Rami Rustom
2012-11-07 16:31:09 UTC
On the samharris forum, a discussion started about whether morality
has something to do with happiness/suffering. A guy named
logicophilosophicus presented his idea about it and he also
contradicted something I said about philosophy and that philosophy
applies to morality. We went back and forth a few times and he
appealed to authority (like obviousness) like 4 times in two replies.
In the first reply I chose to not criticize his appeal to authority
and instead I asked clarifying questions. So on his second reply of
appealing to authority I chose to address it head on because it was
clear to me that it is slowing down the discussion. Also I addressed
it head on because I realized that he disagrees with me on whether or
not philosophy applies to more than just the little thing he said it
applied to.
If you want to read the discussion from the beginning, see the below
link, and do a CNTR/CMD + F to search for logicophilosophicus.
http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/9575/P60
Often people choose an option without first having refuted the rival options. This is bad philosophy.
My moral assessment is not limited to his effect on others. You have not heard my entire argument. And I can't deliver my entire argument until I understand your position.
I note that your idea of distress is based on physical pain. I define distress a different way. Its about mental pain, mental suffering, mental hurt, or just *hurt*. Hurt happens when someone does something they don't' want to do, or something is done to him that he doesn't want done to him. For example, say a guy wants to smoke a cigarette, but his kids are present and he doesn't want them to know that he smokes. So, if he smokes, then he gets what he wants with respect to wanting to smoke, but he doesn't get what he wants with respect to not wanting his kids to know that he smokes. And, if he instead doesn't smoke, then he gets what he wants with respect to not wanting his kids to know that he smokes, but he doesn't get what he wants with respect to wanting to smoke. So, either way he's conflicted and he acts on one of the conflicting ideas. And by acting on one of the conflicting ideas, he has hurt himself.
With respect to your hypothetical, if someone kills me, and I wanted to live, then he acted against my will -- he infringed on my freedom -- he infringed on my freedom to get and keep what I want. Furthermore, he hurt my kids. My kids want me to continue taking care of them. They are not independent yet. They are heavily dependent on me. So by killing me, the murderer has also hurt my children.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
has something to do with happiness/suffering. A guy named
logicophilosophicus presented his idea about it and he also
contradicted something I said about philosophy and that philosophy
applies to morality. We went back and forth a few times and he
appealed to authority (like obviousness) like 4 times in two replies.
In the first reply I chose to not criticize his appeal to authority
and instead I asked clarifying questions. So on his second reply of
appealing to authority I chose to address it head on because it was
clear to me that it is slowing down the discussion. Also I addressed
it head on because I realized that he disagrees with me on whether or
not philosophy applies to more than just the little thing he said it
applied to.
If you want to read the discussion from the beginning, see the below
link, and do a CNTR/CMD + F to search for logicophilosophicus.
http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/9575/P60
I disagreed about the purpose of philosophy - already indicated, hence obvious.
Appealing to obviousness is bad philosophy. What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to me. So what problem do you solve by stating that an idea is obvious (to you)?I think philosophy is about understanding self/humanity and the cosmos - understanding for its own sake, the pursuit of truth.
No. Philosophy is *much* more useful than that. Philosophy is about thinking better about *anything*. Humans are fallible -- we make mistakes -- none of us are perfect. This raises the question: What makes some people better than others with respect to having fewer mistaken ideas and making fewer mistakes? Philosophy.The hypothetical wirehead consumes a few millijoules of electrical energy at a cost of a few cents and dies in ecstasy; he ceases to be a burden on society. In principle, his extreme happiness has no negative effect on others.
No. A few cents *is not* zero. *Almost* zero cost means *almost* zero negative effect on others. So the negative effect is a non-zero effect. For your principle to be correct, the cost on others would have to be *exactly* zero.However, suppose that it does. Suppose that he causes a relatively small but significant amount of unhappiness to others. The "utilitarian calculus" suggests that his great ecstasy outweighs their minor misery.
The idea that choices are about weighing options is bad philosophy. We don't weigh options. In every single decision to be made, we guess options and criticize them. And we criticize the criticisms. The option left unrefuted is the moral option.Often people choose an option without first having refuted the rival options. This is bad philosophy.
But I am amazed that your moral assessment of the wirehead's action is limited to his effect on others. I think - and I believe most thinking people would agree -
Appealing to the authority of *your belief of what most thinking people would agree to* is bad philosophy. Truth is not determined by authority. What problem do you solve by appealing to authority? Do you think that I'll be persuaded of your idea because "most thinking people" believe that idea? Aren't we discussing so that we can discover the truth? Doesn't that mean also trying to persuade each other?My moral assessment is not limited to his effect on others. You have not heard my entire argument. And I can't deliver my entire argument until I understand your position.
that we can condemn his waste of a life and his sensualist motivation.
In your hypothetical, the wirehead's action might be immoral, but not for the reason you stated. If he hurts no one, then its not immoral. And so far, your hypothetical doesn't qualify whether or not anyone was hurt. So tell me, do the people that are paying for the wirehead's electricity *want* to pay for his electricity? If they want to, then they are not hurt. If they don't want to, then they are hurt. For example, if the government forces productive people to pay taxes, and then it uses that tax money to pay for the wirehead's electricity, then that is immoral. [See what I mean by *hurt* below.]A further example. Suppose, which is true, that we can kill someone in his sleep without causing him any distress. Suppose a man's death is the key to the great happiness of others (perhaps he is an aged billionaire with impatient heirs): does that make a murder moral? Or is there something more important than happiness at stake.
Killing someone against his will is immoral. But before I explain, lets get on the same page about what you and I mean by distress/hurt.I note that your idea of distress is based on physical pain. I define distress a different way. Its about mental pain, mental suffering, mental hurt, or just *hurt*. Hurt happens when someone does something they don't' want to do, or something is done to him that he doesn't want done to him. For example, say a guy wants to smoke a cigarette, but his kids are present and he doesn't want them to know that he smokes. So, if he smokes, then he gets what he wants with respect to wanting to smoke, but he doesn't get what he wants with respect to not wanting his kids to know that he smokes. And, if he instead doesn't smoke, then he gets what he wants with respect to not wanting his kids to know that he smokes, but he doesn't get what he wants with respect to wanting to smoke. So, either way he's conflicted and he acts on one of the conflicting ideas. And by acting on one of the conflicting ideas, he has hurt himself.
With respect to your hypothetical, if someone kills me, and I wanted to live, then he acted against my will -- he infringed on my freedom -- he infringed on my freedom to get and keep what I want. Furthermore, he hurt my kids. My kids want me to continue taking care of them. They are not independent yet. They are heavily dependent on me. So by killing me, the murderer has also hurt my children.
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com