Are trivial optional choices open to moral evaluation

[scottd]

I think you are misrepresenting the range of your choices. In reality, your choices are:

1. Pick form whichever pile is closest to the door.

2. Pick whichever size is farthest from the door.

3. Flip a coin.

4...(n-1): some other arbitrary method of choosing.

n-th choice: Spend more time studying your options until a criteria arises.

Depending on other circumstances (like whether your wife wants to be part of the decision making process or not), your rational choice is either 1. or the n-th. The rest of the choices are in fact irrational, and therefor immoral.

I also think that the fact that in reality, unlike in your fictitious scenario, the size of the tiles usually is important, might confuse the issue. That's why I propose a second, more realistic scenario, in which what the choices actually are is more apparent (it's always easier to work with a realistic scenario than with one where an unrealistic premise must be remembered and assumed the whole time).

My alternate scenario would be that you've chosen the texture, color, size etc. of the tiles, and now your only decision is which specific, pretty much identical tiles to buy. Then it becomes more obvious that your choices are between picking whichever tiles are on top, picking whichever tiles are at the bottom, coming up with a complex algorithm to decide which random tiles you want, bringing in an industrial grade sonar to make sure the tiles you're picking have no hidden cracks, etc.

Then it's more apparent that the right choice is to pick the tiles which are on top, discarding the ones with obvious defects.

I am buying them online and they are to be delivered to my door. No need to pick or carry.

We could do this all day. Context being all things equal...

Edited January 30, 2011 by scottd

[softwareNerd]

If neither choice could be immoral, how could it be considered a moral choice?

Good question. The answer is: because both are moral.

You did not follow a subjective process to evaluate the two. You followed a rational process that took two things into account: the tile and your requirements (the facts of reality and your own context). If you said: "Tile A is obviously always better for everything" you're probably be following an Intrinsic approach. The error there would be that you are not taking your own context into account. If you see the tile and simply choose one because... ... you might be following a Subjective approach. However, if you evaluate the tile based on what it is and how it fits your values, then your approach is Objective. [Don't take this to imply that one must spend more time than warranted on trivial decisions.]

An intrinsic approach could also result in the two tiles being equal (e.g. God -- or Knauf -- just made them that way). So can a subjective approach. So, can an objective approach. Regardless of which approach one uses to make the decision, you might reach an equality where both choices are equally moral. The choice is then optional. So, why not call that last decision "subjective"? Well, I wouldn't make an argument against doing so; but terminology is not Odden's main point. His point is that the decision is a moral one, not outside the province of morality. As an analogy, think of the process of making this choice as similar to putting the item on a weighing scale and choosing the one that is heavier. If they both come out equal, then you can optionally pick up wither. However, whichever one you pick up, the choice was based on the process of weighing them: it is a weighing-decided choice. That is the sense in which either is a moral choice. Morality is the process by which you did all the evaluation.

[Eiuol]

If neither choice could be immoral, how could it be considered a moral choice?

Based on David's previous posts, I'm not sure he would agree!

Because a choice that furthers your life is a moral choice. Laying no tiles whatsoever is an option too, don't forget. We don't usually speak of the morality of these choices because even the benefits are minimal or near nothing. However, consider why you even bother to lay tiles in the first place. Likely, it's because making your kitchen appealing is valuable to you, so laying the tiles is a moral choice insofar as you make your living environment how you want it to be. Small or big ones? It might really make no aesthetic difference to you, meaning that both choices about the tiles are just as good. Both are better than the third option: nothing at all.

[Tanaka]

I am buying them online and they are to be delivered to my door. No need to pick or carry.

We could do this all day. Context being all things equal...

We could indeed. You're never going to come up with a scenario in which all things are perfectly equal.

Right now, the rational option would be to leave it up to the store clerk, making his work a little easier (being considerate towards others is moral).

If that's not an option, you should pick the larger size, because it's likely easier to transport and lay down.

If you find a way to eliminate that criteria, you should pick whichever size you spot first, in the list of options available to you on the online form you're filling out. Spending time looking for the second size, even though you already spotted the first size which is just as good, would be irrational.

And, if by some miracle you eliminate all possible criteria, then that's not a choice anymore: to choose, one must have a criteria to choose by. We are, at that point, literally in a situation where it is impossible for a rational human mind to choose between two equals. Then the choice is between using the first arbitrary method that comes to mind to make the selection, or refusing to make the choice. Obviously, the first option (coin flip is what came to my mind first, btw.) is the rational one.

It is I guess possible to make that process automatic, to let your subconscious use an arbitrary method you're not even aware of to select one option or the other (i.e. last time I had to make a choice between something small and big, I really enjoyed that big portion of soda from McDonald's, so let's go with big again), but I wouldn't recommend it. That would make it to easy to develop a habit of making decisions by association, so it's best to take the extra time to flip that coin. Keeping track of the exact reasons for one's decisions, no matter how minor, is a good thing.

[scottd]

Good question. The answer is: because both are moral.

You did not follow a subjective process to evaluate the two. You followed a rational process that took two things into account: the tile and your requirements (the facts of reality and your own context). If you said: "Tile A is obviously always better for everything" you're probably be following an Intrinsic approach. The error there would be that you are not taking your own context into account. If you see the tile and simply choose one because... ... you might be following a Subjective approach. However, if you evaluate the tile based on what it is and how it fits your values, then your approach is Objective. [Don't take this to imply that one must spend more time than warranted on trivial decisions.]

An intrinsic approach could also result in the two tiles being equal (e.g. God -- or Knauf -- just made them that way). So can a subjective approach. So, can an objective approach. Regardless of which approach one uses to make the decision, you might reach an equality where both choices are equally moral. The choice is then optional. So, why not call that last decision "subjective"? Well, I wouldn't make an argument against doing so; but terminology is not Odden's main point. His point is that the decision is a moral one, not outside the province of morality. As an analogy, think of the process of making this choice as similar to putting the item on a weighing scale and choosing the one that is heavier. If they both come out equal, then you can optionally pick up wither. However, whichever one you pick up, the choice was based on the process of weighing them: it is a weighing-decided choice. That is the sense in which either is a moral choice. Morality is the process by which you did all the evaluation.

I agree with that. The choosing of the tiles down to the 2 different sizes was a moral choice, ensuring the best price, etc. The final decision to choose between the two sizes, in the "all things being equal" context, is certainly "optional" or "subjective". If neither choice is immoral, neither can be called moral. If neither choice is bad, neither can be called good. Neither wrong, neither right.

[scottd]

Because a choice that furthers your life is a moral choice. Laying no tiles whatsoever is an option too, don't forget. We don't usually speak of the morality of these choices because even the benefits are minimal or near nothing. However, consider why you even bother to lay tiles in the first place. Likely, it's because making your kitchen appealing is valuable to you, so laying the tiles is a moral choice insofar as you make your living environment how you want it to be. Small or big ones? It might really make no aesthetic difference to you, meaning that both choices about the tiles are just as good. Both are better than the third option: nothing at all.

The choice to lay tiles was already made.

[scottd]

We could indeed. You're never going to come up with a scenario in which all things are perfectly equal.

Right now, the rational option would be to leave it up to the store clerk, making his work a little easier (being considerate towards others is moral).

If that's not an option, you should pick the larger size, because it's likely easier to transport and lay down.

If you find a way to eliminate that criteria, you should pick whichever size you spot first, in the list of options available to you on the online form you're filling out. Spending time looking for the second size, even though you already spotted the first size which is just as good, would be irrational.

And, if by some miracle you eliminate all possible criteria, then that's not a choice anymore: to choose, one must have a criteria to choose by. We are, at that point, literally in a situation where it is impossible for a rational human mind to choose between two equals. Then the choice is between using the first arbitrary method that comes to mind to make the selection, or refusing to make the choice. Obviously, the first option (coin flip is what came to my mind first, btw.) is the rational one.

It is I guess possible to make that process automatic, to let your subconscious use an arbitrary method you're not even aware of to select one option or the other (i.e. last time I had to make a choice between something small and big, I really enjoyed that big portion of soda from McDonald's, so let's go with big again), but I wouldn't recommend it. That would make it to easy to develop a habit of making decisions by association, so it's best to take the extra time to flip that coin. Keeping track of the exact reasons for one's decisions, no matter how minor, is a good thing.

Easier to lay down...guy charging the same price for installation of either.

Easier to spot...side by side on web page.

Like I said, we could do this all day.

Of course there are "all things equal" decisions, we all make them every day.

Edited January 30, 2011 by scottd

[Tanaka]

Speaking of choices, I have an admission to make: in this thread, I just made the wrong choice when I decided to launch into about 12 paragraphs worth of explanations for something relatively simple. I would've been better off if instead I would've clicked on the red X in the corner, went about my business, and came back an hour later to post this answer:

When faced with two or more alternatives and no rational criteria to choose between them (so called all things are equal decisions), the answer isn't to allow ourselves to be irrational. Consciously selecting a specific method of making the arbitrary decision has its benefits. It can be argued that some of these methods are objectively better than others (I can think of reasons why having a default preference in color or other ranges of attributes can be beneficial in some situations, while forcing oneself to choose at random could be beneficial in others).

Another reason to choose these methods consciously and be aware of them is that it becomes easier to recognize them if they creep into important decisions, where all things aren't equal. In general, one of the most important things a rational individual must spend time on is thinking about thinking.

There is of course no such thing as a truly random act, anywhere in the Universe. We all use specific methods to make arbitrary decisions, it's just that we're not all aware of them. They result in patterns of behavior, and when we recognize those patterns we refer to them as quirks in people's personalities. We all know people who's "quirks" are no longer quirks but have invaded most of their rational decision making, and yet, miraculously, they are still perfectly oblivious to them.

[Eiuol]

The choice to lay tiles was already made.

You can still choose not to lay any tiles. When picking the tiles, you just go with whatever you feel like going for if everything really is equal. Or just change your mind and forget the whole tile-changing project. Just so you know, a moral choice is basically one that is good for your life. The word choice is used because there are *always* options, and anything without options isn't open to moral judgment. Sure, you could say "well, the scenario is choosing between (A) big tiles or (B ) small tiles," but there are more options than the ones you present.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Eiuol

[scottd]

You can still choose not to lay any tiles. When picking the tiles, you just go with whatever you feel like going for if everything really is equal. Or just change your mind and forget the whole tile-changing project. Just so you know, a moral choice is basically one that is good for your life. The word choice is used because there are *always* options, and anything without options isn't open to moral judgment. Sure, you could say "well, the scenario is choosing between (A) big tiles or (B ) small tiles," but there are more options than the ones you present.

All other options were already identified and chosen rationally. All that remains is choosing the size of tile, with aforementioned criteria. That is the context. Given that context, I submit it is not a moral choice at all.

[Xall]

If neither choice is immoral, neither can be called moral. If neither choice is bad, neither can be called good. Neither wrong, neither right.

I think that is fallacious to say, in that it is same as the following example:

Between killing 1,000,000 people and 10,000,000 people, neither choice is moral; if neither choice is moral, neither can be called immoral. If neither choice is good, neither can be called bad. Neither wrong, neither right(!!!)

The problematic, I think, is that you are comparing them (the choices) to themselves, for when evaluating objectively, both choices are moral, as opposed to choosing immorally bad tiles or good tiles for the sake of your whims. The fact that you are not choosing between good tiles chosen objectively and bad tiles chosen subjectively (or good tiles chosen the same way) <I think non-rationally is a better way of terming it>, does not negate the morality of the former action. It is still a rational evaluation to an objective reality and that is what determines its morality.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Xall

[Eiuol]

All that remains is choosing the size of tile, with aforementioned criteria. That is the context. Given that context, I submit it is not a moral choice at all.

Go with whichever you want. Say you go with the big tiles. Is your life furthered? If yes, there's a fine choice. Same applies to the small tiles. You STILL have the option of changing your mind and going with nothing. Just because you ruled out a choice doesn't mean it's no longer an option.

[scottd]

Speaking of choices, I have an admission to make: in this thread, I just made the wrong choice when I decided to launch into about 12 paragraphs worth of explanations for something relatively simple. I would've been better off if instead I would've clicked on the red X in the corner, went about my business, and came back an hour later to post this answer:

When faced with two or more alternatives and no rational criteria to choose between them (so called all things are equal decisions), the answer isn't to allow ourselves to be irrational. Consciously selecting a specific method of making the arbitrary decision has its benefits. It can be argued that some of these methods are objectively better than others (I can think of reasons why having a default preference in color or other ranges of attributes can be beneficial in some situations, while forcing oneself to choose at random could be beneficial in others).

Another reason to choose these methods consciously and be aware of them is that it becomes easier to recognize them if they creep into important decisions, where all things aren't equal. In general, one of the most important things a rational individual must spend time on is thinking about thinking.

There is of course no such thing as a truly random act, anywhere in the Universe. We all use specific methods to make arbitrary decisions, it's just that we're not all aware of them. They result in patterns of behavior, and when we recognize those patterns we refer to them as quirks in people's personalities. We all know people who's "quirks" are no longer quirks but have invaded most of their rational decision making, and yet, miraculously, they are still perfectly oblivious to them.

All other options were already identified and chosen rationally. All that remains is choosing the size of tile, with aforementioned criteria. That is the context. Given that context, I submit it is not a moral choice at all.

I think this is a very simple question with a simple answer. I'm not sure why some people come at these things with 12 paragraphs.

Not attacking or faulting you here, just making an observation. There is an obvious tendency to over analyze sometimes. I do not need any quotes from AR to know that my size of tile choice, given the context, could never be construed as immoral, therefore it is not a moral choice.

[scottd]

Go with whichever you want. Say you go with the big tiles. Is your life furthered? If yes, there's a fine choice. Same applies to the small tiles. You STILL have the option of changing your mind and going with nothing. Just because you ruled out a choice doesn't mean it's no longer an option.

Agreed. But I am specifically discussing THIS choice, in the given context, and whether or not it is a "moral" choice.

[scottd]

I think that is fallacious to say, in that it is same as the following example:

Between killing 1,000,000 people and 10,000,000 people, neither choice is moral; if neither choice is moral, neither can be called immoral. If neither choice is good, neither can be called bad. Neither wrong, neither right(!!!)

The problematic, I think, is that you are comparing them (the choices) to themselves, for when evaluating objectively, both choices are moral, as opposed to choosing immorally bad tiles or good tiles for the sake of your whims. The fact that you are not choosing between good tiles chosen objectively and bad tiles chosen subjectively (or good tiles chosen the same way) <I think non-rationally is a better way of terming it>, does not negate the morality of the former action. It is still a rational evaluation to an objective reality and that is what determines its morality.

I see what you mean.

I think the difference would obviously be that in your context you are choosing to kill; an immoral act.

In my context, you are choosing the size of a tile.

My assertion you quoted above obviously needs a further qualifier, you're right about that.

[Xall]

I see what you mean.

I think the difference would obviously be that in your context you are choosing to kill; an immoral act.

In my context, you are choosing the size of a tile.

My point is that the method by which you judge killing as immoral is the same employed in trying to determine the fact that choosing tiles is moral. It is, and for the same reason, rational objective evaluation.

[TLD]

I think you are misrepresenting the range of your choices. In reality, your choices are:

1. Pick form whichever pile is closest to the door.

2. Pick whichever size is farthest from the door.

3. Flip a coin.

4...(n-1): some other arbitrary method of choosing.

n-th choice: Spend more time studying your options until a criteria arises.

Depending on other circumstances (like whether your wife wants to be part of the decision making process or not), your rational choice is either 1. or the n-th. The rest of the choices are in fact irrational, and therefor immoral.

I also think that the fact that in reality, unlike in your fictitious scenario, the size of the tiles usually is important, might confuse the issue. That's why I propose a second, more realistic scenario, in which what the choices actually are is more apparent (it's always easier to work with a realistic scenario than with one where an unrealistic premise must be remembered and assumed the whole time).

My alternate scenario would be that you've chosen the texture, color, size etc. of the tiles, and now your only decision is which specific, pretty much identical tiles to buy. Then it becomes more obvious that your choices are between picking whichever tiles are on top, picking whichever tiles are at the bottom, coming up with a complex algorithm to decide which random tiles you want, bringing in an industrial grade sonar to make sure the tiles you're picking have no hidden cracks, etc.

Then it's more apparent that the right choice is to pick the tiles which are on top, discarding the ones with obvious defects.

Now this is an example of moralizing about which I have previously talked.

Re SN's comment, I agree that objectivity helps determines the choice. But I would say such a choice is subjective in the sense that it is arbitrary for Scottd - morality does not dictate which choice to make.

[TLD]

Why would a person who values his own happiness settle for second-best in satisfying his rational preferences? It seems like a failure of moral ambitiousness to me.

There is no absolute downside, but you are not as well off as you could be; there is an opportunity cost that the chooser is bearing unnecessarily, by choice.

If there is no downside, and a choice is arbitrary - without moral implications, then one is not worse off with one choice over the other. You and others are missing this point.

[scottd]

My point is that the method by which you judge killing as immoral is the same employed in trying to determine the fact that choosing tiles is moral. It is, and for the same reason, rational objective evaluation.

Sure, logic and reason. That's a given.

In my context, however, all the rational objective evaluations have been made. all that is left is the size of the tile, a purely optional/subjective choice.

[Xall]

In my context, however, all the rational objective evaluations have been made. all that is left is the size of the tile, a purely optional/subjective choice.

And having been made, isn't it obvious that either choice is therefore moral, given the method employed and the context?

Edited January 30, 2011 by Xall

[scottd]

And having been made, isn't it obvious that either choice is therefore moral, given the method employed and the context?

How can it be moral if there are no moral implications? Like I said, all other choices have been made rationally, but this is another choice, a NEW choice if you will.

[TLD]

All other options were already identified and chosen rationally. All that remains is choosing the size of tile, with aforementioned criteria. That is the context. Given that context, I submit it is not a moral choice at all.

I think this is a very simple question with a simple answer. I'm not sure why some people come at these things with 12 paragraphs. There is an obvious tendency to over analyze sometimes. I do not need any quotes from AR to know that my size of tile choice, given the context, could never be construed as immoral, therefore it is not a moral choice.

I agree with the over-analyzing.

Simply put: the decision whether or not to buy the tile is an objective one.

The decision of which tile to buy rests on a number of criteria. When those criteria are applied and still leave alternatives - for a rational person, the "decision" of which to buy is not a moral one: it does not rest on moral principles, one choice is not "good" and the other "bad", etc.

[Tanaka]

Sure, logic and reason. That's a given.

In my context, however, all the rational objective evaluations have been made. all that is left is the size of the tile, a purely optional/subjective choice.

You can never have a situation in which all the rational evaluations have been made. Even the tiniest corner of the Universe is way too complex for that.

I can't even begin to list the number of movies I've seen lately, where the filmmaker habitually commits the same mistake you are describing: coming up on an alternative that's seemingly "all things equal" and ignoring that elusive third option, of spending more time searching for a criteria to help the choice.

The fundamental choice, whenever there is an alternative where two or more options are equal, is always between making an arbitrary selection and looking for further criteria. Sometimes the rational choice is to somehow make the arbitrary selection (and that also has implications, which I addressed above), other times to search for more criteria.

The one option which is always irrational is to convince yourself that you are omniscient, and that searching for more criteria is not an alternative.

All other options were already identified and chosen rationally. All that remains is choosing the size of tile, with aforementioned criteria. That is the context. Given that context, I submit it is not a moral choice at all.

I understand that this is the scenario you are asking about. But in that scenario you set up, you know everything there is to know regarding your object, you are omniscient.

That makes your scenario impossible. There is always more to find out about your alternatives. It may not be worth finding out, but the existence of that third alternative is inescapable. It's there.

There is at least one great filmmaker (Kubrick), who tended to make the mistake of always choosing that last alternative of spending more time on the decision, even when the right choice would've been to make an arbitrary choice and finish the movie in under a decade.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Tanaka

[scottd]

You can never have a situation in which all the rational evaluations have been made. Even the tiniest corner of the Universe is way too complex for that.

I can't even begin to list the number of movies I've seen lately, where the filmmaker habitually commits the same mistake you are describing: coming up on an alternative that's seemingly "all things equal" and ignoring that elusive third option, of spending more time searching for a criteria to help the choice.

The fundamental choice, whenever there is an alternative where two or more options are equal, is always between making an arbitrary selection and looking for further criteria. Sometimes the rational choice is to somehow make the arbitrary selection (and that also has implications, which I addressed above), other times to search for more criteria.

The one option which is always irrational is to convince yourself that you are omniscient, and that searching for more criteria is not an alternative.

I understand that this is the scenario you are asking about. But in that scenario you set up, you know everything there is to know regarding your object, you are omniscient.

That makes your scenario impossible. There is always more to find out about your alternative. It may not be worth finding out, but the existence of that third alternative is inescapable. It's there.

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.

[Dante]

How can it be moral if there are no moral implications? Like I said, all other choices have been made rationally, but this is another choice, a NEW choice if you will.

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.