2
   

Ends or Means?

Forums: Philosophy, Ethics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:18 pm
Maarrgh! Cyborg eat people!!!!

Sorry.
Binny: Yeah, I could find holes in that example even as I was writing it, but I wanted your thoughts, so I left it in. I had forgotten about Plato's example, though...I think I need to read The Republic over again.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 04:17 am
But binnyboy, you say you are amoral, then you give a moral example against mine! And a bad example.
When I spoke about a moral rule, I was thinking "moral" as human concept. What you did was to move the problem to another level, without changing it. You said the same thing I did, only replacing "human life" by "cyborg life".
You see: the moral question is the same.
But, since you defined yourself as amoral, I was expecting a reply where you destroy my moral rule with an amoral argument.
I don't think it is possible. Nietzsche tried - "Beyond Good and Bad" - but he ended creating a new moral.
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 05:43 pm
How could I bring down your point of view with an amoral argument! Your "moral" is flawed on its OWN terms! You said human life. So I tried to find life better than human life. But now you seem to mean any life as good as human life or better. But that seems pretty arbitrary to me. Y not start at bacteria, or viruses? (I think the virus level is a very important level of 'life', because it is the point where you really get confused thinking about whether it is actually alive or not... it points toward the thought that we're not that different from a rock)
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 08:51 am
There's actually been a philosophical argument that, in nature, we're not that different from a virus. (See The Matrix) I don't view it with any real regard, but it does have interesting points. We as humans certainly do infect and eradicate almost every environment we come into contact to, and while we, as opposed to viruses, contain intelligence and morals, the parallel is interesting. I always laugh when I hear about "vegetarians" that eat fish, since fish are alive, too. It could be that I'm missing a crucial line, but it seems a bit arbitrary to me, as well.

I just eat everything, especially steaks. :wink: Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:49 am
Well, I don't agree with you Binny. There was this philosopher in the twentieth century whom I forgot who, who at first denounce morality but after seeing the horror of amoral Russia, he took back his denouncement and instead states that morality is better than amorality.

I think that some people tend to be repulsed by the word morality, because religions have tried to justify all their actions by calling it moral even when some of them are not.

I see moral view as an awareness of the universe, truth, and an escape from the enslavement of the absurd self. As Kant said, two things filled me with awe: "the starry heavens above, and the moral law within."

Basically I see morality as a part of the truth.

Oh and about the fish thing. I'm not sure why too, but you know how salmon dies after they umm... reproduce... well maybe it has something to do with that. I'm trying to be a vegetarian myself. I eat eggs though because I don't see it as a conscious being. I don't see anything bad about drinking milk too.

I don't think we're virus. I think that we are the shaper of the world. We're trying to protect the environment and protect endangered species. Virus could not have had the capacity to do those.
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 12:13 pm
Well who are we protecting the environment from . . . OURSELVES. It is completely egotistical to think that we are the shapers of the world, the world shapes us.
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 12:16 pm
Oh, and to answer a previous question, there are two types of vegetarians.

1. The ones doing it for health purposes. And well fish is extremely good for you, and helps brain development.

2. Those who do it for animal rights. Most of this type do not eat fish. A very small percent do, and that is because the fish feels no pain.

You can also go up to Veganism(i have a vegan friend) where anything that has living beings in it, cannot be eaten. Including anything with yeast in it.
0 Replies
 
catquas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 08:09 pm
Re: Ends or Means?
Ray wrote:
Does the end justify the mean?


Ends and means are strange ways to think about it, avoiding the real answer. What matters is action versus results.

Here is an example: We brought freedom to Iraq by starting a war which killed many people. People would say the freedom is the ends and the war is the means. Do the ends justify the means? It is hard to say.

Now look at it in terms of action and results. The action was starting the war. The results were many people dieing and increased freedom. It is much easier to determine whether starting the war was right in this case. We can do it by asking whether life was made better or worse in Iraq (which is of course difficult, but at least we are asking the right question).

It seems like no action is bad independent of the results. Any action is good if it achieves net good results, and bad if it achieves net bad results.

Quote:
If we are to look at our actions one way: Our action are causes which affects later causes which in turn have effects, which become causes...
Thus, the end can not be calculated. It might cause good things in the future, yet it might cause bad things for the future. How are we to know what overall effect it will bring? We can't.


Right, but we can calculate probability. What is the probability that this action will improve the world? If it is over 50%, we should undertake the action. If it is under 50%, we should not undertake the action. Of course it is hard to calculate it exactly, but we can get a general idea. Many times it seems like the probability an action will improve the world is about 50%, at least as far as we can calculte. In that case, it doesn't matter what we do.
0 Replies
 
catquas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 08:16 pm
Taliesin181 wrote:
Stuh: you bring up an interesting sub-point: Is it intent or outcome that matters? If someone meant to save a life and ended up saving it, I'd say that was worthy, even though he failed. But if someone tried to kill a man and ended up saving one, that would be wrong. So, my view leans more towards intent than outcome, though both are important...I'd say a 60%-40% split.


How can intent matter? If something is right to do, it means we should do it. If someone intends to save a life, but actually they will probably kill the person, I definately think they should not do it. And if someone intends to kill someone, but will probably end up saving the person, I definately think they should do that two. If I do not, then I would be saying that I would rather have two people die.
0 Replies
 
catquas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 08:22 pm
Ray wrote:
I don't like Utilitarianism. It can easily be turned into a philosophy of oppression.


Depends on which kind of utilitarianism. Mill's utilitarianism, stating we should try to achieve '"the greatest happiness for the greatest number" says that it is good to make one person really really really happy by making a content person sad.

But if you modify utilitarianism, to say that the distribution of utility matters, oppression becomes extremely immoral.
0 Replies
 
Thalion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2004 10:29 am
I couldn't find this in the thread but it might be in here; I saw someone reference the Republic but not state Plato's example. If my friend lends me a weapon, then comes back the next day screaming about how much he hates someone and asks for his weapon back, is it moral to give it back to him? Plato uses this example to refute the argument that morality is "giving back what is due."
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 11:16 am
Quote:
But if you modify utilitarianism, to say that the distribution of utility matters, oppression becomes extremely immoral.


Interesting. I learned something like this in economics. I still don't think that utilitarianims is right though.

Quote:
Right, but we can calculate probability. What is the probability that this action will improve the world? If it is over 50%, we should undertake the action. If it is under 50%, we should not undertake the action. Of course it is hard to calculate it exactly, but we can get a general idea. Many times it seems like the probability an action will improve the world is about 50%, at least as far as we can calculte. In that case, it doesn't matter what we do.


Ah, but you see, there are so many factors that you can not even calculate the correct probability of what could occur. In the event of a war, lots of people's lives are affected and their actions would have been different than what their actions are if there isn't a war. In the long run, every actions stems from previous actions and thus if the universe were to be eternal or long lasting than one can not even remotely calculate the correct probability.
0 Replies
 
catquas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 02:21 pm
Ray wrote:
Ah, but you see, there are so many factors that you can not even calculate the correct probability of what could occur. In the event of a war, lots of people's lives are affected and their actions would have been different than what their actions are if there isn't a war. In the long run, every actions stems from previous actions and thus if the universe were to be eternal or long lasting than one can not even remotely calculate the correct probability.


First of all, I would say that as time goes on the effects usually become negligable. For example, how much does the Mongolian conquest affect me right now? Not very much. Sure, there is a chance that long-term effects can be great, but that is the whole reason why is use probability. There is a probability that long-term effects will not be great.

Furthermore, if we really cannot base ethics on effects, it seems like these things would be true: There would be no point to economics or science. Every government policy should be based on principle instead of reality. Say this policy might reduce poverty. Well, maybe it will now, but who knows, it could be really damaging in the long run.

Or how about global warming, or pollution? It seems like we should not care about the effects of such things, because they could turn out for good in the end. Sure, if we can find a principle to oppose them we should, but there is no point in using science to find out the actual effects of this pollution, because we really cannot determine whether they will end up being good or bad.

How about rasing the interest rate? It seems like it would be very hard to find a priciple to determine whether or not to do this if we cannot take effects into consideration.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 04:47 pm
catquas: Intent definitely matters. If, say, you found a person dangling off a cliff, about to fall, and in your rush to help them you accidentally stepped on their hand, causing them to fall...is that evil? Contrast this with the same scenario, only you quickly step over there and deliberately step on his hand. The outcomes and actions are identical, but the intent colors the entire event.

Quote:
Furthermore, if we really cannot base ethics on effects, it seems like these things would be true: There would be no point to economics or science. Every government policy should be based on principle instead of reality. Say this policy might reduce poverty. Well, maybe it will now, but who knows, it could be really damaging in the long run.


I disagree very strongly. We cannot just bury our heads in the sand and deny what's happening in front of us. That's what has gotten us in our current Iraq-themed problem. Our beloved president keeps telling us that we've "won", but violence keeps increasing, not decreasing, and the death toll keps rising in the face of his stubborn refusal to turn custodianship of Iraq to another, less hated nation. We might think we're swell, but America is steadily becoming international enemy number one.

Quote:
Or how about global warming, or pollution? It seems like we should not care about the effects of such things, because they could turn out for good in the end. Sure, if we can find a principle to oppose them we should, but there is no point in using science to find out the actual effects of this pollution, because we really cannot determine whether they will end up being good or bad.


Again, the same problem. I fail to see how either polluting my lungs to death or causing a world-wide flooding could turn out positively. PLease explain your view further, because I think I must be misinterpreting your statements.
0 Replies
 
catquas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 05:41 pm
Taliesin181 wrote:
catquas: Intent definitely matters. If, say, you found a person dangling off a cliff, about to fall, and in your rush to help them you accidentally stepped on their hand, causing them to fall...is that evil? Contrast this with the same scenario, only you quickly step over there and deliberately step on his hand. The outcomes and actions are identical, but the intent colors the entire event.


It is still not intent that matters, but the probability of a certain result. If you see someone on a cliff, you should try to save them, because in all probability you will save them. You should not step on their hand, because in all probability, you will kill them.

Quote:
Again, the same problem. I fail to see how either polluting my lungs to death or causing a world-wide flooding could turn out positively. PLease explain your view further, because I think I must be misinterpreting your statements.


I wasn't saying that I agreed with those things, I was saying that they were implications of Ray's argument. Those things are obviously rediculous, which was my point.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 09:10 pm
Quote:
Or how about global warming, or pollution? It seems like we should not care about the effects of such things, because they could turn out for good in the end. Sure, if we can find a principle to oppose them we should, but there is no point in using science to find out the actual effects of this pollution, because we really cannot determine whether they will end up being good or bad.


I don't support these stuffs. We should care about global warming or pollution because we should preserve people's lives. The long term end effects do not matter. I was simply pointing out the flaw of the "end justify the means" argument. If there are infinite effects, then if one were to commit evil to achieve a so called "good" end, the argument of end justifying the means would not be true because there are effects after effects which in the long run could lead to harm. I understand that the end in such a case would not be called good anyways because bad things have been done.
0 Replies
 
catquas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 09:37 pm
Ray wrote:
I don't support these stuffs. We should care about global warming or pollution because we should preserve people's lives. The long term end effects do not matter. I was simply pointing out the flaw of the "end justify the means" argument. If there are infinite effects, then if one were to commit evil to achieve a so called "good" end, the argument of end justifying the means would not be true because there are effects after effects which in the long run could lead to harm. I understand that the end in such a case would not be called good anyways because bad things have been done.


If the long-term end effects don't matter, than why can't we calculate the probability of an action bringing about good or bad ends?
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 10:54 pm
Quote:
If the long-term end effects don't matter, than why can't we calculate the probability of an action bringing about good or bad ends?


You can calculate the end, but to only consider this would be incorrect. If one were to harm an innocent person to save five people's lives, then one would be saying that only the "end justify the means" (which is what the phrase is commonly used for) which would mean that one must consider all ends. Which is impossible anyways because one could not figure out all ends.

The immediate result of the action matters as much as the so called "end". The action harmed a person, and that's not right.
0 Replies
 
catquas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 08:32 am
Ray wrote:
You can calculate the end, but to only consider this would be incorrect. If one were to harm an innocent person to save five people's lives, then one would be saying that only the "end justify the means" (which is what the phrase is commonly used for) which would mean that one must consider all ends. Which is impossible anyways because one could not figure out all ends.

The immediate result of the action matters as much as the so called "end". The action harmed a person, and that's not right.


I agree, thats why I said action vs results, not ends versus means. All results, added together, are the determinant of whether and action is good or not.

You say "you can calculate the end" but then "one could not figure out all ends". Which is it?

And as far as pollution goes, I think the immediate effects of pollution control can be bad. For example, if a factory is polluting and you tell it not to and it doesn't listen, you shut it down. This means tons of people are unemployed. But in the long run, it is good, because the lake is not polluted to hell. By your logic, we should not shut the factory down, because the immediate effects are bad, and we can't determine if the long-term effects are good or bad.

Furthermore, if you sacrifice one person to save five, I think this is good, all things equal. If you refuse to sacrifice one person to save five, you have just sacrificed five people to save one. It seems to me this is more immoral.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 05:19 pm
Quote:
And as far as pollution goes, I think the immediate effects of pollution control can be bad. For example, if a factory is polluting and you tell it not to and it doesn't listen, you shut it down. This means tons of people are unemployed. But in the long run, it is good, because the lake is not polluted to hell. By your logic, we should not shut the factory down, because the immediate effects are bad, and we can't determine if the long-term effects are good or bad.


Pollution must be stopped because it harms the environment, plain and simple.

Quote:
You say "you can calculate the end" but then "one could not figure out all ends". Which is it?


One can calculate one end which is what they think the result of their action would be, but can not calculate the true end, which is the overall sum of all results. This is why the "end justifies the means" is not logical.

Quote:
Furthermore, if you sacrifice one person to save five, I think this is good, all things equal. If you refuse to sacrifice one person to save five, you have just sacrificed five people to save one. It seems to me this is more immoral.


I disagree. completely. If I refuse to sacrifice the one person, who is not the reason for the five person's death, to save five person's life, I would not be doing something immoral since I can "not control things beyond my actions." To say that one should die for many is oppression. We would all be immoral if your logic is true, since the continuation of life would result in the suffering and death of many.

Look, I'll agree to disagree here. You're a pure consequentalist, while I am not purely consequentalist.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ends or Means?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 09:53:34
▲ ▼