Is truth worth it?

Is the value of all life equal? Can we equate swatting a pesky fly with the wholesale murder of millions? Are we feeding on corpses when we eat at the salad bar? In one cultural setting it is virtuous and admirable to do "X", while in a slightly different time/place "X" is an unpardonable moral crime. Is it always wrong not to honor one's parents? To find some basis for objective ethical standards; aye, there's the rub.

This one of the oldest philosophical questions, and the Greeks had a number of answers ... though none of them are entirely satisfying. "That which is pleasurable is good" so easily becomes an excuse for over indulgence leading to suffering. Even more unsettling is the pleasure that a Sadest finds in torturing victims, and we all pretty much agree (I think) that torture isn't a "good thing".

"That which is natural is "good". Wild animals don't commit murder because they are incapable we assume of forming the necessary malicious intent. If it is alright for a Tiger to eat prey, then why not Man? If a sociopath has a "natural urge" to rape and murder, does that make it virtuous? The Plague bacsilus was alive and in its nature was responsible for reducing European population by at least one third. Did doctors commit a "wrong" by devising anti-biotics to kill the Plague? Should the victims of natural disasters and disease be thankful for the "good" resulting from Mother Nature?

The Abrahamics claim that only their own brand of morals and ethics are expressions of Divine Will. So the Christians and Muslims who fail to follow Kosher are disobedient? Christians and Muslims seem to agree that killing the infidel is a virtue and doing God's work, but they both condemn the Thugee. The dissonance of Abrahamic ethics has led some moderns to a notion of "situational ethics".

"What is moral and right for one time, place, and people is not universal, but is specific to the situation". To kill "A" in one situation is a virtue, but in another is wrong. This seems absurd, and some of the Existentialists regard(ed) all existence to be absurd. The natural consequence of this approach is, unfortunately, the complete absence of any ethical foundation. If anything can be defined as "right", then "Might makes Right" is a perfectly satisfactory way for individuals to govern their lives. That makes a mockery of all Law. If Hitler, Stalin, or whoever was brought to the bar of Justice would we like for their defense to be "I killed millions, because I wanted to, and I had the power to do it?"

I could go on, for pages, in this vein, but let's not.

After a lifetime of thinking about this problem, my conclusion is that there is a fundamental and reasonably objective means of weighing the "rightness" of our thoughts, words, and deeds. That standard is, "that which proximately and reasonably will lead to suffering is wrong, and that which proximately and reasonably mitigates suffering is "good". If you can reasonably infer that your thought, word, or deed will increase the suffering of an individual, or the world, it is probably wrong and should be avoided. If, on the other hand, one finds an opportunity to mitigate suffering, then that thought, word, or deed has positive value.

The terms "proximate and reasonable" are important. From my point of view almost any thought, word, or action carries with it the potential of increasing suffering. A demonstrable bit of good done now should not be passed by merely on the possibility that it will somehow later turn out to have caused more suffering. On the other hand, it is reasonable to make a child suffer for behavior that will reasonably later cause the child and/or other's suffering. Slapping the hand that plays with a match in a dynamite factory, isn't a "wrong" thing to do. Individuals who wish to behave in a virous manner, that is in a way that mitigates suffering, will be self-disciplined in their thoughts, speech and behavior. Suffering will continue, it's a natural consequence of living in the phenomenal world, but any diminution of suffering will be a positive thing for all.

That Man can think through a problem, and choose behavior that isn't "natural" greatly complicates things. No selfrespecting Tiger ever had a second thought about the lamb he had for dinner, nor did Mona Sheep spend years hating the Tiger for eating her babe. There is a great deal of difference between society's execution of murderers, and a kitten tortured to death by a gleeful boy who may grow up and graduate to torturing other human beings for pleasure. Yet, throughout the animal kingdom we find creatures not so different from ourselves who cluster around the aged, the weak and wounded to offer solice and defense.

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question. Asherman?

Chumly, that's way too fancy for me. If the species were to disappear, I'm not sure that the Universe at large wouldn't be better off. I'm for a practical yardstick to govern my daily life. Perception is about comparing and valuing things. Perception and value in turn are the scales on which thoughts our thoughts are weighed. Which thoughts would it be best for me to pursue? My thoughts and values are important in how I choose to communicate, unless I speak without thinking. A large part of our waking lives is filled with talk and action, yet most of us aren't really tuned into thinking more than an hour or so each day. Some think even less, even if they hold multiple Phds.

Words have power, probably more than we realize. Fall and skin your knee, and in a few weeks it will have healed and been forgotten. A single word, on the other hand, can cause a lifetimes anguish. A quiet word can bring courage to a person quaking in fear, or sooth the grief of an orphan. We can choose the word, and through our words the suffering of others can be mitigated, or intensified. Oscar Wilde, "A gentleman NEVER insults ... unintentionally". One wonders if the concept of "gentleman" has become obsolete, archaic, and lost after reading the postings of some of our most illustrious A2K posters.

Once we have reviewed in our minds the situation before us, we can also choose to take some form of action. Kick the dog, or scratch his ears. Drop a small coin into the beggar's cup, or avoid his haunted eyes. We can choose to squeeze the trigger, or forebear. Every part of our environment calls upon us a thousand times each day to make value judgements and decisions. For me, the weighing out of potential suffering that is likely to result from my words and actions is sufficient.

The other touchstone of my ethics is that it is better to tend my own garden rather than to try tending my neighbor's obviously weed-filled acres. Most often, even our best intentions and attempts are little better than if we had just left the situation to work itself out without our tinkering. Ah, if I only had a dime for every good intention that's gone astray during the last six months, I'd buy up the entire Middle East and turn it into a memorial to the stupidity of Mankind. People often don't want your advice or help, even though they might say they do. On the other hand, its difficult to stand silent while watching a teenager do stuff that has the potential of causing them great suffering thirty years down the road.

It's not meant in a fancy way nor from an idealized cosmological perspective:

If my individual actions are biased towards maximizing the long term survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) isn't that the height of morality?

For example if one does not support the space program and thus man is more likely to stay wholly dependant on this earth for our entire future that's immoral due to increased risks from dangerous solar activity, meteor impact, geological catastrophe, unrecoverable man made ecological damage, etc.

For example if we accept that the population is much too extreme (as I do) and thus I support Population Connection that is moral. If one is aware of the population problems, but has kids anyway, that's immoral.

For example if one does not support reduction of man made pollutants and the return to a balanced global ecosystem, that's immoral due to increased risks that man will not survive and/or will not have the enjoyment or satisfaction that comes from having natural freedoms and of course to our moral responsibility to the global ecosystem.

I would argue that all actions (human and animal, natural and artificial) can be seen through this survivalist perspective as being moral, immoral or neutral.

I'm gonna run with this and start a new thread if that is OK with you? Please join me there.

By defining morality as a 'goal' and not an action (or actions), you are saying that the end justifies the means.

Two hundred years ago, it was considered impossible that the planet could support as many as it does now. If you consider it immoral to have kids, then don't and we will both agree that the planet is better off.

Not per se no, see my new thread.

Yes, it does.

Your argument that some actions, such as forced sterilizations, may only be able to be determined as moral or immoral long after the fact, then you are creating a rationale for doing anything you please based on your perception that it may tend to achieve a worthy goal in the distant future.

If I steal from you and my justification is that I am using the money to feed children who may grow up and find the cure for cancer, then by your rationale my action may be seen as 'moral' in the future if my goal is indeed accomplished.

Nope, that still does mean I aver that always the end justifies the means, because the end must be sufficiently justifiable as per the means and that is far from always the case.

As to your twisted interpretations of my text as per your "it may tend to achieve a worthy goal in the distant future.", that is a far cry from both my text, and its context, and it's intent.

Real why do you bother spending so much time twisting other people's text to no avail?

Re: Is truth worth it?


thats pretty bias if you ask me. what about the crusades? or the catholic priest and little boys?

Chum,

You stated:



I submit that 'waiting 500 years in the future to assess the morality of an action' fits very well with my summary of what you stated.

Espousing a worthy future goal to justify one's evil actions is to say that the end justifies the means i.e. that what you are doing is to achieve a greater good and therefore is justifiable, but it's 'morality' will only been seen in 'hindsight'

Or as another has said 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'

Again, that still does mean I aver that always the end justifies the means, because the end must be sufficiently justifiable as per the means and that is far from always the case.

Again, as to your twisted interpretations of my text that is a far cry from both my text, and its context, and it's intent.

Real why do you bother spending so much time twisting other people's text to no avail?

Funny that you could not even begin to defend your proposition, but only copied your previous denial.

You can argue that you would only use this method when the goal in mind is 'sufficiently justiable'

All that means is 'whenever I want it to, the end justifies the means'.

This so-called proposition you claim I am defending is a creation of your disingenuous machinations. Sisyphus has a rock for you.

I can't say it only exist for me, because the minute ethics is aimed for something that is for me, I am not only asserting that it ultimately exist only to me, but I am also contradicting the whole point and meaning of it. However, I understand if you mean that I can only develop it to the best of my ability. That's all anyone can ever do.

I mean you develop your ethics, and they exist nowhere else but in your mind. That many may reach the same ethical conclusions does not make them objectively right, only agreed apon by those that choose to agree.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority

Right, I'm going to restate my first post in this thread.

Say if we proved, NOW, that God didn't exist, would it be for better or for worse?

If it was proven that god didn't exist, it could only mean that evil has won