Doing what is right in an out of control world

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. You all asked me to state my ethical position, and then clarify it, but now you don't seem to like it very much when I start to do so.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

4 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. You all asked me to state my ethical position, and then clarify it, but now you don't seem to like it very much when I start to do so.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Relax. I know it feels like we're ganging up on you, and we are - And for that I am profoundly sorry(Though if it awoke something in you, maybe it was worth it).

 

You have heard - From nearly everyone in this thread, from Mordorbund to Zil to MormonGator to me - That you are not engaging, that you seem to be avoiding direct questions. Surely... SURELY you can see that if everyone is saying it, that there might be a grain of truth to it?

 

If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to stop trying to control the conversation and let us ask what we need to of you? And to answer those as best you can? Maybe... Just maybe... Doing something different to what you've been doing all the way through this thread might get you different results than what you expect.

[FunkyTown]

There is a scene in a book I love, by C.S. Lewis. It's called the Great Divorce. It's about how the denizens of Hell can vacation in Heaven and why they might not want to stay. .

 

The scene involves a Dwarf, leading a gigantic marionette doll called The Tragedian. This Dwarf was so obsessed with the projection of an image, that he met the woman he loved more than anything. The love of his life wanted to welcome him to heaven, and he wanted that, too - But he was more obsessed with an image he was portraying and he gave up everything to simply become that marionette Tragedian. And he did it because he would rather  keep the miserable persona he created than abandon it for something better.

 

It's okay to be the Dwarf. We've all been there and if you decide to let go of the string, five years from now you will laugh at it. Just... Don't become the Tragedian. There are wonders and majesties and great things in this world - Things you know and sense and feel - But you are so obsessed with giving away no weakness that you're losing the chance for something better. Abandon this character you're portraying and people will cheer. You will be welcomed with open arms and without judgment.

Or keep it. We can't stop you and we won't be held captive to emotional blackmail where you want something better, but will only accept it on your terms.

 

(PS: God? If I'm ever in this situation, I would totally love to get the same offer. ;))

[2ndRateMind]

I haven't read 'The Great Divorce'. It seems I must get hold of a copy, sometime.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I haven't read 'The Great Divorce'. It seems I must get hold of a copy, sometime.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Definitely read it. It's great.

 

And seriously - Take a moment. I know I'm asking a lot and I know that abandoning all the defense mechanisms you've built up for yourself is a big ask. There are going to be a million reasons to not do it. You will feel exhausted thinking about it and you will feel like you can't. But that isn't true and it certainly isn't God speaking when you feel like that.

 

Just... Take a moment for yourself. Grab a drink. I get it. I'm asking you to do something scary, which every instinct is screaming out for you not to do. Don't let that instinct beat you. Five years from now, you will laugh that it held you captive for so long.

[mordorbund]

5 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

As an aside, On Quality.

I have been asked to define what I mean by ‘better’. I still think this a fairly transparent attribute. Most of us know what it means, in most situations. But it does depend on context. A better gun is not the same as a better table. Better guns do not make better tables, and better tables do not make better guns. But what this question does hint at is a 5^th dimension of human experience. Apart from width, height, depth and time, we also have quality. The problem with accepting quality as a dimension is that unlike time and the three dimensions of space, we have no agreed, objective method of measuring it. What one person thinks a quality gun might differ from what someone else thinks a quality gun. And there seems to be no definitive way to decide between such preferences. So the most we can say to ‘define’ better in the abstract is that it occupies a higher position on the qualitative scale (which ranges from worst, to worse, to bad, to good, to better, to best) than any other qualitative determination except best.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I have some comments on this, but will forbear until we've moved past the "value of debate" segment into something substantive.

[2ndRateMind]

2     On why humans cannot claim to know the difference between good and evil innately and completely.

2.1 The nature of God.

God is commonly thought by Christians to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. That is, He knows everything that can be known, and loves His creation and everything and everybody in it. With these two attributes, it can be deduced that He is also maximally ethical; since He loves us, He wants our best interests realised, and since He knows everything, He knows what those best interests are.

2.2   The nature of humanity.

Humanity is not commonly thought by Christians to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. If we are not omniscient and omnibenevolent, it follows that we cannot be maximally ethical. There is plenty of evidence for all this, ranging from honest, individual, introspection, to the litany of wars, massacres, genocides, exploitation and subjugation that has occurred down history, and still occurs today. We often do not care all that much about other people’s best interests, only our own and those close to us, and often enough we get our own best interests wrong, let alone other people’s.

2.3   Nature and nurture.

Human knowledge of the ethical seems to derive from two sources, nature, and nurture.

The ‘nature’ aspect can be said to be innate, since we are born with our unique DNA coding. Evolutionary Psychologists think that our species DNA evolved some 4 million years ago, and as DNA does, since then it continued to evolve to befit us to inhabit the environment in which we found ourselves, African plains, and tribal societies. That part of our ethics that can be assumed to be innate, therefore, is those behavioural predispositions that would have suited survival under those circumstances, such as tribal loyalty, a tendency towards sexual partnerships, and sharing equitably work and reward amongst the social group.

The ‘nurture’ aspect cannot be said to be innate. Social constructions such as marriage, tribal hierarchies, military honours, the division of labour, and social norms and laws were ‘invented’ and then taught down the ages, the elders passing the wisdom on down to the children through stories, song, dances, and direct instruction. Over time, these social constructions have developed into the complex network of beliefs and theories and practices and structures and institutions, etc, that we know today. As we learn them, we ‘internalise’ them, so that they seem to us obvious and ‘second nature’, and we cannot conceive how they might be different, and so they might seem to be innate.

2.4   The measurement of the ethical.

Since all our DNA is different, and since all our nurturing is different, it follows that our various ethical quality is liable to be different, also. That is to say, if there is a qualitative dimension to ethics, we all occupy different points on it, ranging from mostly unethical to mostly ethical. The point to make here is that those who are mostly unethical often do not understand those who are mostly ethical, because they cannot appreciate the way of being, since they have no experience of it. Thus we cannot measure those who are more ethical than us. We are not ‘adequate’ to the task. Most of us who are reasonably ethical however, do understand those below us on the hierarchy, since we are still subject to the same temptations. It’s just that we have learned not to give in to them. Our measurement of the ethical, therefore, is ourselves, to the extent of our ‘moral fibre’ or ‘spiritual stature’.

2.5   Divine revelation.

Into this mix we need now inject God’s communications with humanity on ethics. For Christians this is Jesus, generally thought to be the perfect example for us to try to emulate, the Prophets, the Church, and whatever direct ethical revelations we might ourselves receive. So far as the latter three are concerned, we are only able to understand their ethical import to the extent of our own ethical stature, as argued in 2.4 above

2.6   To summarise the argument: God is ethically perfect. Humanity is not. Most of human ethical knowledge comes from nature and nurture, and the interplay between them. But nature and nurture do not suffice to make us ethically perfect. We only understand the ethical to the extent that we ourselves are ethical. But God helps us out as best He can, given our inadequate ethical development.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited June 26, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

2     On why humans cannot claim to know the difference between good and evil innately and completely.

 

2.2   The nature of humanity.

Humanity is not commonly thought by Christians to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. If we are not omniscient and omnibenevolent, it follows that we cannot be maximally ethical. There is plenty of evidence for all this, ranging from honest, individual, introspection, to the litany of wars, massacres, genocides, exploitation and subjugation that has occurred down history, and still occurs today. We often do not care all that much about other people’s best interests, only our own and those close to us, and often enough we get our own best interests wrong, let alone other people’s.

 

Couple of things:

 

1) This is a Non-sequitur, formal fallacy. Just because we haven't done what is maximally ethical doesn't mean we cannot. You have proven we haven't. Like someone saying 100 years ago that we would never go to the moon or run a mile in less than 3 minutes, you are assuming that just because we have historically failed means that we will fail or we are incapable. That is not true.

 

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

2.4   The measurement of the ethical.

Since all our DNA is different, and since all our nurturing is different, it follows that our various ethical quality is liable to be different, also. That is to say, if there is a qualitative dimension to ethics, we all occupy different points on it, ranging from mostly unethical to mostly ethical. The point to make here is that those who are mostly unethical often do not understand those who are mostly ethical, because they cannot appreciate the way of being, since they have no experience of it. Thus we cannot measure those who are more ethical than us. We are not ‘adequate’ to the task. Most of us who are reasonably ethical however, do understand those below us on the hierarchy, since we are still subject to the same temptations. It’s just that we have learned not to give in to them. Our measurement of the ethical, therefore, is ourselves, to the extent of our ‘moral fibre’ or ‘spiritual stature’.

 

 

2) You are now saying that some people are more ethical and some are less. That is true. There even may be some genetic component to that. However, if some humans are further along the spectrum of 'goodness' than others, then that means there is a universal standard by which ethics may be known, since you(And not God) are making a value judgment on morality. If you(And not God, since I presume God did not personally tell you this) are saying some people are better and some are worse, that suggests that you are capable of applying a universal standard of ethics. If no human is capable of objective morality, then all attempts at measuring human morality are subjective. If morality is purely subjective, then you have no cause to say something is 'better' or 'worse' since you have no way of knowing if you are 'better' or 'worse' than those individuals.

 

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

 

 

2.5   Divine revelation.

Into this mix we need now inject God’s communications with humanity on ethics. For Christians this is Jesus, generally thought to be the perfect example for us to try to emulate, the Prophets, the Church, and whatever direct ethical revelations we might ourselves receive. So far as the latter three are concerned, we are only able to understand their ethical import to the extent of our own ethical stature, as argued in 2.4 above

2.6   To summarise the argument: God is ethically perfect. Humanity is not. Most of human ethical knowledge comes from nature and nurture, and the interplay between them. But nature and nurture do not suffice to make us ethically perfect. We only understand the ethical to the extent that we ourselves are ethical. But God helps us out as best He can, given our inadequate ethical development.

Best wishes, 2RM

All you have stated here is that humanity is not yet ethically perfect - That we are weak. To speak it in other terms: We are like an 8 stone weakling looking at a 25 stone set of barbells and assuming because we are weak and because nobody we know is strong enough,  that nobody else is.

 

You have also made an error in assuming that doing what is ethical is an infinitely difficult thing that can only be attempted by infinite beings. Ethics doesn't work like that. You aren't seeking to apply all infinite potential choices as an measuring stick. That is not how we live nor how we should live. Doing what is ethical is a series of finite choices made in the moment - A very measurable and much more bearable burden. With a place to stand and a teaspon and the time to do it in, you could move the earth - Just one teaspoon at a time.

 

All you have proven thus far is that we sometimes choose badly, sometimes choose well. You leaped from that to 'We cannot know what is truly moral'. 

 

Your counter-argument may be, "But you do  not have infinite knowledge. You cannot know what is infinitely good. Maybe turning to the left or right will cause a car accident that murders thousands, causing the death of someone who would have gone on to cure cancer and save fifty million sad one-legged puppies".

 

That is true. But morality doesn't work like that - Turning to the left and right in a case like that is a morally neutral choice, regardless of consequences. Bad luck does not equate to being a bad person.

[2ndRateMind]

Good post.

I shall respond piece-meal, as I have the opportunity. (I'm quite busy, today!')

On 2.2. My argument is that because humans are not omniscient and omnibenevolent, we are not maximally ethical. This is a deductive argument. If omniscience and omnibenevolence are individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for maximal ethicality, and humans are neither, then the argument is valid and sound, and therefore it's conclusion true.

I would support it by claiming that there never has been, is not now, and will not ever be, a human that is both omniscient and omnibenevolent. (Jesus excepted, but He was divine). This is an inductive argument. It cannot be proven, only disproven.  Each observation of a non-omniscient, non-omnibenevolent human supports the contention, and lends it strength, but only one observation of an omniscient, omnibenevolent human is sufficient to disprove it, as you point out. However, I am pretty confident that this one observation will never occur.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 26, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Good post.

I shall respond piece-meal, as I have the opportunity. (I'm quite busy, today!')

On 2.2. My argument is that because humans are not omniscient and omnibenevolent, we are not maximally ethical. This is a deductive argument. If omniscience and omnibenevolence are individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for maximal ethicallity, then the argument is valid and sound, and therefore true.

I would support it by claiming that there never has been, is not now, and will not ever be, a human that is both omniscient and omnibenevolent. (Jesus excepted, but He was divine). This is an inductive argument. It cannot be proven, only disproven.  Each observation of a non-omniscient, non-omnibenevolent human supports the contention, and lends it strength, but only one observation of an omniscient, omnibenevolent human is sufficient to disprove it, as you point out. However, I am pretty confident that this one observation will never occur.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

I... Explained why I disputed the need for omniscience and omnibenevolence in the final bit of my post. You haven't proven either are necessary for making the 'maximally ethical choice'. 

Why do you need either of those to be maximally ethical? Being ethical is a choice. If I choose to scratch my nose, which sets off an unlikely series of events that results in the world being consumed by nuclear fire, would you claim that what I had done was unethical?

Because if so, we are about to have an argument over whether utilitarianism is an appropriate measurement for ethics.

[2ndRateMind]

2 hours ago, FunkyTown said:

I... Explained why I disputed the need for omniscience and omnibenevolence in the final bit of my post. You haven't proven either are necessary for making the 'maximally ethical choice'. 

Patience friend. I'll get there, sooner or later...

Quote

Why do you need either of those to be maximally ethical? Being ethical is a choice.

Indeed it is. In my opinion it is the choice to bring about the best interests of all concerned. Or, at least, the optimal solution, given that some best interests are liable to interfere with other best interests. But to make this choice accurately, you need 1) the desire to bring it about; the universal love motivation, and 2) the capacity to calculate the best, or at least optimal, solution, based on certain knowledge. Thus, omnibenevolence and omniscience are both necessary to maximal ethicality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

13 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Patience friend. I'll get there, sooner or later...

Indeed it is. In my opinion it is the choice to bring about the best interests of all concerned. Or, at least, the optimal solution, given that some best interests are liable to interfere with other best interests. But to make this choice accurately, you need 1) the desire to bring it about; the universal love motivation, and 2) the capacity to calculate the best, or at least optimal, solution, based on certain knowledge. Thus, omnibenevolence and omniscience are both necessary to maximal ethicality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

So... If a man scratched his nose casually. And this caused a ridiculously unlikely series of events, totally undriven by his will which caused a nuclear holocaust that destroyed all of mankind...

Would that be a morally evil act?

[2ndRateMind]

Just now, FunkyTown said:

So... If a man scratched his nose casually. And this caused a ridiculously unlikely series of events, totally undriven by his will which caused a nuclear holocaust that destroyed all of mankind...

Would that be a morally evil act?

 

I don't think so. Do you? I think he would be excused by his ignorance, his lack of intention, his incapacity to foresee, and so on. But you are anticipating me on utilitarianism, which I shall get to over the next few days, God willing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

 

I don't think so. Do you? I think he would be excused by his ignorance, his lack of intention, his incapacity to foresee, and so on. But you are anticipating me on utilitarianism, which I shall get to over the next few days, God willing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

No, no. I agree wholeheartedly that what he said had nothing to do with morality.

So: He made a morally neutral choice - That is, neither good nor bad, but the consequences were bad. But those consequences have nothing to do with how good a person he was, morally, correct?

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

2     On why humans cannot claim to know the difference between good and evil innately and completely.

2.1 The nature of God.

God is commonly thought by Christians to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. That is, He knows everything that can be known, and loves His creation and everything and everybody in it. With these two attributes, it can be deduced that He is also maximally ethical; since He loves us, He wants our best interests realised, and since He knows everything, He knows what those best interests are.

While we're throwing omni-s around, what about omnipotent? I mean, if God knows what is the best decision, but his hands are tied, then does it really matter? The framework you've laid out for "maximally ethical" requires the most ethical action to be taken.

On the other hand, I think omnibenevolence is the only required attribute, so long as "good" is equated with "right" (perhaps "righteous" would be a better attribute). After all, I'm unaware of any measure of ethics that faults a person watching a bomb tick down on a monitor (knowledge) who wants to stop it (benevolence) but who can't because he's handcuffed to the chair in another building (no power). Similarly, I'm unaware of any measure of ethics that faults a person who would never knowingly kill another (benevolence) for pressing a button marked "puppy cuddles" (power - to act or refrain) that in truth kills the hidden person hooked up to the other side (no knowledge). 

Fundamentally, I call into question whether "maximally ethical" has any level of value, especially when you haven't established what "ethical" is.

Quote

2.2   The nature of humanity.

Humanity is not commonly thought by Christians to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. If we are not omniscient and omnibenevolent, it follows that we cannot be maximally ethical. There is plenty of evidence for all this, ranging from honest, individual, introspection, to the litany of wars, massacres, genocides, exploitation and subjugation that has occurred down history, and still occurs today. We often do not care all that much about other people’s best interests, only our own and those close to us, and often enough we get our own best interests wrong, let alone other people’s.

I'm going to have to stop you on the first line there. Are you really claiming that if I know a thing to be right, that I would do it? That I would not squelch that impulse and act out of greed or malice anyway? Have you ever seen a toddler eye you out of the corner of his eye as he gets into mischief? I think that shows knowledge acted against. And it even shows the capacity for benevolence, since if you make eye contact he demonstrates a sudden change and forgoes the original plan. In fact, I would think the rest of the paragraph undermines your argument that humanity cannot know what is ethical. You've just made a judgement call that on the ethics of wars, massacres, genocides, exploitation, subjugation, and selfishness - a judgment call that most here will agree with. 

So your paragraph leads me to a different conclusion: Humanity knows what is right, but does not always choose that path (although sometimes it does).

Quote

2.3   Nature and nurture.

Human knowledge of the ethical seems to derive from two sources, nature, and nurture.

The ‘nature’ aspect can be said to be innate, since we are born with our unique DNA coding. Evolutionary Psychologists think that our species DNA evolved some 4 million years ago, and as DNA does, since then it continued to evolve to befit us to inhabit the environment in which we found ourselves, African plains, and tribal societies. That part of our ethics that can be assumed to be innate, therefore, is those behavioural predispositions that would have suited survival under those circumstances, such as tribal loyalty, a tendency towards sexual partnerships, and sharing equitably work and reward amongst the social group.

The ‘nurture’ aspect cannot be said to be innate. Social constructions such as marriage, tribal hierarchies, military honours, the division of labour, and social norms and laws were ‘invented’ and then taught down the ages, the elders passing the wisdom on down to the children through stories, song, dances, and direct instruction. Over time, these social constructions have developed into the complex network of beliefs and theories and practices and structures and institutions, etc, that we know today. As we learn them, we ‘internalise’ them, so that they seem to us obvious and ‘second nature’, and we cannot conceive how they might be different, and so they might seem to be innate.

Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope.

Ethics that comes from nature is no ethics. When I watch a group of male ducks gang rape a female duck, I don't make a judgment call there - it is neither right nor wrong, it just is. But when a male human rapes a female human, I think you and I both agree that it was unethical in the extreme. Why is that? Both are following the same primal sex drive. The difference seems to be that you and I have this biologically evolved sense of disgust at the action, but if we're grounding ourselves in evolution we cannot claim the high ground here. For all we know, the man who does not seem to have that disgust has a genetically superior mutation that will prove the salvation of humanity. He may be the next step in ethics evolution and we would be in the wrong for judging him for it (or he may not be, but we would still be in the wrong because there's no way to know).

To say ethics comes from nurture has all the failings of moral relativism. That is, why is your sense of ethics superior to mine? Without an objective standard, we just get circular reasoning: That is wrong because I was taught it was wrong; I know you weren't taught that, but what you were taught was wrong because it wasn't what I was taught. Additionally, taking this view to the extreme conclusion, anyone who believes nurture ethics needs to be either a radical conservative (the right thing to do is what we've always been taught is right - so no gay marriage), or a radical progressive (gay marriage is all well and good, but we should not stigmatize pedophilia, beastiality, or swingers either).

To attempt a mix of these as the source of ethics creates a mix of problems. Any thing you claim is right is just some mix of your clan and a cave man itch. CS Lewis addresses both of these in Mere Christianity (nurture is addressed when he takes on Reason, and nurture is argued against handily).

Quote

2.4   The measurement of the ethical.

Since all our DNA is different, and since all our nurturing is different, it follows that our various ethical quality is liable to be different, also. That is to say, if there is a qualitative dimension to ethics, we all occupy different points on it, ranging from mostly unethical to mostly ethical. The point to make here is that those who are mostly unethical often do not understand those who are mostly ethical, because they cannot appreciate the way of being, since they have no experience of it. Thus we cannot measure those who are more ethical than us. We are not ‘adequate’ to the task. Most of us who are reasonably ethical however, do understand those below us on the hierarchy, since we are still subject to the same temptations. It’s just that we have learned not to give in to them. Our measurement of the ethical, therefore, is ourselves, to the extent of our ‘moral fibre’ or ‘spiritual stature’.

I don't know about that. There are a number of people I know who I admire (perhaps even envy) because they have found a way to do ignore all the excuses I use and do the right thing anyway. Again, the problem doesn't seem to be that the ethically correct choice is unknowable, it is just that it isn't always done. Most of us who are reasonably ethical, understand those above us on the hierarchy.

Quote

2.5   Divine revelation.

Into this mix we need now inject God’s communications with humanity on ethics. For Christians this is Jesus, generally thought to be the perfect example for us to try to emulate, the Prophets, the Church, and whatever direct ethical revelations we might ourselves receive. So far as the latter three are concerned, we are only able to understand their ethical import to the extent of our own ethical stature, as argued in 2.4 above

2.6   To summarise the argument: God is ethically perfect. Humanity is not. Most of human ethical knowledge comes from nature and nurture, and the interplay between them. But nature and nurture do not suffice to make us ethically perfect. We only understand the ethical to the extent that we ourselves are ethical. But God helps us out as best He can, given our inadequate ethical development.

Best wishes, 2RM

Divine revelation is required because anything short of that is subjective and ignorable. That revelation can take the innate form (the light of Christ mentioned by @anatess2 and others), in which case it has the innateness of the nature perspective but without the shifty failures, or can be more explicit (like the ones you mention).

Thus, the conclusion I draw is God is ethically perfect, or to quote Joseph Smith, "Whatever God requires is right." God is the source of right/wrong. Anything less than that (nature or nurture) is relative and thus useless for objectivity. I would even say that a portion (if not all - haven't decided yet) of these standards are innately planted within humanity so that righteousness can be recognized.

 

ETA: what @FunkyTown said.

Edited June 26, 2018 by mordorbund

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

No, no. I agree wholeheartedly that what he said had nothing to do with morality.

So: He made a morally neutral choice - That is, neither good nor bad, but the consequences were bad. But those consequences have nothing to do with how good a person he was, morally, correct?

Uh huh. I think we can distinguish between an individual who accidentally brings about a bad outcome, and a person who deliberately brings about a bad outcome. But either way, the outcome is not an irrelevance. You said; ethics is about choices. In what sense has a man scratching his nose casually made an ethical choice? I'll let you answer this, and then propose to return to the other substantial points you raised in your original objections to 2, on why humans cannot claim, etc.

Best wishes, 2RM

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh. I think we can distinguish between an individual who accidentally brings about a bad outcome, and a person who deliberately brings about a bad outcome. But either way, the outcome is not an irrelevance. You said; ethics is about choices. In what sense has a man scratching his nose casually made an ethical choice? I'll let you answer this, and then propose to return to the other substantial points you raised in your original objections to 2, on why humans cannot claim, etc.

Best wishes, 2RM

He has not made an ethical choice, I submit, and because of this, the consequences are irrelevant to how we judge him as a person.

 

That leaves me with 2 more questions, if you will indulge me:

 

Person A hates homeless people. He finds a random homeless person and beats him to death, hiding the body so no one knows the man ever existed. The man has no family who care about him nor any real friends of note, so the man gets away with it entirely. The catch: It is 1924 and the homeless man is Adolf Hitler.

 

Is Person A a good person for accidentally saving millions of people or is he a bad man for deliberately finding someone helpless and beating them to death? 

[zil]

14 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Person A hates homeless people. He finds a random homeless person and beats him to death, hiding the body so no one knows the man ever existed. The man has no family who care about him nor any real friends of note, so the man gets away with it entirely. The catch: It is 1924 and the homeless man is Adolf Hitler.

We're gonna need time-travel cleanup on Aisle Six!

/threadjack

[Sunday21]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

We're gonna need time-travel cleanup on Aisle Six!

/threadjack

❤️ so good!

[2ndRateMind]

19 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

...Fundamentally, I call into question whether "maximally ethical" has any level of value, especially when you haven't established what "ethical" is...

This is all great stuff. I actually feel this conversation is now getting somewhere constructive.

I have proposed a provisional definition of 'ethical' (wanting the best interests of all concerned, and knowing what those best interests are). and I intend to elaborate in due course. But you are quite right to point out that ethics is not just about being and knowing, but also (especially) about doing.

I think we have enough meat in the matter now to keep us all occupied for the next few days.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

46 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

This is all great stuff. I actually feel this conversation is now getting somewhere constructive.

I have proposed a provisional definition of 'ethical' (wanting the best interests of all concerned, and knowing what those best interests are). and I intend to elaborate in due course. But you are quite right to point out that ethics is not just about being and knowing, but also (especially) about doing.

I think we have enough meat in the matter now to keep us all occupied for the next few days.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Right - Just know that you still haven't answered either mine or @mordorbund's questions and concerns. We don't want to be forgot about.

Edited June 26, 2018 by FunkyTown

[FunkyTown]

@mordorbund
@zil

@Sunday21

Since we're none of us going to get our answers, we should write a story. Like I'm wondering why those people who time travel don't just look up old Lottery numbers, go back in time and buy those.

[zil]

51 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

@mordorbund
@zil

@Sunday21

Since we're none of us going to get our answers, we should write a story. Like I'm wondering why those people who time travel don't just look up old Lottery numbers, go back in time and buy those.

Yeah, well, if time travel is common, everyone would do it and your share would be worthless.  If it's not so common, those who can do it are probably already rich.  (Don't feel bad - I punch holes in my own stories constantly - it's very annoying.)

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, FunkyTown said:

@mordorbund
@zil

@Sunday21

Since we're none of us going to get our answers, we should write a story. Like I'm wondering why those people who time travel don't just look up old Lottery numbers, go back in time and buy those.

It's the World Cup. You're the only European who doesn't World Cup during the World Cup. And from I can tell, if you World Cup, you're only going to World Cup. Which reminds me....

Did you see the game? A bunch of bozos, amiright!

[FunkyTown]

18 hours ago, mordorbund said:

It's the World Cup. You're the only European who doesn't World Cup during the World Cup. And from I can tell, if you World Cup, you're only going to World Cup. Which reminds me....

Did you see the game? A bunch of bozos, amiright!

England won!

Everyone is pretty happy since it will have been 50 years since England had the cup.

But you're not doing it right. I learned that the key to understanding European Football is to pick a really obscure team nobody knows anything about or cares about. Mine's Luxembourg.