Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Simple questions of right and wrong

Rate this topic


tjfields

Recommended Posts

Devils advocate:

Love of life does imply preferences (pain is bad and pleasure is good) which seem to come packaged from birth (infants know when they aren't happy).

But loving life actually precedes morality; it's the ultimate value and the reason to even have morality.

It isn't good or evil to love life; loving life is necessary for anything else to be good or evil.

---

Better way to explain the difference:

Ethics is about what one person should do. What anyone else does isn't good or evil of you; it simply isn't your decision to weigh.

Politics is about when and how to interfere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the OP... remember the OP?  Follow the question, is it wrong?

 

Given the scenario, our islander chose to kill rather than walk past, which means the act of killing was intentional...

 

... to take the victims belongings?  No

... to avoid being discovered? No

... for self-defence?  No

... to use the body? No

 

... 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah; i think my wife basically summarized every single one of my responses when i showed her this thread, way back when:

"why the hell would anyone do that?!"

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I adopted my position from your scenario in which you never establish a moral benchmark...

--

"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..."

Why?

 

"... I am able to devise ways to use the resources available to make my life better, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment."

Why?

 

"I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself."

Why?

 

"I walk up to this man and I kill him."

Why?

--

"I continue with my life exactly as I did before the man washed up on the beach."

Which apparently includes killing people who wash up on the beach...

 

"Was it wrong for me to kill the man on the beach?"

Compared to what?

 

"If it was wrong for me to kill the man on the beach, why was it wrong?"

What is this wrong of which you speak? I know not...

Wrong body?

Wrong time of day?

Wrong use of your time?

 

Please define wrong in the context you are using, and if you mean wrong vs right, please define right as well; because apparently all the wonderful responses you've received don't apply to your scenario, i.e., help us help you.  You asked, is it wrong without definition.  So as the word you relate to your action, which is apparently consistent with all your actions, then yes, it is just as wrong as everything else you do...

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tjfields:

Love of life must be the ultimate value because the alternative (hypothetically infinite alternatives but the only plausible one) is happiness.

Happiness as such can't be the ultimate value because, as you pointed out, it leads to moral subjectivism.

---

All actions are only moral or immoral relative to their alternatives (because the alternate is absolutism).

It would be moral to cut off your own leg in order to survive but not just for kicks.

Pardon the pun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

From post #207, “I adopted my position from your scenario in which you never establish a moral benchmark...”

 

So is your position one of: something is wrong only when compared to something right and something is right only when compared to something wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

From post #208, “Love of life must be the ultimate value because the alternative (hypothetically infinite alternatives but the only plausible one) is happiness.”

 

I understand that you are claiming that “love of life” is the ultimate value and I am not questioning that that is your claim. Your arguments appear to be premised on your concept of ultimate value so I am trying to understand your premise.

 

In post #191 you wrote, “3: true joy is the joy of existence, which means: To be happy THAT you're alive. This is crucial because that joy, the love OF LIFE, is our ultimate value.”

 

In post #205 I asked, “What does “love life” mean?” Then I continued, in reference to the original post, “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.”

 

You have not directly answered this question; rather you just restated your starting premise.

 

I think that I am having trouble understanding your positions, arguments and conclusions because you are not making them clear and/or they are ever changing. Case in point: your statement: “It would be moral to cut off your own leg in order to survive but not just for kicks.”

 

You stated in post #201, “…it's immoral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot.” When you made this statement, you did not include any qualifiers, any “expect in the case of” or “if this” or “if that”, you simply declared that it was immoral.

 

When I then asked you in post #205, “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”, you stated that, “All actions are only moral or immoral relative to their alternatives (because the alternate is absolutism). It would be moral to cut off your own leg in order to survive but not just for kicks.”

 

Are we to infer from your response about cutting off your leg that even though you declared that it is immoral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot, you really did not mean it? Did you really mean to write something like: it is immoral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot if [fill in the blank], but it is moral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot if [fill in the blank]?

 

Should we infer from your response about morality being relative to alternatives that when you declared “Killing random strangers is immoral” you really did not mean it? Did you really mean to write something like: killing random strangers is immoral if [fill in the blank], but it is moral to kill random strangers if [fill in the blank]?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To love life means, not simply to prefer life over death, but to hold it as your ultimate value (sorry if i verge on tautology); to measure all decisions available against that standard.

It's very close to what eiuol was saying, although id take it a step further even.

Life is biological survival, surely, but also INTELLECTUAL survival.

Metabolic action is a continual process of growth and reproduction; an organism which fails to expand and improve will inevitably die.

The same rule applies to the human mind; anyone who stagnates intellectually will sicken (depression) and die.

Not to say that everyone with depression has stagnated- but everyone who stagnated will become depressed.

---

So life is a process of constant growth, discovery and renewal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life is a dynamic process (physically and mentally).

To love life is simply to realize the profoundly excellent fact that you exist in such a dynamic state.

To hold your love of life as your ultimate value is to make it your top priority.

"Keep moving forward."

---

My understanding of morality has radically changed over the course of this thread. Im sorry if I've confused you.

---

Any action is moral or immoral, relative to its alternative options, by its effect on the uv.

The most moral option is the one which, within that context, improves your life (physical and mental development) the most; the converse is least moral.

There are some options which are morally neutral (such as what food to eat) but very few.

Everyone must do the best thing possible to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

From post #207, “I adopted my position from your scenario in which you never establish a moral benchmark...”

 

So is your position one of: something is wrong only when compared to something right and something is right only when compared to something wrong?

Somewhat...

 

To ask if something is wrong is meaningless without some reference to something not wrong.  What in your scenario is not wrong prior to the man washing up on the beach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's important to note that only improvement benefits the uv.

Life is motion; to stand still means death.

So let's tie it all back together.

---

You asked if it's moral to kill a random stranger on a desert island.

To answer your own question, simply compare that action to each and every possibility it excludes, as they relate to improving your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

From post #213, “To ask if something is wrong is meaningless without some reference to something not wrong.  What in your scenario is not wrong prior to the man washing up on the beach?”

 

I do not understand from where this question is coming. In post #2, in response to the question of whether it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach, you answered, “Yes”

 

But then after more than 200 different posts discussing this subject, of which you contributed many, you write in post #207, “What is this wrong of which you speak? I know not...”

 

Has your thinking on this subject changed?

 

As to your question from post #213, “To ask if something is wrong is meaningless without some reference to something not wrong.  What in your scenario is not wrong prior to the man washing up on the beach?”

 

I will apply what appears to be the circular logic you are promoting, and respond with: To ask if something is not wrong is meaningless without some reference to something wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

From post #215, “You asked if it's moral to kill a random stranger on a desert island. To answer your own question, simply compare that action to each and every possibility it excludes, as they relate to improving your life. “

 

So are you concluding that the answer to the question in the original post is that killing the man who washed up on the beach may be right or it may be wrong, it depends on the conclusion that I come to after comparing that action to each and every possibility it excludes, as they relate to improving my life?

 

If this is the case, do you agree that it is possible that you and I and anyone else could come to different conclusions about whether it was right or wrong to kill the man on the beach? If so, are all the different conclusions equally valid?

 

Additionally, is it possible that my conclusion about whether killing of the man on the beach was right or wrong could change over time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dream_weaver,

 

From post #219, “If you ran across a deadly yew tree on your island and consumed the fruit, or some poisonous mushrooms, would you consider it right or wrong to consume them?”

 

The answer to this question depends on what you are asking. Are you asking is it right to consume the poisonous fruit or mushroom with “right” meaning correct or “right” meaning moral?

 

If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the correct action to take, then the answer would depend on what you were trying to accomplish given the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill you. For example, if you are trying to accomplish living for another day, then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would not be the correct action to take because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not live for another day. If you are trying to accomplish your death then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would be the correct action because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not be alive.

 

If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the moral action to take, then I cannot answer your question because I do not know. All I know is the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has your thinking on this subject changed?

 

As to your question from post #213, “To ask if something is wrong is meaningless without some reference to something not wrong.  What in your scenario is not wrong prior to the man washing up on the beach?”

 

I will apply what appears to be the circular logic you are promoting, and respond with: To ask if something is not wrong is meaningless without some reference to something wrong.

No, I remain in agreement with the concensus, that it is wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach, and in particular with Ayn Rand's statements as to why; which I believe is supported by ethical reciprocity.  However you continue to maintain that the islander's life continues on exactly as before, uneffected by causality; you present a meaningless act of unprovoked aggression without consequence and ask if that's wrong...  Again, wrong compared to what?

 

"I am able to devise ways to use the resources available to make my life better"

"I continue with my life exactly as I did before the man washed up on the beach."

 

Both of the above statements from the OP cannot be true in reality.  Life getting better contradicts life continuing exactly the same; and if you mean the same, as in consistently getting better, then you need to explain how killing the man made your life better, or admit that it made your life worse, or less better, or something other than had no effect.  Something caused you to act, and your action had some effect.

 

So again, and again, wrong compared to what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dream_weaver,

 

From post #219, “If you ran across a deadly yew tree on your island and consumed the fruit, or some poisonous mushrooms, would you consider it right or wrong to consume them?”

 

The answer to this question depends on what you are asking. Are you asking is it right to consume the poisonous fruit or mushroom with “right” meaning correct or “right” meaning moral?

 

If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the correct action to take, then the answer would depend on what you were trying to accomplish given the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill you. For example, if you are trying to accomplish living for another day, then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would not be the correct action to take because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not live for another day. If you are trying to accomplish your death then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would be the correct action because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not be alive.

 

If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the moral action to take, then I cannot answer your question because I do not know. All I know is the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill me.

 

Now we are getting to the root of it (no pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tjfields,

 

If you were to discover outside your abode, be it a cave or man-made structure, poison ivy and poison sumack encroaching on the entrance, would you leave it and contract a case of poison ivy or sumack on a regualr recurring basis, or might you remove it?

 

Would you consider the action of killing the poison ivy or sumack the right thing to do? Why?

Would you consider the action of killing the poison ivy or sumack the wrong thing to do? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dream_weaver,

 

From post #223, “If you were to discover outside your abode, be it a cave or man-made structure, poison ivy and poison sumack encroaching on the entrance, would you leave it and contract a case of poison ivy or sumack on a regualr recurring basis, or might you remove it?”

 

This question is similar to the one asked in post #219 and the answer is the similar.

 

If you are asking is killing, or removing, the poison ivy or sumack the correct action to take, then the answer would depend on what you were trying to accomplish given the fact that the poison ivy or sumack causes you to contract a case of poison ivy or sumack .

 

If you are asking is killing, or removing, the poison ivy or sumack the moral action to take, then I cannot answer your question because I do not know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

If your position has not changed and you still believe that it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because of ethical reciprocity, then why the concern or questions over the wording in the original post? What does it matter? You have answered the question and provided your reason why you answered the question the way that you did.

 

In response to your question from post# 221 of, “So again, and again, wrong compared to what?” I say that I cannot answer you because, using what appears to be the circular logic you have promoted, the only way to answer your question is to provide you a “what” that is not wrong. But we cannot know if that “what” provided is not wrong unless we compare that “what” to another “what” that is wrong. But we cannot know if another “what” is wrong unless we compare it to another “what” that is not wrong. Again, I cannot answer your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...