Rational Ethics: Rational Oughts vs. Deontology

[krustyegg]

Ethics man what a nightmare: the hardest discipline in the world!

Here a problem of description and edmarkcation.

Since it is very rarely clear what is good and what is not. So do you know what is good and what is not?

And another do you really know how to achieve it?

And another have you the will power, abilitiy/skill, resoucres to do what is good?

It seems to me there are no universals for ethics, they always depend on context.

[bhigr]

Psychological egoism. Happyness as ultimate goal. That doesn't contradict deontological ethics. If you think that your duties may be derived from your egoistic goals, only then do you contradict deontology. "A specific choice available to that person is efficient for satisfying the ultimate goal of happyness."

What if someones ultimate goal (happyness) is achieved by torturing someone (sadism), then you conclude that he "ought" to torture.... Rational or irrational? ;-)

[XOmniverse]

@bhigr I would deny that genuine happiness can be achieved through sadism. I would go even further to say that someone mentally sick to the point where, say, they gain joy from kidnapping people and torturing them is probably incapable of genuine happiness.

As far as duties, I claim no duties in my ethics. I say "You want to achieve happiness (not as a duty but as a matter of fact), and X Y and Z is the best means towards that end." Whether someone uses the advice is up to them.

[bhigr]

@XOmniverse Well some people are in fact sadists. They achieve happiness by cruelty to other people. This is a fact you cannot deny. So whose happiness counts more, the torturers happiness or the happiness of the tortured?

You "ethics" is simply egoism. Do what suits you best and makes you happy. Sounds good until desires collide.

One more remark. Kantian deontology is not based on authoritarianism. It is based on autonomy, which means self legislation.

[XOmniverse]

@bhigr "Well some people are in fact sadists. They achieve happiness by cruelty to other people. This is a fact you cannot deny."

I deny it. There's plenty of psychological research to back up my denial of it. You're conflating happiness with an immediate sense of pleasure or power, and you're also probably conflating a desire to do something with achieving happiness when one does that thing.

[bhigr]

@XOmniverse Where's your evidence? I am not conflating happiness. I am only telling you that some people find happiness and bliss in cruelty to others. If this is the case, then you must recommend that they be cruel to others because it is for them the best means towards happiness

[bhigr]

@XOmniverse Check out sadism and masochism on wikipedia. It will tell you that this does make some people happy. You cannot decide for someone else what makes him/her happy! You don't have an answer to this problem unless you think it is right for the sadist to torture for his pleasure and happiness. This follows from your doctrine of egoism.

[MstrirSage]

Is it safe for me to assume that you mean *positive* and not negative duties when you say "duty is an anti-concept"?

[XOmniverse]

No. I mean all duties.

Yes, this means I don't accept the non-aggression principle in a deontological sense.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

but, but you have to, Nihilists never used strawman and told us the truth.

[XOmniverse]

I have to what? Accept the non-aggression principle in a deontological sense?

[NeutrinoideReturns]

It was me trying, poorly, to use sarcasm

[danielsondanielson]

One more idea (rather a non-sexy one, as usual): maybe the predominant ethoses in the world regions with high population density and/or low resources per capita tend to be more collectivistic, based on duties and abundant with discipline, coercion and orders, whereas "national" ethoses in the US, Canada, Australia etc. tend to emphasize more individualistic values, individual happiness, freedom, competition between individuals etc. Simply populations' adjustments to regional circumstances. PF'10

[danielsondanielson]

Everything very nice, XOmniverse. But I also believe it's obvious, that various individuals' pursuits of happiness are often conflicting. Therefore, if I want to maximise my own happiness, I ought to act against interests of various other individuals, and I ought to prevent them from pursuing their own happiness. And in the world of conflicting pursuits of happiness, also imposing various duties on others or other coercion are quite natural courses of action of the strong, who oppress the weak.

[XOmniverse]

"Therefore, if I want to maximise my own happiness, I ought to act against interests of various other individuals"

How does that automatically follow?

[danielsondanielson]

Yes, you can say that if I have some pursuit that is in conflict with pursuits of others, I don't pursue my objective happiness, but something, what I "wrongly perceive" as my happiness. But in real world, I need a job, I need a decent pay, I need affordable goods, and that all is only possible, if many are refused to live and work in the country of my residence, if others get jobless because of me retaining my job, if Chinese or Indians are prevented from building pipelines to Mideast ec. etc.

[spiggitybap]

It just seemed like you were making a case against superior ideas, which would kind of be ridiculous lol. I was referring to 7:50+, and thanks for clarifying.

[truthadvocate]

Great video! What definition do you use for happiness?

[XOmniverse]

I think that topic alone is going to have to be a video unto itself, but roughly I would say happiness is a psychological state of satisfaction with one's life (including one's conception of the future of one's life).

[spiggitybap]

Does it follow from this analysis that anyone who thinks his statement (whether is or ought) to be true or superior is therefore wrong?

[XOmniverse]

No, I don't see how that follows.

[Sepero1]

01:53

As I understand it, the properly understood ethical nihilist position does not deny that morals or oughts exist. And it does not deny that an individual can have subjectively better or worse goals. And it does not deny that certain beliefs and actions will not have more utility for an individual than others.

So it appears to me that you are strawmanning the ethical nihilist position. :-\

abyssalstorm. ning. com/profiles/blogs/moral-nihil­ism-simplified

[XOmniverse]

Actually, all I said was that ethical nihilists deny that any ultimate end is inherently preferable to any other.

[Sepero1]

"Even the ethical nihilist who denies that any ultimate goal is better than any other, has drawn that conclusion due to some perceived utility of holding that belief... It is within this context that a rational conception of the terms ought and should can be formed"

Apologies. Perhaps it was my mistake. I interpreted the above as saying something like, "It would be contradictory for an ethical nihilist to value things of utility from which oughts can be derived", because this would be incorrect

[XOmniverse]

The ideology I was aiming at with this video was deontology moreso than nihilism.

[modelmark]

would the rational ought also encompass the statement of the suicidal

"if I want to kill myself, I ought to jump of a bridge"

how is happiness served?

Can 2 oughts for the same person contradict each other? Can there be invalid oughts?

[XOmniverse]

I think, in a psychologically confused away, even someone committing suicide is motivated by what they perceive will make them happy.

It's very important not to conflate someone's perception of what will make them happy (which is what they act on) with what will actually make them happy.

[modelmark]

@XOmniverse

and you would argue that what actually makes them happy is tied to the ought, right?

(not their perception) This would also be objective instead of subjective I guess?

[XOmniverse]

Yes, essentially.

[modelmark]

would it be immoral to smoke cigarettes?

[aaron0883]

i think when we hear someone exclaim "ohh boy! you are immoral" Or some other sort of exclamation of immorality they are usually using it in a controlling duty sense. Your comment seems to be trying to hold that implication. I would say that smoking cirgarettes would be as immoral as going a poor direction on a freeway ... However, this is very awkward to say because it doesn't translate well in most people's usage of the word morality. When talking in politics it might work a little better

[modelmark]

smoking cigarettes is objectively bad for you and harms your personal interest, so if you define morality along those lines, smoking cigarettes is immoral.

There seem to be some hesitation to call smoking cigarettes and going the poor direction on the freeway immoral.

You claim this has to do with the historical common use of the word morality.

That might be true and I won't say it is inconsistent, but it might also be because this definition of morality is very odd.

[stealthswimmer]

"harms your personal interest"

how? It increases risk of bodily harm, but there is an amount that people are willing to "pay" in terms of that risk for the extra enjoyment they get from smoking. There's a risk to crossing the street, but that we shouldn't do it at all. If someone weighs the risks against the benefit and sees the benefit as being higher, then they have reason to take that action. Sometimes they're right and sometimes not, but this risk is the "price" of the action.

[modelmark]

that line of reasoning makes nothing moral or immoral. If someone kills someone else, it is a balanced outcome of the pros and cons for his personal interested. If he then decides to murder it is somehow in his personal interest to do so and according to previous reasoning can be called moral. It is moral to murder.

[XOmniverse]

Is it GENUINELY in his best interest? Please stop conflating genuine self-interest and perceived self-interest.

[modelmark]

sorry, but I am debating with 2 people. One of them just declared that smoking was GENUINELY in his self interest, since his action to do so proved that on balance it was.

For you the question remains:is smoking a cigarette immoral?

[XOmniverse]

I would say it depends on the context but that habitually smoking is immoral in most cases, in that it is almost always not in someone's genuine self-interest to smoke regularly.

[stealthswimmer]

How often is "regularly"?

I sometimes have a cigar. After trying a few in the beginning to find what I liked, i now have one like once every month or two. Since it occurs at normal intervals, I think it could be considered "regular" but it's not like I'm doing it all that often. See? And "self-interest" has more to do than just health. Again, in this case, the risk of something bad happening from just once every other month is low, but I still get enjoyment, hence it's in my self-interest.

[modelmark]

clear, dropping a hammer on your toe is immoral, going out in the cold without wearing a scarf is immoral, etc.

If you eat peanuts, but are not yet aware you have an allergy, is it already immoral, or does the morality of eating peanuts for you change before and after you gain knowledge of your allergy?

[stealthswimmer]

Actually, my line of reasoning doesn't conflate self-interest with what is moral. I was simply saying that it is sometimes in your self-interest to take a risk if the payoff is higher and the chance of the "risk outcome" is low enough.

[modelmark]

but smoking is not such a risk?

[stealthswimmer]

Sure it is. When did I say it had no risk? Like I said, this risk is the "price" that you "pay" when smoking. If you smoke less often, the risk is lower and you still get some enjoyment. However, all smoking has a cost. In fact all actions have cost. Very few things are costless. Do you go into the grocery store and refuse to buy anything because it's not costless? Well maybe some folks do, lol, but most people pay for stuff to buy them. THe goal isn't to do what's costless, but what is net good

[stealthswimmer]

(continued)

by "net good" i was meaning what's good on net balance. There is risk with most things. The point isn't to do something unless there is NO risk at all, but people make choices based on cost-benefit analysis. If they feel the benefits outweigh the costs, they take the actions. Now maybe sometimes looking back on it and reassessing the situation they forgot to take something into account and so they were wrong...but you can't say it's "not in their best interest" before the action.

[modelmark]

I never claimed you should only do things when there is no risk at all. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean with moral and immoral. That you make a cost benefit analysis with everything you do is obvious.

If that analysis is the guideline for you morality, a murderer is also moral, since it came out of risk assessment as the best action for him to take.

If you take genuine objective self interest as a guideline, smoking is immoral, since it is objectively bad for your health.

[stealthswimmer]

ah ok. Yeah, I don't adhere to XOmniverse's system of morality. I was just arguing against you saying that smoking cigarettes is "objectively bad for you and harms your personal interest"

WIth "genuine" self-interest, you're simply making a nonsensical statement because you don't know what is "genuinely" in someone else's self-interest, and again, at low risk levels smoking CAN be in someone's personal self-interest.

Even in this "objective self-interest" stuff, smoking could still be done.

[modelmark]

this means that jumping in front of a onrushing train can also be in someone's genuine self interest, if his goal is to kill himself.

From my understanding of your viewpoint you would not call this action specifically moral. You just point out that everyone always does what he thinks gives him least pain or most pleasure. Is this knowledge in your viewpoint in any way related to morality?

[stealthswimmer]

"this means that jumping in front of a onrushing train can also be in someone's genuine self interest, if his goal is to kill himself."

Sure, even in XOmniverse's framework I think it's possible. Like if a person were in a situation where living meant being tortured forever until the day they died of old age or something and they knew there was no way of getting around this...and simply preferred dying, then it would be in their self-interest to die.

[modelmark]

but is that what you would call moral behavior? The principle for moral would then be 'whatever you have to do to reach a personal goal', goal=relief from torture, moral thing to do=kill your self

In that case if a person asks what he has to do to reach the goal of wealth, the moral thing could be to rob a bank.

goal=wealth, moral thing to do=rob a bank

[stealthswimmer]

No, what I call moral behavior is what fits in with the Non-Aggression principle, being honest, and not being a jerk(this part is obviously subjective).

And anyways, you're trying to derive an ought from an is...which you pretty much can't do. Will robbing a bank be the best way of obtaining wealth? I would say it's not because you could get shot or eventually get caught in some other way and lose it all, whereas if it were from voluntary transactions then you could sustain it more easily.

[modelmark]

can you show me where I derive an ought from an is?

I agree with the NAP being in line with morality, but disagree this always matches with rational self interest.

If someone would get away with robbing and stealing, like if Robert Mugabe dies of old age, he would have acted in his rational self interest, but he did not obey the NAP

[stealthswimmer]

"can you show me where i derive an ought from an is?"

Sure, no problem. Remember you said "In that case, if a person asks what he has to do to reach the goal of wealth" that's the is, "the moral thing could be to rob a bank" there's the ought.

[modelmark]

that is deriving an 'ought' from an 'if' and generally considered feasible.

'If you want to be healthy, then you have to eat vitamins.'

Can be a true statement.

[stealthswimmer]

maybe you're right, but way I see it that "if" is an assumption about an is because you're assuming that your prescription IS a way to achieve your goal, when that isn't always necessarily the case or there might be multiple ways of achieving your goal.

[modelmark]

sure there might be multiple oughts following an if, and people can be wrong (if you want to get healthy you ought to smoke) but if you believe in objective reality, than the way to get to an ought is an if.

what is your way to get to an ought?

[stealthswimmer]

same way you said, but i generally don't say "then you should do this one thing" because there are generally multiple ways to do things. I say "this is something you COULD do to achieve that goal" not necessarily "should"

;-)

[UnschoolingEagle]

Oh awesome video, makes me think though I agree with it... I wish I could show someone I knew this video... doubt they'd understand it.

[UcanbeGOD]

Everyone pursues their version of happiness and that pursuit is morality. So everyone is moral by default. Great!

[aaron0883]

I don't think i would agree with you there Ucan. To me that would be like saying everyone pursues their own version of health and therefore everyone by default is healthy. Everyone does pursue their own best perception of what would make them happy, but what people often perceive will make make them happy often does not make them happy. Therefore Happiness can be studied and understood by understanding an individual's nature better. This would be the study of morality/ethics in this framework

[UcanbeGOD]

That is a very tricky science. Not only is it impossible to pin down objectively even for one person because we change so often but its also relative to a persons situation. There have been studies that show a person who is not physically disabled equating misery to that but a person who is equating contentment and happiness to it. And I fail to see how the pursuit of happiness is ehtics just because we all like it in some fashion.

[aaron0883]

It can be 'tricky science', but there are plenty of ways to address it. In fact, discovering the ways to address it is a huge philosophical question. The fact that situations can differ does not invalidate the study of happiness anymore than it invalidates nutrition. Some people would be healthier eater Rice in a moment, and some would be healthier eating hamburgers. that doesn't mean what nutritionists say it irrelevant. to answer the last part I suggest finding the flaw in Shawn's first 3 vids

[UcanbeGOD]

This begs allot of quesitons

What makes an immoral person?

What is the point of said morality, does it really matter?

What function does it provide when its still so subjective?

Shawn as in Reign or radness or d4shawn?

[aaron0883]

Shawn as in XOmniverse. his first 3 rational ethics videos. I think you are asking questions that would have more context after watching those videos.

[UcanbeGOD]

Ahh ok, i will go back to those vids but I am still not convinced.

[aaron0883]

great video

[MaikUniversum]

more more videos like this :)