Simple questions of right and wrong

[tjfields]

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.

[tjfields]

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]

TJ said:
 

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.

 

 

 

 

This is the main error you continue to make. I will address what has changed after you committed murder, in the absence of any government or society to retaliate against you, and why it matters to YOU later today.

[Devil's Advocate]

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?

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.

 

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?

OK, now we're getting somewhere...

 

Do you notice how we've moved from the morality of a solitary life, to the morality of lives in general?

Do you understand how any action you make after discovering another on the beach effects life in general??

--

I notice that some, perhaps yourself, are attempting to dismiss the social context the arrival of another represents...

"For whenever two or more of you are gathered in His name, there is Love, there is Morality." ~ paraphrased from Paul Stookey's Wedding Song

--

I'll probably regret adding that line; it wasn't intended to tether morality back to God, but to indicate there's no minimum number of participants to a social context which addresses interaction with others.  Killing is interacting in a bad way... Why? Because one doesn't desire being killed.

[StrictlyLogical]

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?

 

 

I think I concluded that the act WOULD be self-destructive and irrational for many reasons.

 

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. 

[Plasmatic]

Another quick post:

Before, I answer why one ought to value the unconscious mans right to life, even if no one but oneself would ever know, I have some socratic questions.

1. Does the law of identity exist before the man washed up? (even if no microscope is present??)

2. Did the self sustaining man exist as an individual before the man washed up?

3. Does the fact that the washed up man is unconscious mean he is not an individual?

4. Do the requirements of the self sustaining mans life arise suddenly because another man washed up?

5. Did the self sustaining man posses the faculty of introspection prior to the presence of the unconscious man or did it suddenly appear?

6. Why was Galt referred to as the “man without pain, fear, or guilt“?

7. What was the main weapon used against Rearden by the looters?

8. How could Equality 7-2521, in Anthem, discover the concept of “I” in a “society” that had obliterated it ?

9. Why didn’t Equality 7-2521 in Anthem feel guilt when he “sinned” ?

Edited August 22, 2013 by Plasmatic

[StrictlyLogical]

 Killing is interacting in a bad way... Why? Because one doesn't desire being killed.

 

Does this logic have anything to do with Objectivist ethics? 

 

Can you show that according to Objectivism the fact that "one doesn't desire being killed" is a reason for or a contributing factor in arriving at the conclusion killing is interacting in a "bad" way?  

[Devil's Advocate]

Does this logic have anything to do with Objectivist ethics? 

 

Can you show that according to Objectivism the fact that "one doesn't desire being killed" is a reason for or a contributing factor in arriving at the conclusion killing is interacting in a "bad" way?  

 

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ ARL, Individual Rights (reposted from #23 & #65)

 

Does this not apply??

Edited August 22, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[StrictlyLogical]

Another quick post:

Before, I answer why one ought to value the unconscious mans right to life, even if no one but oneself would ever know, I have some socratic questions.

1. Does the law of identity exist before the man washed up? (even if no microscope is present??)

2. Did the self sustaining man exist as an individual before the man washed up?

3. Does the fact that the washed up man is unconscious mean he is not an individual?

4. Do the requirements of the self sustaining mans life arise suddenly because another man washed up?

5. Did the self sustaining man posses the faculty of introspection prior the presence of the unconscious man or did it suddenly appear?

6. Why was Galt referred to as the “man without pain, fear, or guilt“?

7. What was the main weapon used against Rearden by the looters?

8. How could Equality 7-2521, in Anthem, discover the concept of “I” in a “society” that had obliterated it ?

9. Why didn’t Equality 7-2521 in anthem feel guilt when he “sinned” ?

 

An interesting chain of questions and very apt.  They are perhaps outside of tjfield's expertise/experience/knowledge but I am unaware of that.

 

What this line of reasoning tells me is that your position is that the VERY act of killing has actual psychological, self-esteem, or psychoepistemological consequences.  That taking such an action is at its core fundamentally an act of self-abnegation and self-destruction if not physically, "spiritually", for a Man, qua man (not qua animal or qua psychopath).  Moreover I would assume such damage is proposed as not insignificant and goes to the core of a Man's ability to live and enjoy life.

 

This is clear self-destruction and for that reason, the action is "wrong".

 

I agree with the logic in this. 

[StrictlyLogical]

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ ARL, Individual Rights (reposted from #23 & #65)

 

Does this not apply??

 

THIS quote applies, in a social context, and ... note the conditional "IF ONE WISHES one's own rights to be recognized". 

 

It does not apply in a non-social context and not when one does NOT WISH one's own rights to be recognized and respected... which I think is the case here on the deserted island, with the unconscious cast away.

[Devil's Advocate]

I would also point to Plasmatic's contribution in post #75...

 

THIS quote applies, in a social context, and ... note the conditional "IF ONE WISHES one's own rights to be recognized". 

 

It does not apply in a non-social context and not when one does NOT WISH one's own rights to be recognized and respected... which I think is the case here on the deserted island, with the unconscious cast away.

My position is that a social context began with the arrival of another.  Ultimately there's no context other than social as the OP asks whether killing another is wrong.

 

It might be interesting to consider the scenario of Adam finding Eve, however a solitary islander still has/had parents, and still apparently recieves visitors...

 

Also, the island hermit does take actions to preserve and enhance his life, which implies that had the arrival of another been a mortal threat he would have continued to preserve his life by eliminating the threat to it, i.e. it was good to live, and it is good to continue living.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[tjfields]

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.

[Devil's Advocate]

"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." ~ tjfields

 

Ever hear of empirical evidence??

[StrictlyLogical]

I would also point to Plasmatic's contribution in post #75...

 

My position is that a social context began with the arrival of another.  Ultimately there's no context other than social as the OP asks whether killing another is wrong.

 

It might be interesting to consider the scenario of Adam finding Eve, however a solitary islander still has/had parents, and still apparently recieves visitors...

 

Also, the island hermit does take actions to preserve and enhance his life, which implies that had the arrival of another been a mortal threat he would have continued to preserve his life by eliminating the threat to it, i.e. it was good to live, and it is good to continue living.

 

The quote implies that IF the dweller does NOT want his rights recognized, even if a society of 2 can consist of only one conscious and one unconscious individual, the "obligation" to respect the rights of others simply does not arise.  Moreover, once the other visitor is dead it is nonsensical to expect anything of the corpse. 

 

In such a scenario, the actions are in complete accordance with identity, and consistency. 

 

EDIT:  Please note I do not advocate killing as "right" only that the reasons you identify for WHY it is wrong are not... in my view THE REASONS why it IS wrong.

Edited August 22, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[tjfields]

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?

[tjfields]

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.

[Devil's Advocate]

The quote implies that IF the dweller does NOT want his rights recognized, even if a society of 2 can consist of only one conscious and one unconscious individual, the "obligation" to respect the rights of others simply does not arise.  Moreover, once the other visitor is dead it is nonsensical to expect anything of the corpse. 

This isn't true - Killing an unconscious individual doesn't exculpate the actions of the no-longer-solitary islander, any more than it would dismiss the actions of a murderer should the crime go undetected by others.

[StrictlyLogical]

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?

 

 

tjfields you are verging on rationalizing...

 

Your goal in morality in general is NOT to have OTHERS including myself, to TELL you what is right or wrong.  THAT is an incorrect approach to morality.  Morality is for YOU.  The proper beneficiary IS the individual actor , NO ONE and nothing else.  Can I define what life SHOULD mean to you?  NO.  Can I tell you that you SHOULD NOT WANT to BASE YOUR decision upon my opinion?  YES.  Can I tell you the more knowledge you have of reality yourself and the natures of both, the better? ABSOLUTELY.  

 

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. 

 

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.

 

I do not assume you define things the same as I do.  I KNOW you are a human and with that there is a VAST number of implications, certainties, and consequences, by virtue of your NATURE.  To the extent you are a human there are basic principles of morality based on that fact and all the facts of reality.

[Eiuol]

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ ARL, Individual Rights (reposted from #23 & #65)

 

Does this not apply??

Why would I need rights if the other person is dead?

 

SL, can you ease off on the caps? Use italics or double asterisks instead. It's hard to read that.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Eiuol

[Devil's Advocate]

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.

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??

Edited August 22, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[StrictlyLogical]

This isn't true - Killing an unconscious individual doesn't exculpate the actions of the no-longer-solitary islander, any more than it would dismiss the actions of a murderer should the crime go undetected by others.

 

"exculpate" is a stolen concept in this context... Moreover, exculpate presupposes "culpability" which presupposes crimes...which presupposes "wrong" and "right" which is the VERY thing you are trying to provide a REASON for. 

 

X is wrong because it is a crime... and X has been defined as a crime because it is wrong...   

 

Again crime is beside the point, it does no serve as a reason for EVALUATING right and wrong in the first place.

[StrictlyLogical]

Why would I need rights if the other person is dead?

 

SL, can you ease off on the caps? Use italics or double asterisks instead. It's hard to read that.

 

Good point.. it's just so easy to use caps for emphasis.  Holy carp... I did not know one could simply use ctrl-b and ctrl-u and ctrl-I in this forum editor...

 

Thank you!

[Devil's Advocate]

Why would I need rights if the other person is dead?

Please note that 'obligation' isn't imposed by the state, therefore the protection of statutory rights isn't what is being addressed here.  Again, the death of another doesn't mean a social context doesn't apply, i.e., simple interaction with others.  The OP pretends that a solitary life in a remote location implies no moral context, and proceeds to kill individuals who wash up on the beach for no apparent reason... does that sound right to you??

[Devil's Advocate]

"exculpate" is a stolen concept in this context... Moreover, exculpate presupposes "culpability" which presupposes crimes...which presupposes "wrong" and "right" which is the VERY thing you are trying to provide a REASON for. 

 

X is wrong because it is a crime... and X has been defined as a crime because it is wrong...   

 

Again crime is beside the point, it does no serve as a reason for EVALUATING right and wrong in the first place.

OK, for clarity, I agree that legal rights are derived from moral goods, or more simply that the legal is derived from the moral, and not vice versa.

 

That being said, I don't agree that the moral is only validated by the legal, or created by it, i.e., there is a moral context associated with simple interaction with others in the form of correct and proper behavior towards others; perhaps an expression of moral intent by personal example?  That is what I draw from respecting the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized.

[Eiuol]

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?

Yes, the answer will make a difference, as it would determine whether it's any kind of rational decision. By rational, I mean an evaluated choice to achieve the most for your self-interest. Now, if this stranger were a friend, it's rather easy to see how killing a friend is harmful to yourself, so I wouldn't need to go into it really. Friends provide value to you as an individual, in whatever manner their life is important to you. But extend that choice to kill a little: consider a friend saying, while chopping onions, "I'm going to kill you" as a joke because you did something silly. If you were grumpy that day because you slept funny, perhaps you'll just say "eh, I don't like him today, so I'll kill him". Destroying your value because of motivations like that is largely immoral because you're destroying the sort of interactions that help you attain further values. You'd basically be taking an action that harms your ability to attain values you want. Suppose the same event happens. "I'm going to kill you" when they have a knife pointed at you and genuinely angry. That's the only difference. In this case, if you killed your friend to protect your life, that is actually  protection of yourself. But if your reason was still "I don't like him today", then your action would be immoral to the degree you're killing for no particular reason at all - if you kill on whim, there is no basis to say what possibly improves or worsens in life. Your motivations matter, because it reflects how you make decisions, and by what standard, if any. Motivations are a way to identify what you gain. If there is a loss, then that's immoral, and if you base a decision on some momentary feeling, then you're not even trying to note values.

Objectivism isn't consequentialism. Consequentialism doesn't care about motivations if the results are the same, all that matters is what happens. Objectivism isn't deontology either. Deontology doesn't care about results, as long as your actions are within ethical boundaries - nor does deontology care about what happens to you in particular. Objectivism has more teleological ethics to anything. Right or wrong is determined by what an entity is (not that all teleology is sensible, it depends on how you evaluate the entity). That is, actions are tightly linked to who you are, as opposed to the other two I mentioned that are mostly concerned about actions as such. Consequences matter to teleology, but the concern is consequences to you, not just a consequential event (i.e. the consequence of a person being dead has to be related to what happens to your value. So, when you ask "is murdering this stranger wrong", motivations help to answer what happens to you. As much as you want to say everything continues on as if nothing happened, that's impossible, as very literally, you are being impacted indirectly by all actions you take.

Suppose you killed the stranger on the beach because the sun was in your eyes, like The Stranger. You don't know anything about him, so he's not a friend at all. So you kill him to preserve the food you have on the island. But you have to ask: what do you get out of killing him? If you just say "I just felt like it", then you're admitting you have no idea of what you gained or lost. Whether your action had a positive or even neutral effect on you would be impossible to know, so you couldn't evaluate whether it was good or bad. Objectivist ethics presumes that ethical actions help or improve your life and that you can make such decisions objectively. Skipping any thought is irrational and immoral because what you do might have a profound negative impact on your life.

One reply might be "if I kill him the island won't change, and since he's unconscious, I won't know what I'm losing out on". Pretty standard idea that your ignorance of additional information can't ever hurt you. But that's wrong. What you don't know will hurt you. Not attempting to make any evaluation is equivalent to willful ignorance and evasion. You look at coconuts and figure out how to drink from one. You learn which fish are easiest to catch and then feed yourself. There's nothing about another person that makes the process any different, you should learn what another person can provide in terms of value. Perhaps he has a waterproof cellphone and can call for help. Maybe he'll help build a house. Who knows? You won't know until you ask. If you fear he'll take away your resources, that's bad reasoning - value isn't zero sum, not even on an island. An interesting point Rand made is that people are neither lone wolves nor social animals. They are traders.