Using Trends to Make a Moral Decision?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvrcthewrld
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LMS, are you saying that statistics/trends has no place in personal moral decisions? …that I need to consider my options only in light of reason, Church teaching, etc.?

Do others agree with this assessment?
 
dvrcthewrld said:
Pug, sure we could say that there is a fifth option of abstaining in some fashion, but even abstention is arguably immoral. So, I’d like to stick with the dilemma as is: an option must be chosen.

Must I stick with my last best judgment, or is it permissible to defer to the trend?
Click to expand...
Okay, your last best judgment is that only D is morally acceptable, and you must choose to do one of them. Then you are stuck with D. You may not switch to C.

[edit: if you could switch to C in that situation, then your last, best judgment is not the **last, is it? There is no such thing as making a decision about morality and then after that letting public opinion stand as a valid option to morality.]

If your last, best judgment says both C and D are permissible for you, and you like D personally but there are social advantages to picking C like being more employable, then you can pick C to gain them. But C has to have passed the test of being permissible for you first.
 
We are called to look to God, not to man. Looking to another human for moral guidance when the decision you are making is not going to strengthen your relationship with God usually doesn’t go well.

We’re human, we make mistakes. God has never made a mistake - how can we argue against that kind of track record? 🙂
 
So do you see a flaw in this?:
One is not to simply choose the highest probable option. There are several moral reason why: 1) who or how did the probable option initially get selected? 2) if one were to know who the first person to formulate an opinion on how to choose, then everyone subsequently would have to choose the same way. So, for example, lets say we have 300 million choosers. Chooser #1 selects option A. Well, if no one else made their choice yet, then option A would be the probable option, and yet 299,999,999 people did not yet choose, they just followed the probable outcome based upon the choice of chooser #1.
Click to expand...
It may sound silly, but moral decisions cannot be made statistically, they have to be made as one’s last best judgment on what one ought to do. Emphasis in this particular conversation on “one’s”, so it is not a collective judgment, but very much so an individual decision. So, it is correct to say that supposed probability should not influence one’s decision to choose. If that we’re the case, in effect your choice would become null because you allowed a third party to determine your choice, in effect multiplying the effect of their choice.
Click to expand...
Can you think of any Church documents that back up this idea?
 
dvrcthewrld said:
So do you see a flaw in this?:

Can you think of any Church documents that back up this idea?
Click to expand...
Are you trying to ask about classical probabilism? See Catholic article about the subject here.

When moralists in the past recommended following the more probable action, they meant the one that seems most probably right according to expert opinion, not the one most often done by any Tom, Dick, or Harry. Furthermore, that method of figuring stuff out was a last resort, for a case when you were without better guidance and had to figure something out. Also, they came up with rules to go along with it, like “a doubtful law does not bind”, so you weren’t stuck following every conceivable probable law that might be dreamt up. It tends to look upon everything as legal rules (positive law).

Is this what you are talking about? I’ve got to go to work, but this just came to me, that this might be your concern.
 
dvrcthewrld said:
LMS, are you saying that statistics/trends has no place in personal moral decisions? …that I need to consider my options only in light of reason, Church teaching, etc.?

Do others agree with this assessment?
Click to expand...
Why would you think otherwise?

Why would statistics or popular trends/opinions have any relevance to what is or is not moral?

What makes the two issues you exempted in your OP “clear cut” for you? Obviously for a large # of people in the western world these are not so “clear cut”–indeed many would argue that these things are indeed moral.

Given popular opinion and trends one would need to conclude that fornication, for example, is now moral but we know that is not the case–obviously trends and opinions don’t make something moral.

I think you need to be more specific regarding the kinds of issues &decisions you are trying to determine morality for–if you think trends, statistics are relevant to the decision making process-after all you started by exempting two issues.

Peace,
Mark
 
dvrcthewrld said:
Thanks to all for your thoughts.

Hypothetically, I determine that there are only 4 ways to address a particular moral decision–I can do A, B, C, or D. In my personal analysis and best judgment, all options have real positives and negatives, but I believe that I can rank them from ‘best’ (which is really ‘least bad’) to worst. My consideration leads me to conclude that D is the best option, followed by C, B, and A.

However, the majority of my peers, a truly broad cross-section of society, have been choosing the worst two options. Even though many of them actually agree that D is the truly best option, they are choosing C or B. Most of my friends want me to choose C because it is the trend, and as the trend appears to be the better alternative between C and B.

Am I obliged to stick with my best judgment, or ought I go with the trend of C because it’s better than the other trend of B?
Click to expand...
I am currious as to your line of thought. If you know that D is the best option and your friends know D is the best option–i.e. the most moral option–why do you think you might be allowed to choose a less moral option just because most other people are. When I was a kid (not a baby goat) that was called succumbing to peer pressure and it was something we were warned against. Why would you think it o.k. to just go along? If you could flesh out your thought process with a real life example maybe we could understand your model a little better because I am having a hard time applying to things that I would think of as a moral decision. or even to the choosing of lesser evils.

Peace,
Mark
 
dvrcthewrld said:
Is it right for one to base a moral decision on the trend of how other people are making the same decision? (I am asking about those moral decisions where one must use their best judgment, not “clear cut” issues like abortion or euthanasia.)
Click to expand...
in the culture today especially in what is called America many ( not all ) public schools endorse

or tolerate intrinsic moral evils.
this ideology it is less prominent in most other countries and there is always reasons for hope
never completly believe someone when they endorse an intrinsic moral evil only believe them when they teach part of; or all of the truth pertaining to the natural law, human dignity, the ten universal principles, etc…

Respect you’re peers and be countercultural and do everything for Jesus the Christ.
hope this helps

Shalom
God Bless
 
MarkInOregon said:
I am currious as to your line of thought. If you know that D is the best option and your friends know D is the best option–i.e. the most moral option–why do you think you might be allowed to choose a less moral option just because most other people are. When I was a kid (not a baby goat) that was called succumbing to peer pressure and it was something we were warned against. Why would you think it o.k. to just go along? If you could flesh out your thought process with a real life example maybe we could understand your model a little better because I am having a hard time applying to things that I would think of as a moral decision. or even to the choosing of lesser evils.

Peace,
Mark
Click to expand...
So the consensus here is that I am obliged to choose the option that is, in my best judgment, the best.

Why, I must then wonder, is that not addressed when Catholics generally, and the bishops and USCCB especially, speak of guidelines for voting? As applied to voting, this means that when I consider all of the candidates on the ballot and find that a relatively unpopular and largely ignored candidate is the best option, I cannot choose to vote for another guy–even if the other guy is Romney and I really want Obama out of office.

Choosing Romney because he has the statistically best chance of defeating Obama is immoral.
 
dvrcthewrld said:
So the consensus here is that I am obliged to choose the option that is, in my best judgment, the best.

Why, I must then wonder, is that not addressed when Catholics generally, and the bishops and USCCB especially, speak of guidelines for voting? As applied to voting, this means that when I consider all of the candidates on the ballot and find that a relatively unpopular and largely ignored candidate is the best option, I cannot choose to vote for another guy–even if the other guy is Romney and I really want Obama out of office.

Choosing Romney because he has the statistically best chance of defeating Obama is immoral.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that leaving a few things out of the picture? When voting you are not just making a statement in favour of a particular candidate, you are actively trying to shape your country, and that means that you need to take into account probably results and not just the ideals of those involved. Essentially, the problem with your logic is that many people believe that the results of voting for someone else will be much worse than in voting for Romney, so they are following their own judgement as to which action will be best, and so following the advice given to you here. It is not wrong to vote for Romney because he has tthe best chance of beating Obama. If you are convinced that this will not be the best course of action for our country, then don’t vote for him, but don’t claim that it would be immoral to do so.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m as frustrated as the next person at the way the US runs their elections making it practically useless to vote for anybody besides the two main candidates, but I recognize that that is currently the way things are and so I will vote as I think is best for the country itself. If the states were to change its voting laws to be more like Ireland, (where you make a list of the people you would like elected in order of preference so that if your preferred candidate clearly does not gain enough votes your vote will then be passed on to the next person on your list and not wasted) I would be very happy, but in the world we live in that just is not the case.
 
dvrcthewrld said:
So the consensus here is that I am obliged to choose the option that is, in my best judgment, the best.

Why, I must then wonder, is that not addressed when Catholics generally, and the bishops and USCCB especially, speak of guidelines for voting? As applied to voting, this means that when I consider all of the candidates on the ballot and find that a relatively unpopular and largely ignored candidate is the best option, I cannot choose to vote for another guy–even if the other guy is Romney and I really want Obama out of office.

Choosing Romney because he has the statistically best chance of defeating Obama is immoral.
Click to expand...
No. We have been discussing choosing from among morally acceptable courses of action. You must choose a morally acceptable course of action, one that is morally acceptable for you to do. Voting for a certain candidate in a particular election is a course of action. The course of action must be good, not the candidate in question. You can vote for a sinner or otherwise unappealing person (assuming all other bases are covered).

Your question is, is it a morally acceptable course of action to vote for an unappealing candidate in order to oust an evil? Yes, this can be morally acceptable. You need to know the entire situation and its effect on the common good of the country, etc.

I see this does hinge on what you meant by “least bad”, which is why I asked you to clarify that in my second post.
 
dvrcthewrld said:
So the consensus here is that I am obliged to choose the option that is, in my best judgment, the best.

Why, I must then wonder, is that not addressed when Catholics generally, and the bishops and USCCB especially, speak of guidelines for voting? As applied to voting, this means that when I consider all of the candidates on the ballot and find that a relatively unpopular and largely ignored candidate is the best option, I cannot choose to vote for another guy–even if the other guy is Romney and I really want Obama out of office.

Choosing Romney because he has the statistically best chance of defeating Obama is immoral.
Click to expand...
Your purpose for the thread finally emerges.

But you cannot make the leap that since choosing third party Candidate D is better (in your judgment) than choosing statistically-best-chance-of-defeating-Obama Candidate C that choosing Candidate C is immoral.
 
It’s as simple as this:

Each moral decision ought to be based on the natural law.
Each moral decision should be unaffected by the trends of how other people make the same moral decision.
Voting is a moral act.

Therefore, the act of voting ought to be based on the natural law and be unaffected by the trends of how other people vote.

The premises are true, so the conclusion is true.

(You won’t find a decent Catholic theologian or philosopher to deny one of the premises, and you will never find a Church document denying one either.)
 
dvrcthewrld said:
Each moral decision should be unaffected by the trends of how other people make the same moral decision.
Click to expand...
What other people choose to do can affect the circumstances. We are to take circumstances into account when making choices. If normally one would use the south exit in case of fire, but everyone is blocking the south exit, then it becomes reasonable to use the west exit. The circumstances changed because of what other people chose.
 
dvrcthewrld said:
Is it right for one to base a moral decision on the trend of how other people are making the same decision? (I am asking about those moral decisions where one must use their best judgment, not “clear cut” issues like abortion or euthanasia.)
Click to expand...
We need to base our decisions on Truth, which is Jesus and in logic (natural law) which is what Catholicism strives to do.

Most of the time, you’re going to find that goes against the grain.

I would encourage you (as I encourage everyone) to find out what your duties and obligations are in life and just remember a few things:
  1. You cannot sin without knowing something is sin.
  2. It is our responsibility to spend time in getting to know the faith
  3. Right Judgement is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
  4. Sometimes, there’s more than one option. For instance, if you have some free time and decide to watch TV instead of praying the rosary or going to daily mass, the latter two would be more perfect acts.
 
Pug said:
What other people choose to do can affect the circumstances. We are to take circumstances into account when making choices. If normally one would use the south exit in case of fire, but everyone is blocking the south exit, then it becomes reasonable to use the west exit. The circumstances changed because of what other people chose.
Click to expand...
Right. The problem would be if you voted for someone just because most people you know are voting for him. It is a different situation completely to vote for someone because he is the best person that has a realistic chance of being elected. In this scenario the reason you are voting for him is not just because other people are as well, but rather it is because othe people voting for him has created certain circumstances which make it so that not voting for him would be worse for the country. In other words, in this scenario you are not voting for him because others are and you want to follow some trend, rather you are going for him because your conscience and reason tell you that be ause of the particular circumstances voting for him will be best for your country. This is a huge distinction.

OP, if someone decided to vote for Romney simply because most other people they know are going for him then I would agree with you that that is wrong, they should be investigating the candidates and circumstances o te election themselves so that they can make an informed decision, but that doesn’t seem to be what you are complaining about. Thing is, thats the only kind of circumstance your reasoning applies to, it just doesn’t apply to the scenario that you want it too. 🤷
 
Pug said:
What other people choose to do can affect the circumstances. We are to take circumstances into account when making choices. If normally one would use the south exit in case of fire, but everyone is blocking the south exit, then it becomes reasonable to use the west exit. The circumstances changed because of what other people chose.
Click to expand...
You have cited an amoral choice, which means you did not address the issue.

Because of the nature of this issue, the burden of proof is not on me to show that the principle is true; bringing out fifty examples would prove nothing. If you can cite one truly moral act where it is clearly appropriate to consider the trend of how other people–all sorts of people, this is different than seeking the (name removed by moderator)ut of multiple respected friends–have chosen to act, and how one ought to follow the trend, then you will have shown the principle to be false.

Furthermore, if you maintain that trends ought to factor into moral decisions, then please apply that principle to the following case:
You, a friend, and 20 strangers are prohibited from leaving a convenience store by the manager whose keen eye revealed to him that a special object had been snatched. The manager asks each person whether they took it or know who took it; all said “no.” You are the last to be questioned. You know that your friend has the object, and you know that most of the people in the store are aware as well. How do you decide what to do?

If you don’t like that hypothetical, please propose one.
 
thewanderer, you wrote: “not voting for him would be worse for the country.” In saying that, you are citing the future as the reason. First, there is no objective certainty about the future, which nullifies your reason, but it goes deeper.

What the future will be depends very largely on just the choice which you now invoke the future to help you make.

Nonsense. Damned Nonsense.

If that weren’t enough, it sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy. “No third party can win…therefore I won’t vote for a third party…therefore no third party can win.”

More damned nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top