Are there absolute moral axioms?

[rinnie]

Consider the lifeboat situation. You have a ship that has sunk and there are 10 people on the lifeboat, which has a capacity of only 9. With 10 people on board, the lifeboat will sink and all 10 will die. there are no volunteers to jump overboard. IF the captain kills one person, there will be 9 saved.
Which is the greater evil: all ten die or only one dies? Most people would argue that the greater evil is for all 10 to die. But many would argue that it is wrong to directly kill one innocent person, regardless of the end, because a good end does not justify an evil means.

The problem is there is truly no correct answer that we can give. It is asking a human to play God and we cannot because we are not Divine and perfect like God.

There are only some answers only God has.

 

[Bradski]

There are many criticisms of utilitarianism along those lines. But I’ve yet to see a plausible scenario in which torturing a few innocent people makes a large population happy in a way that couldn’t be accomplished without the torment.

If you need an outrageous thought experiment to make a moral code look bad, then that moral code is actually pretty good.

But you need to look at extreme examples even if they are too far fetched to seriously consider. There is a continuous line from the person who says that causing minor discomfort to a terrorist is wrong even if it saves a life to someone who says it’s OK to torture thousands for whatever greater good is applicable.

Everyone holds to their own particular point on that line. We need to decide which point is too extreme.

 

[Oreoracle]

But you need to look at extreme examples even if they are too far fetched to seriously consider. There is a continuous line from the person who says that causing minor discomfort to a terrorist is wrong even if it saves a life to someone who says it’s OK to torture thousands for whatever greater good is applicable.

Everyone holds to their own particular point on that line. We need to decide which point is too extreme.

I doubt anyone can really p(name removed by moderator)oint when matters become “too extreme”, but I’ll bite. Regarding Roko’s Basilisk, I would revise utilitarianism in the following way that I’ve already discussed with Charlemagne on another thread:

We can use the “naïve” version of utilitarianism in circumstances in which the consequences of our actions are relatively predictable. However, in unpredictable cases, we should fall back on behaviors that are known to be effective at maximizing happiness in most cases. In other words, we have a continuum from generic utilitarianism, which is strictly concerned with consequences, to rule utilitarianism, which masquerades as a deontological system (though the rules are motivated by consequences), and how far we should go along the continuum depends on the probabilities of the consequences at stake.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I concede that the actual application of utilitarianism may be a bit subjective, because happiness is a vague notion. Some forms of utilitarianism are more specific about which aspects of happiness should be maximized and how such a thing should be done. Personally, I avoid being too specific about happiness because it is, after all, a multi-faceted thing, and we risk oversimplifying it when we make specifications.

I agree that utilitarianism doesn’t perfectly coincide with all of our moral intuitions. Frankly I’ve yet to find a philosophy that does. I think the reason is that all too often our intuitions are inconsistent, so no consistent system will ever perfectly capture how we truly “feel” about what’s right and wrong. Intuitions contradict each other all the time when you really examine them.

It’s hard to be certain when the numbers are close, but usually it’s pretty obvious which actions bring about more happiness. Polling is, in my opinion, a great thing for morality. Morals are interested in human concerns, and what method is more efficient at ascertaining the issues we face as a society than polling?

I agree with this up to the end. I understand polling is a necessary device for democracy. I just don’t think it supports the utilitarian concept of moral order. Hitler was elected by a majority, though his methods and aioms were well known before the election. Our current President was elected twice by a significan majority. Has he produced the greatest happiness for the greatest number?

Yes, utilitarianism is certainly flawed and iffy.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you choose a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil, you are using evil as a means to an end. That’s frowned upon in any deontological approach that I know of, although it’s perfectly acceptable by consequentialists.

But in the case of Sophie’s Choice, she is not using evil as a means to an end. Sophie **has to **choose. By not choosing she has made a choice, the death of both children. By choosing, painful as that may be, she saves one child’s life. I just don’t see her engaging deliberately in an evil act. After all, she is not even doing the killing.

In the separate case of the lifeboat incident, the Captain must choose to kill one of his passengers or kill himself to stop the boat from sinking. The lesser evil is to kill himself. Suicide is recognized as an evil, but in some instances a suicide can be acting heroically. Committing suicide will then be regarded not so much as an evil, but as a good, in that it results in possibly saving the other nine passengers. To act so as to save nine passengers that are otherwise sure to drown is a morally righteous act.

 

[Oreoracle]

I agree with this up to the end. I understand polling is a necessary device for democracy. I just don’t think it supports the utilitarian concept of moral order. Hitler was elected by a majority, though his methods and aioms were well known before the election. Our current President was elected twice by a significan majority. Has he produced the greatest happiness for the greatest number?

At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, I think the issue is that people are generally able to express what they want, but they are relatively poor at figuring out how to get it.

Take Obama as an example. Sure, there are people who said they would be happy if Obama got elected. But what they really meant was that they would be happy if Obama delivered on the promises he made during his campaign. So it may be necessary at times to infer how a stated preference is conditional on other, more immediately relevant preferences.

The solution? Personally I don’t think utilitarianism is at fault here. Most moral codes would perform badly in the face of incomplete information or misinformation, right? The solution is better science; in the case of democracy, better social science. That way people can more easily judge what it takes to increase their happiness.

 

[Oreoracle]

But in the case of Sophie’s Choice, she is not using evil as a means to an end. Sophie **has to **choose. By not choosing she has made a choice, the death of both children.

“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Why yes, I am also a fan of Rush.

I’m not certain how Kant would have dealt with this. I will only say that Kant didn’t interpret staying silent to a murderer as choosing one’s own death or the death of one’s friend. So based solely on that, I don’t think Kant would have agreed that declining the choice is wrong.

 

[inocente]

Our current President was elected twice by a significan majority. Has he produced the greatest happiness for the greatest number?

Yes, utilitarianism is certainly flawed and iffy.

I don’t think your voting system is utilitarian. The winner-takes-all system encourages tactical voting - people might have voted for Obama because they decided the alternatives were too dangerous or incompetent or just a wasted vote.

A utilitarian system would let you score every candidate (say from 0 to 5) according to how much utility (happiness, wealth, order or whatever) you think that candidate will generate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The solution? Personally I don’t think utilitarianism is at fault here. Most moral codes would perform badly in the face of incomplete information or misinformation, right? The solution is better science; in the case of democracy, better social science. That way people can more easily judge what it takes to increase their happiness.

Most moral codes are not so complex as Utilitarianism because utilitarians is so completey subjective. For example, how does one define “greatest good” and who are the greatest number?

In that, at least, I agree with Kant’s attack on Utilitarianism.

I much prefer moral axioms such as the Ten Commandments or their secular counterparts.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A utilitarian system would let you score every candidate (say from 0 to 5) according to how much utility (happiness, wealth, order or whatever) you think that candidate will generate.

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

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I will only say that Kant didn’t interpret staying silent to a murderer as choosing one’s own death or the death of one’s friend. So based solely on that, I don’t think Kant would have agreed that declining the choice is wrong.

If you are talking about Sophie’s Choice, I’d agree that Kant was rigid enough not to let there be any interference with his absolute Categorical imperative. I just think it is a blank in his ethical system that he cannot see that not making a choice is making a choice.

Just as the agnostic says he cannot choose to be for God or against God, he has made a choice to be against God.

“He who is not with me is against me.” Matthew 12:30

 

[edwest2]

Yes. There are moral absolutes. Most average people do not live with extreme choices to make. Those who do include medical decisions, situations in times of war and those involved in interrogations. These can involve choices that are not self-evident.

I would say the Ten Commandments provide the best starting point. Then there’s the rest of the Bible

Here is Pope Francis talking about torture.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1402594.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes. There are moral absolutes. Most average people do not live with extreme choices to make. Those who do include medical decisions, situations in times of war and those involved in interrogations. These can involve choices that are not self-evident.

I would say the Ten Commandments provide the best starting point. Then there’s the rest of the Bible

Here is Pope Francis talking about torture.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1402594.htm

Peace,
Ed

Welcome to the thread!

 

[edwest2]

Welcome to the thread!

Thanks. That was nice of you.

Ed

 

[Oreoracle]

Most moral codes are not so complex as Utilitarianism because utilitarians is so completey subjective. For example, how does one define “greatest good” and who are the greatest number?

I agree that the concept of happiness is vague, but the notion of maximizing happiness isn’t what I would call “subjective”.

As an analogy, beauty is a vague concept with as many definitions as those who appreciate it. However, it’s fairly straightforward to tell when someone thinks that something is beautiful, and so it is with happiness. I suppose what I’m getting at is that you don’t need an airtight definition to see how an emotion manifests itself.

As for “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”, I’ve always thought that was a poor summary of utilitarianism. This is because we sometimes have to choose between maximizing the intensity of happiness or maximizing the number of people satisfied. Sometimes the majority will lose in these considerations. For example, suppose 99% percent of the population is “offended” by the attire the remaining 1% wear. It’s a judgment call on my part, but I think the minority’s freedom of expression is more conducive to their overall satisfaction than the majority’s desire to be whiners. Realistically, you aren’t going to lose any sleep over what someone is wearing.

And as I’ve said before, utilitarianism has two advantages over other moralities: 1) The motivation behind its principles are obvious, and it’s more honest about its concern for consequences (contrast that with deontological morals). 2) Utilitarians don’t need to invent ad hoc rules to deal with contradictions between rules, because there is basically only one rule to begin with.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And as I’ve said before, utilitarianism has two advantages over other moralities: 1) The motivation behind its principles are obvious, and it’s more honest about its concern for consequences (contrast that with deontological morals). 2) Utilitarians don’t need to invent ad hoc rules to deal with contradictions between rules, because there is basically only one rule to begin with.

As I’ve said before (I think?) utilitarianism suffers from inadequacy of not dealing directly with “oughts” and “ought nots.” A moral axiom is by definition concerned with how we ought to behave, and addresses itself to specific “oughts” each in their turn. Utilitarianism only deals with ends to be sought, and does not tell us how we ought to attend to them (the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” is far too vague and ungovernable a formula for moral action, not to mention that it opens up a Pandora’s Box of subjective impulses that need to be satisfied … many of them possibly downright hedonistic and self-destructive).

I much prefer the specificity of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as oppsed to the ambiguous search for the greatest happiness of the greatest number."

I am inclined to think Utilitarianism is far more suited to serve a theory of politics or economics rather than a theory of individual morality.

 

[edwest2]

I agree that the concept of happiness is vague, but the notion of maximizing happiness isn’t what I would call “subjective”.

As an analogy, beauty is a vague concept with as many definitions as those who appreciate it. However, it’s fairly straightforward to tell when someone thinks that something is beautiful, and so it is with happiness. I suppose what I’m getting at is that you don’t need an airtight definition to see how an emotion manifests itself.

As for “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”, I’ve always thought that was a poor summary of utilitarianism. This is because we sometimes have to choose between maximizing the intensity of happiness or maximizing the number of people satisfied. Sometimes the majority will lose in these considerations. For example, suppose 99% percent of the population is “offended” by the attire the remaining 1% wear. It’s a judgment call on my part, but I think the minority’s freedom of expression is more conducive to their overall satisfaction than the majority’s desire to be whiners. Realistically, you aren’t going to lose any sleep over what someone is wearing.

And as I’ve said before, utilitarianism has two advantages over other moralities: 1) The motivation behind its principles are obvious, and it’s more honest about its concern for consequences (contrast that with deontological morals). 2) Utilitarians don’t need to invent ad hoc rules to deal with contradictions between rules, because there is basically only one rule to begin with.

You lost me. What is the one rule to begin with? I mean I think I know what you mean and I just want to be sure.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Oreoracle

In line with the question Ed just asked, how would Utilitarian ethics be applied to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I could give you any number of the traditional absolute moral axioms that could be consulted before the bombs were dropped, but I have no idea how a Utilitarian would address the rightness or wrongness of bombing the two cities.

 

[Oreoracle]

As I’ve said before (I think?) utilitarianism suffers from inadequacy of not dealing directly with “oughts” and “ought nots.”

But it does. Utilitarianism says we ought to promote happiness and ought not promote suffering.

As for telling us how to achieve that goal, that is not the purpose of morality per se. For example, divine command theory says that doing what God wants is, by definition, good. Divine command theorists disagree over how we should come to know what God wants, however. Some accept personal revelation, while others require a centralized authority to determine God’s will.

Thankfully, unlike divine command theory, utilitarians can, at least in principle, decide what would satisfy the greatest number of people in a way that is falsifiable by means of polling.

I much prefer the specificity of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as oppsed to the ambiguous search for the greatest happiness of the greatest number."

I’m not sure it’s really so specific. The Golden Rule suffers from the same vagueness that plagues Kant’s Categorical Imperative: the issue of how specific we are allowed to be when we generalize a behavior.

For example, I would not have others kill me, but I might agree beforehand (obviously not if the situation ever actually arose) that they could kill me in self-defense. So applying the Golden Rule naively leads to two conclusions: 1) It is wrong to kill people. 2) It is permissible to kill in self-defense. Which version wins?

If we are allowed to be as specific as (2), why not go further with it? I would not treat others badly if they were me. Therefore, by the Golden Rule, others should not treat me badly. This doesn’t place a restriction on me, because others aren’t me. This is why Kant insisted that you strip an action of its context entirely, and he absolutely forbade referring to specific people with morals. But if we do that, we’re back to (1), which seems pretty restrictive. It seems that you already need a moral framework in mind before you can decide how specific you’re allowed to be.

Also, how is the Golden Rule not subjective? Different people prefer to be treated differently. I would rather treat people the way they want to be treated rather than treat them the way I would have myself treated and hope that that will be alright with them. The Golden Rule seems to assume that everyone has similar preferences, whereas utilitarianism allows for the possibility that they don’t.

You lost me. What is the one rule to begin with? I mean I think I know what you mean and I just want to be sure.

The basic rule is to promote as much happiness as possible and discourage suffering to whatever extent is possible.

Oreoracle

In line with the question Ed just asked, how would Utilitarian ethics be applied to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I could give you any number of the traditional absolute moral axioms that could be consulted before the bombs were dropped, but I have no idea how a Utilitarian would address the rightness or wrongness of bombing the two cities.

The decision would probably be based on projections of how much damage could be caused (and how likely the damages are) if the bombs weren’t used.

Decisions that involve collateral damage aren’t easy for any moral code to make. Acting as if other moral codes wouldn’t sweat that kind of decision is dishonest.

 

[edwest2]

But it does. Utilitarianism says we ought to promote happiness and ought not promote suffering.

As for telling us how to achieve that goal, that is not the purpose of morality per se. For example, divine command theory says that doing what God wants is, by definition, good. Divine command theorists disagree over how we should come to know what God wants, however. Some accept personal revelation, while others require a centralized authority to determine God’s will.

Thankfully, unlike divine command theory, utilitarians can, at least in principle, decide what would satisfy the greatest number of people in a way that is falsifiable by means of polling.

I’m not sure it’s really so specific. The Golden Rule suffers from the same vagueness that plagues Kant’s Categorical Imperative: the issue of how specific we are allowed to be when we generalize a behavior.

For example, I would not have others kill me, but I might agree beforehand (obviously not if the situation ever actually arose) that they could kill me in self-defense. So applying the Golden Rule naively leads to two conclusions: 1) It is wrong to kill people. 2) It is permissible to kill in self-defense. Which version wins?

If we are allowed to be as specific as (2), why not go further with it? I would not treat others badly if they were me. Therefore, by the Golden Rule, others should not treat me badly. This doesn’t place a restriction on me, because others aren’t me. This is why Kant insisted that you strip an action of its context entirely, and he absolutely forbade referring to specific people with morals. But if we do that, we’re back to (1), which seems pretty restrictive. It seems that you already need a moral framework in mind before you can decide how specific you’re allowed to be.

Also, how is the Golden Rule not subjective? Different people prefer to be treated differently. I would rather treat people the way they want to be treated rather than treat them the way I would have myself treated and hope that that will be alright with them. The Golden Rule seems to assume that everyone has similar preferences, whereas utilitarianism allows for the possibility that they don’t.

The basic rule is to promote as much happiness as possible and discourage suffering to whatever extent is possible.

The decision would probably be based on projections of how much damage could be caused (and how likely the damages are) if the bombs weren’t used.

Decisions that involve collateral damage aren’t easy for any moral code to make. Acting as if other moral codes wouldn’t sweat that kind of decision is dishonest.

As human beings with long histories, we know happiness and suffering exist together. We cannot know the future so we don’t know if a car will crash into ours tomorrow, or a tornado takes away our home or if we are diagnosed with cancer.

We can rationalize anything. Invent ways to live. But is such change really progress or just reinventing the wheel? Utopian communities have been tried in the past but they all failed. Human nature dictates. Without a clear understanding of our natures, we cannot make good decisions about morality. 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.”

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” We can rationalize anything.

So yes, only commonly agreed upon axioms - real truths - must exist or you just get tribalism, at best.

Peace,
Ed