Are there absolute moral axioms?

[Charlemagne_III]

Also, how is the Golden Rule not subjective? Different people prefer to be treated differently.

Think how Jesus must have meant that remark:

We would like to be treated with friendship and justice.

So shouldn’t we treat others with friendship and justice first?

If you think Jesus meant something other than this, just come right out and say it.

If Utilitarianism was the moral theory behind bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you haven’t explained how, and I don’t see how you can. It would require a mind boggling, cold-hearted calculation. You’re too decent a person to even try.

On the other hand, if the moral axiom applied had been, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” we would have known better than to drop the bombs. Only one person, Harry S. Truman, had to make that decision, making it a matter of individual conscience trumping the stupid Utilitarian calculations of the War Department.

 

[Oreoracle]

Those who reject all the religious teachings or isms out there can, if they wish. But without commonly agreed on axioms or yardsticks, all that is left is anarchy and radical individualism.

The latest version being two Hippie phrases from the late 1960s and early 1970s: (A) “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.” and (B) “Do your own thing. Now your thing might not be my thing and my thing might not be your thing, but whatever it is, it’s cool.”

I want to point out that the “live and let live” approach isn’t anarchy. If we mutually agree not to bother each other as long as we allow each other to live as we wish, that is more reminiscent of social contract theory. It would be anarchy if I made you do what I wanted by threatening to beat you over the head with a rock.

Think how Jesus must have meant that remark:

We would like to be treated with friendship and justice.

If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he just say that? Also, friendship and justice are vague concepts. In fact, some people define morality as the study of justice, so proposing justice as a moral good doesn’t clarify anything.

If Utilitarianism was the moral theory behind bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you haven’t explained how, and I don’t see how you can.

That wasn’t what you asked me. You asked how utilitarianism would cope with such a dilemma. I never claimed utilitarianism was used to make the decision. It probably wasn’t.

It would require a mind boggling, cold-hearted calculation. You’re too decent a person to even try.

Sometimes tough decisions have to be made. We can ignore them because they make us uncomfortable. We can call the brave people who grapple with those decisions cold-hearted. The decisions have to be made regardless. Who knows what the world would be like now had the Nazis won the war because we were hesitant to defend ourselves against Japan? How many others would have been slaughtered?

 

[inocente]

Again, this is totally subjective as a moral theory. There are hundreds of definitions of happiness or whatever.

In line with the question Ed just asked, how would Utilitarian ethics be applied to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Consequentialist theories such as Utilitarianism are bound to be relativistic since there is always room to argue over the consequences of an act. They are the basis for how many governments work though. Dropping the Bomb was said to be based on calculations for minimizing deaths overall (shortening the war). Drone strikes too are determined on risk assessment rather than absolutes. Deciding whether to shoot down an airliner in a 9/11 situation is also based on risk assessment - passenger deaths versus possibly far more if the terrorist uses the plane on a city.

You’ll only find an absolute, if there is such an beast, from a categoricalist theory - the ought must concern a duty or a right rather than the consequences of an act.

 

[Oreoracle]

You’ll only find an absolute, if there is such an beast, from a categoricalist theory - the ought must concern a duty or a right rather than the consequences of an act.

Exactly. I cannot imagine employing a morality that doesn’t refer to consequences because I can’t see how a duty would be a good thing other than that it tends to produce good consequences.

For example, if someone asserts that lying is wrong, I would ask them why. The deontologist has to stop at this point, because consequences are irrelevant. They more or less take it as axiomatic that duties are important. The consequentialist can point out that bad consequences result from acting on the basis of misinformation, and that’s why lying is wrong. When the circumstances would change the consequences, the stance on a particular lie may be reconsidered, such as the case of lying to a murderer about your friend’s whereabouts.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he just say that? Also, friendship and justice are vague concepts.

Throughout the gospels Jesus talks constantly about friendship and justice and he gives plenty of examples of each.

Friendship and justice are not vague concepts. We know when somebody is a friend, and we know injustice when we see it.

The “happiness of the greatest number,” on the other hand, is practically a usless concept so far as ethics is concerned.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That wasn’t what you asked me. You asked how utilitarianism would cope with such a dilemma. I never claimed utilitarianism was used to make the decision. It probably wasn’t.

Sometimes tough decisions have to be made. We can ignore them because they make us uncomfortable. We can call the brave people who grapple with those decisions cold-hearted. The decisions have to be made regardless. Who knows what the world would be like now had the Nazis won the war because we were hesitant to defend ourselves against Japan? How many others would have been slaughtered?

I disagree that a twisted form of Utlilitarianism probably wasn’t used to drop the bombs on Japan. Instead of the War department seeking to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, what they really sought was the greatest misery for the greatest number, and the greatest number of civilians at that.

Robert Oppenheimer, who had been the director of the Manhattan Project that created the first atomic bombs, by the 1960s had come to terms with a late blooming conscience about the whole affair. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki greater bombs had been invented, and Russia was also building them. He said at a public seminar:

“I find myself profoundly in anguish over the fact that no ethical discussion of any weight or nobility had been addressed to the problem of atomic weapons… What are we to make of a civilization which has always regarded ethics an essential part of human life, and which has always had in it an articulate, deep, fervent conviction, never perhaps held by the majority, but never absent: adedication to Ahimsa, the Sanskrit word that means doing no harm or hurt, which you find in Jesus and simply and clearly in Socrates; what are we to think of a civilization which has not been able to talk about the prospect of killing almost everybody, except in prudential and game-theoretic terms?”

This is clearly an indictment of the Utilitarian motive for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What do you expect will be the moral axiom of the people who might be planning to nuke New York City and Washington, D.C. … the financial, political, and military capitols of North America? Do you expect it will be “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (friendship and justice) … or do you expect it will be, “Let’s maximize our happiness by killing as many Americans as we can”?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Consequentialist theories such as Utilitarianism are bound to be relativistic since there is always room to argue over the consequences of an act.

My guess would be that the only moral axiom argued about in the U.S. War Department was how many bodies they could pile up at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As you say, they couldn’t know for sure until they saw the consequences.

 

[Oreoracle]

What do you expect will be the moral axiom of the people who might be planning to nuke New York City and Washington, D.C. … the financial, political, and military capitols of North America? Do you expect it will be “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (friendship and justice) … or do you expect it will be, “Let’s maximize our happiness by killing as many Americans as we can”?

I don’t know why you insist on this adolescent interpretation of utilitarianism. It does not seek to maximize “our happiness” but rather everyone’s happiness. Every time I think I’m making some progress with you, every time I think you’re starting to see there is a little nuance to secular morality, you get scared and backpedal to this 8-year-old interpretation of what I write. Use your head or quit wasting my time.

 

[atheistgirl]

Here is an example of where people would disagree on how to behave. Suppose that there are ten people in a lifeboat and the captain has a gun. Now the lifeboat is sinking as it has a capacity for only 9 people. With the lifeboat sinking, all 10 will surely die and there are no volunteers who agree to jump off the boat. Should the captain shoot and throw overboard one person in order to save 9? If he does nothing, everyone (all 10) will die. If he kills one person, then 9 will be saved. Does the captain have the moral right to kill one innocent person in such a case?
The appropriate moral axiom in such a case is “Thou shalt not kill.” But would it have universal assent?

This question sounds familiar.

I think I’ve answered it here previously and my answer remains the same.

I would take the gun from the captain, giving the impression I was about to shoot myself.

I would then shoot the person I think most likely to annoy me while we await rescue, which could include the captain.

This is a win/win situation

We all get saved and I get some peace and quiet while we await rescue.



Sarah x

 

[edwest2]

I want to point out that the “live and let live” approach isn’t anarchy. If we mutually agree not to bother each other as long as we allow each other to live as we wish, that is more reminiscent of social contract theory. It would be anarchy if I made you do what I wanted by threatening to beat you over the head with a rock.

If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he just say that? Also, friendship and justice are vague concepts. In fact, some people define morality as the study of justice, so proposing justice as a moral good doesn’t clarify anything.

That wasn’t what you asked me. You asked how utilitarianism would cope with such a dilemma. I never claimed utilitarianism was used to make the decision. It probably wasn’t.

Sometimes tough decisions have to be made. We can ignore them because they make us uncomfortable. We can call the brave people who grapple with those decisions cold-hearted. The decisions have to be made regardless. Who knows what the world would be like now had the Nazis won the war because we were hesitant to defend ourselves against Japan? How many others would have been slaughtered?

“social contrat” is the new buzz phrase. It doesn’t go past the “I’ll live how I want” concept. An ordered society is more than social contracts if it’s a society. Otherwise, it’s just ‘my tribe,’ ‘your tribe’ and thousands and thousands of other tribes. It leads to radical individualism and isolation.

Most people, meaning civilians, who murder each other know each other.

Peace,
Ed

 

[inocente]

I disagree that a twisted form of Utlilitarianism probably wasn’t used to drop the bombs on Japan. Instead of the War department seeking to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, what they really sought was the greatest misery for the greatest number, and the greatest number of civilians at that.

Could you weigh the lives, military and civilian, which would be lost by different courses of action? Would you decide to kill more people by having to soften up and then invade Japan when you had the chance to save lives by bringing about a swift surrender?

Perhaps you’re not officer material.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know why you insist on this adolescent interpretation of utilitarianism. It does not seek to maximize “our happiness” but rather everyone’s happiness. Every time I think I’m making some progress with you, every time I think you’re starting to see there is a little nuance to secular morality, you get scared and backpedal to this 8-year-old interpretation of what I write. Use your head or quit wasting my time.

Resorting to name-calling is beneath your dignity and mine. Good-bye. :sad_bye:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Could you weigh the lives, military and civilian, which would be lost by different courses of action? Would you decide to kill more people by having to soften up and then invade Japan when you had the chance to save lives by bringing about a swift surrender?

Perhaps you’re not officer material.

I was in the Air Force, but was not an officer.

If the man who is most responsible for constructing the first atomic bomb regretted his involvement, I think it was because the moral imperative behind his thinking was definitely Utilitarian. Russia finally got the bomb, and now way too many are getting the bomb; and now there are going to be way too many people thinking about the “greatest good for the greatest number” when they start using it … and all hell may break loose.

This is not a juvenile fear. It is a possible stark reality. And the day may come when the whole world will curse the people who invented and marketed nuclear weapons on the principle that you could “weigh the lives, military and civilian, which would be lost by different courses of action.”

 

[inocente]

I was in the Air Force, but was not an officer.

If the man who is most responsible for constructing the first atomic bomb regretted his involvement, I think it was because the moral imperative behind his thinking was definitely Utilitarian. Russia finally got the bomb, and now way too many are getting the bomb; and now there are going to be way too many people thinking about the “greatest good for the greatest number” when they start using it … and all hell may break loose.

This is not a juvenile fear. It is a possible stark reality. And the day may come when the whole world will curse the people who invented and marketed nuclear weapons on the principle that you could “weigh the lives, military and civilian, which would be lost by different courses of action.”

But that’s what officers and governments have always had to do, whether it was slingshots or cannon or bombs. The buck has to stop somewhere. Surely we may as well curse whoever it was who discovered how to make fire?

I think most of those that war turned into killers would have lived peacefully if it weren’t for circumstance. Natural for them to mourn who they might otherwise have been, to regret what they had to do. There but for the grace of God.

 

[edwest2]

Could you weigh the lives, military and civilian, which would be lost by different courses of action? Would you decide to kill more people by having to soften up and then invade Japan when you had the chance to save lives by bringing about a swift surrender?

Perhaps you’re not officer material.

Fire-bombing alone could have brought the same results, and about the same amount of Japanese deaths. Having studied the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, I saw no photos of military casualties, only photos of civilians. The Allied military, in necessary protective gear, were on the ground quickly to do damage assessment and measure radioactivity levels.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Surely we may as well curse whoever it was who discovered how to make fire.

Why? The discovery of fire was not directly and exclusively for the purpose of killing. It was also useful in the culinary arts and keeping us warm on cold winter nights.

Nuclear weapons were invented for one purpose only, to kill on a monumental scale.

 

[Oreoracle]

“social contrat” is the new buzz phrase. It doesn’t go past the “I’ll live how I want” concept. An ordered society is more than social contracts if it’s a society.

Actually the notion of social contracts has been around since the 17th-century, from at least Locke’s work onward.

The whole notion of laws and government is based on social contract theory. In political science there is “positive freedom” (the freedom to do something) and “negative freedom” (the freedom from having something done to you). In a social contract, citizens agree to give up some of their positive freedoms, such as the freedom to steal others’ property, in exchange for negative freedoms, such as the freedom from having their own property stolen.

Anyway, social contract theory works because, in a society, everyone’s best interests are entwined. If I violate your liberty, it puts my own at risk. Thus the contract creates a situation in which it is most rational to not harm others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here we go again with the Utilitarian calculations of Iran, which may or may not include nuking Israel.

dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/iran-supreme-leader-the-only-solution-for-crisis-is-israels-destruction/#!

How should Israel and Palestine end? By fire-power calculated to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of Arabs (read greatest harm to the greatest number of Jews) or by the mutually beneficial principle that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us?

Or by the satanic version: “Do unto others before they do it unto us.”

 

[inocente]

Fire-bombing alone could have brought the same results, and about the same amount of Japanese deaths. Having studied the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, I saw no photos of military casualties, only photos of civilians. The Allied military, in necessary protective gear, were on the ground quickly to do damage assessment and measure radioactivity levels.

To me that indicates they were fairly certain they got the decision right and that there would be a quick surrender.

I don’t know much about it but am hesitant to judge anyone who is between a rock and a hard place in time of war. 20/20 hindsight seems too easy from the safety of an armchair 70 years later.

 

[edwest2]

I was in the Air Force, but was not an officer.

If the man who is most responsible for constructing the first atomic bomb regretted his involvement, I think it was because the moral imperative behind his thinking was definitely Utilitarian. Russia finally got the bomb, and now way too many are getting the bomb; and now there are going to be way too many people thinking about the “greatest good for the greatest number” when they start using it … and all hell may break loose.

This is not a juvenile fear. It is a possible stark reality. And the day may come when the whole world will curse the people who invented and marketed nuclear weapons on the principle that you could “weigh the lives, military and civilian, which would be lost by different courses of action.”

Nuclear proliferation was a concern right after the first atomic bombings. It’s not happening as quickly as some might think. The equipment needed to enrich uranium or produce plutonium is beyond the reach of most madmen and ‘rogue’ nations. After doing years of research, there were two occasions, once in the 1950s and during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, that serious consideration for all-out nuclear war was on the table. The worst we could face, at any time, today, is an explosive device containing radioactive material going off in a major populated area. As bad as that would be, it would be mild compared to a low-yield nuclear weapon detonating over a major city or military complex. Or a megaton-yield device going off.

The living would envy the dead, and the effects would mean “the enemy” would not be able to occupy the area he just destroyed. During the Cold War, the phrase was MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. This included underground bases that would fire missiles at enemy targets up to one year after the initial attack.

Somehow, the reality of this sunk in.

Peace,
Ed