You state, “If you are trying to say "Value" sounds arbitrary (for which you substitute God) because value is complex or contextual, you would be wrong, about the arbitrariness, but correct about the complexity and context.” Why am I wrong about the arbitrariness of value as you have presented? How do I determine value? How do you determine value? How does John Doe determine value? How much time does it take for me to determine value? How much time does it take for you to determine value? If I determine value by whatever means that I use to determine value in whatever time frame that I use to determine value, and you determine value by whatever means you use to determine value in whatever timeframe you use to determine value, and John Doe determines value by whatever means John Doe uses to determine value in whatever timeframe John Doe uses to determine value, and all of these different means and timeframes could lead to different conclusions, conclusions which can change over time, how is this anything but arbitrary?
In regard to the question in the original post, do you agree that if I determine that the person who washed up on the beach has no value, by using whatever means I use to determine whether or not something or someone has value within whatever timeframe I use to determine value, then it would not be wrong for me to kill the person?
-
Nicky,
Thank you for your response.
Your post (#13) appears to support the position that it is wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because that person has the potential to be of value. Is this your answer to the question in the original post? Is it your position that in making the determination of whether it is right or wrong to kill someone is based on the value that that person may provide?
-
StricklyLogical,
Thank you for your response. The position that it is wrong to kill someone because they, except in rare cases, provide value is a very interesting point of view.
However, it seems to me that your definition of value is unclear. You state that value “is not something, due to the complexity of Man, you can determine in the short term, NOR is it something which is static.” What is value? Is there a clear and objective definition of value?
Without a clear and objective definition of value, it appears as if you have simply substituted the concept of God for the concept of Value. Instead of saying that it is wrong to kill someone because the concept of God, something that cannot be determined in short run (being revealed to us only after death in many religious traditions) and something that is not static (the revelation and interpretation of the word of God constantly changes), has dictated that it is wrong to kill someone, you say that it is wrong to kill someone because the concept that a person has Value dictates that it is wrong to kill them.
Please excuse my confusion, but I still do not completely understand your position.
-
StrictlyLogical,
Thank you for your answer.
Just to be clear, it seems that you are saying that it would be wrong for me to kill the person who washed up on the beach because it is possible that that person could have contributed to my life in some way or ways and by killing this person I have destroyed this potential and that there may be some consequences for killing the person that I have not yet taken into account. Am I correct? Is your position on whether it is right or wrong to kill someone based only on the potential of getting some value from that person?
If so, then would it be your position that, if it was determined that a person provided no value to your life, it would not be wrong to kill that person?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
You make an interesting point. If I understand your answer correctly, you are saying that since I was given life and I choose to continue living that means that I value life. Therefore, it is wrong to take the life of another because it is contradictory to what I value. Do I understand you correctly?
If so, why is it contradictory to what I value? I value my life; demonstrated, as you pointed out, by the fact that I keep on living and I take actions that preserve and further my life. Why would the killing of another person mean that I value my life any less than I did before I killed the other person?
As for the Golden Rule, or ethical reciprocity, where does that come from and why does it mean anything? If I ask a Christian that question, he or she would most likely respond that the Golden Rule comes from God, that is why it is right, and if you do not obey it, God will punish you. Is this your answer as well or is it something different?
-
2046,
Thank you for your answer.
What is “the non-aggression principle,” or your definition of it, and why and how does this principal not allow me to kill someone?
-
Devil’s Advocate,
Thank you for your answer.
What does “pay it forward” mean? I am confused by this concept. Is it some form of reciprocity, e.g. someone does something for or to me, or does not do something for or to me, therefore I am morally bound to do something, or not do something, for or to them or for another?
Is your answer to my question essentially that it is wrong to kill someone because I was given life therefore I owe something to every other person who is alive? If this is your answer, I need some more explanation. Why does the fact that I have been given life mean that it is wrong to kill another person?
-
Please help me answer the following questions. The scenario and questions below are simple because I do not want to confuse the issue with a lot of distracting information. My hope is that there is a logical, rational answer to my questions that contain no leaps of faith, appeals to emotion, or other “non-rational” components.
I am asking Objectivists to provide an answer(s) to these questions in the hope that I will receive rational and logical responses that will help make the situation clear. I am interested in reading answers from any non-Objectivists on this forum as well, but if you are a non-Objectivist please identify yourself as such when you answer.
Please consider the following scenario:
I live alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, no one ever visits the island, and there is never any communication with any other person. I am completely alone on the island.
How I got to the island is irrelevant. I will never leave the island.
The island and the ocean immediately around the island provide a wide variety of resources. I use my reason and my ability to think to devise ways of turning the resources available to me into those things that I need to live, e.g. I make tools for gathering and/or hunting food, I devise means of collecting and storing fresh water, I discover or construct shelter.
Over time I have become so efficient at providing for my basic needs that I am able to devise ways to use the resources available to make my life better, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment.
I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself.
One day, a man washes up on the beach. This man is alive but unconscious. I have never seen this man before and I have never had any interaction with this man. Due to being unconscious, the man has not interacted with me in any way and I do not perceive any kind of threat or danger from this man.
I walk up to this man and I kill him. I then continue with my day. The tide washes the body out to sea that evening and I never see the body again. I continue with my life exactly as I did before the man washed up on the beach.
Given the scenario, I ask the following questions: Was it wrong for me to kill the man on the beach? If it was wrong for me to kill the man on the beach, why was it wrong?
Simple questions of right and wrong
in Ethics
Posted
Devil’s Advocate,
In post #74 you wrote, “You cannot assert the value of your life by dismissing life as a value, or to paraphrase a proverb frequently relied on by Objectivists...You cannot have your cake as a value and dismiss the value of cake to others.”
I am confused by your statement. It seems as if you are suggesting that “life” or "life in general" (stated in post #93) is some entity or force that the individual must value if the individual values his or her own life or be at odds with “life” or "life in general" and therefore be in the wrong. Is this what you are saying?
As to your paraphrased proverb, it seems to be making the following assumption: that I do not recognize that you value your life just as I value my life. This is not necessarily true. I value my life and I may recognize that you value your life. However, just because I recognize that you value your life, why does this mean that I ought to value your life as well, other than some vague notion of empathy based on personal experience?