|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is a life in servitude worth living? What, you'd just off yourself if you were born a slave? Seeing that slaves survived, it seems that life in servitude was worth at least living.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Must be done? Why?
Morality's goal should be the survival of the human species.If restricting individual freedom is necessary for our survival as a species, then it must be done. "Must" as in should. Or like: we gotta do what we gotta do. If restricting individual freedom is what we gotta do to survive, then we gotta do it. Or "hafta", or must. You know what I'm saying? Don't you agree that our survival should be the goal of morality more than individual freedom?
But still, why must it be done? Are you saying it's impossible for anyone to place anything above the human civilization? Impossible? I don't really know, but I'm going to go ahead and say "yeah". The survival of our species is at the top of the list.
If protecting individual freedom was going to cause the end of our species (or maybe if it was just going to lower the chance of survival) then it wouldn't be the moral thing to do.
Depends on how you define moral In that context, moral == good.
I define "moral" to be based on the reaction of the person acted upon. Sometimes your not acting on just a person and sometimes you don't receive the reaction of the person(s), so while you would be unable to "know" the morality of the action, yourself, that doesn't mean threre is not some objective morality to your action. So, your definition doesn't cover all the bases.
I can't think of a scenario where "the human race" would actually want to go extinct, but... that doesn't make such a seemingly-strange thing impossible. So what?
There is a higher goal than freedom. I'm not sure I would place "survival of the human species" above freedom. We certainly can't be free if we don't exist.
is existing most important? Is existing enough if it isn't free? Yes and yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
yes ok ..).. but the retina is still doing the same "job" is morality ?...... Well yeah
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
What, you'd just off yourself if you were born a slave? Probably not. But that wasn't my point. I was saying that perhaps someone would. That is, sure, maybe survival is above freedom as far as you and I are concerned. That's my point, that such goals or purposes are chosen by the individual.
If restricting individual freedom is what we gotta do to survive, then we gotta do it. Or "hafta", or must. You know what I'm saying? Yes, I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is that someone might think they don't "hafta" do it. It's possible that someone may rather die than be enslaved.
Catholic Scientist writes: Stile writes:
So what? I can't think of a scenario where "the human race" would actually want to go extinct, but... that doesn't make such a seemingly-strange thing impossible. Because, if I could think of a scenario, then it would be moral to exterminate the species... in that scenario.
We certainly can't be free if we don't exist. Agreed. And if existance is guaranteed slavery, I'm not so sure that everyone would agree that living is better than non-existance. My point is that our goals are chosen, and if we choose certain goals, we should remain consistant with them. If you want me to agree that "surviving" is above "freedom" for me personally, then I agree. I had not thought about actually surviving, and had assumed that I wasn't going to get into a situation where I had to make the choice (which is most likely in our current society). But if you want me to agree that everyone puts "surviving" above "freedom", well, I won't agree to that. I wouldn't even agree that everyone puts 'anything specific' at the top. People are different, and I have yet to find anything that all people agree on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was saying that perhaps someone would. Sure, perhaps.
That is, sure, maybe survival is above freedom as far as you and I are concerned. That's my point, that such goals or purposes are chosen by the individual.
That's a pretty weak and obvious point. Aren't we discussion our opinions on what the goal of morality should be?
If restricting individual freedom is what we gotta do to survive, then we gotta do it. Or "hafta", or must. You know what I'm saying? Yes, I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is that someone might think they don't "hafta" do it. It's possible that someone may rather die than be enslaved.
Yes, its possible that someone would, but: By "We" I meant us as a species. If an individual would rather be dead than be a slave, we as a species would still have to do what we had to do to survive, as a species, regardless of that individual.
It's possible that someone may rather die than be enslaved.
Sure, its possible and highly probable but that still doesn't really matter that much to our species as a whole.
My point is that our goals are chosen, and if we choose certain goals, we should remain consistant with them. Okey-dokey.
But if you want me to agree that everyone puts "surviving" above "freedom", well, I won't agree to that. I wouldn't even agree that everyone puts 'anything specific' at the top. People are different, and I have yet to find anything that all people agree on.
So basically you really didn't say much of anything at all. Do you still think that freedom should be the ultimate goal of morality or do you now realize that it is more important that we survive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So basically you really didn't say much of anything at all. No, not really. Not here, nor in the last thread I started. In fact, I find them both extremely obvious and pretty much universal.
Catholic Scientist writes: Stile writes:
That's a pretty weak and obvious point. That is, sure, maybe survival is above freedom as far as you and I are concerned. That's my point, that such goals or purposes are chosen by the individual. I emphatically agree. Personally, I would never have started this thread if not for the previous discussion where it originated.
Aren't we discussing our opinions on what the goal of morality should be? In order to give this thread a bit of substance, I tried to lean in this direction, yes.
Do you still think that freedom should be the ultimate goal of morality or do you now realize that it is more important that we survive? I don't know. I do know that I would tend to think that survival would be most important. But, also, I consider this situation: If I ended up in a free-rolling train-car with no brakes and had to choose left or right with the following consequences: Left = Total anihilation of the human race (and let's add in most primates just to be clear of the intention here). Right = I must personally rape a 10 year old girl. I'd go left. Call it selfishness, or stupidity, or whatever you'd like, but that's what I'd do. And in this situation, I'm putting freedom over survival. Of course, change "I must personally rape a 10 year old girl" to "I must personally force 10 strangers to watch the first 4 seasons of American Idol", and I'll choose survival over freedom. (Even though it's very evil ) And it's not my own actions either. We can change it to "some unknown man rapes some unknown woman" and I'd still go left at this time. So, what does this mean? Maybe it's not so much clearly one-over-the-other (for me, anyway). But more of an overlap-of-ranges, with ultimate-survivability being more important than most freedoms except for ultimate-freedom. Maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If I ended up in a free-rolling train-car with no brakes and had to choose left or right with the following consequences: Left = Total anihilation of the human race (and let's add in most primates just to be clear of the intention here). Right = I must personally rape a 10 year old girl. I'd go left. Call it selfishness, or stupidity, or whatever you'd like, but that's what I'd do. And in this situation, I'm putting freedom over survival. Wow! That's insane. You'd let the entire human species die instead of you doing something you'd be unconfortable doing. That's utterly reprehensable and deserving of no repect whatsoever. I would make almost any sacrifice necessary, including my own life, if it meant the survival of our species. Hell, I'd do it for a relatively low number of people. Shame on you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
You'd let the entire human species die instead of you doing something you'd be unconfortable doing. Like I said, it's not about me. If it was "I must get raped", then I'd get raped. If it's "someone else must get raped", then no, I wouldn't do it.
That's utterly reprehensable and deserving of no repect whatsoever. Of course, you must realize, that I have no respect for the opinion of anyone who thinks such a thing is un-respectable.
Hell, I'd do it for a relatively low number of people.
Oh? So there's some level of freedom for you, too, that's above total anihilation of the species? How many? 5 billion? 450 million? seven? Why is any "worth it"?
Shame on you. Yes, your words and disgust for me really mean nothing. If you can give me a reason why it's bad, then you have something to stand on.
I would make almost any sacrifice necessary... Almost? And where is your line drawn? Some arbitrary "enough people" level? Why is one person not "enough"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh? So there's some level of freedom for you, too, that's above total anihilation of the species? No, there's not.
If you can give me a reason why it's bad, then you have something to stand on. I can't believe you need a reason why it's bad to let our species die and/or why its bad that you wouldn't do something insignificant to save our species.
I would make almost any sacrifice necessary... Almost? And where is your line drawn?
I can't think of a line that I'd draw. I only put the "almost" in there because I can't conceive of everything. Anything I can think of I would do to save our species.
Some arbitrary "enough people" level? Why is one person not "enough"? Some sacrifices would be enough for one person, some would not. Its all relative and hypothetic though. I can't believe someone who types about doing good just because it is the right thing to do would not make a large sacrifice to ensure the survival of our species. The hypocricy is making me sick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I can't believe you need a reason why it's bad to let our species die and/or why its bad that you wouldn't do something insignificant to save our species. Maybe the one person's freedom verses species survival was over-zealous. I mean, I would choose to have 1 person die rather than the entire species... so is 1 person getting raped that much more different? I'm getting confused in my own overlapping of freedom and survival. I still put freedom above survival, though, I think. I was trying to come up with an example to show the removal of "ultimate freedom"... rape was the first thing to come to mind. I think that was a mistake, though. Or maybe I even started comparing things on the wrong level in the first place. I was talking about individual freedom, and then I compared that with the species' survival. Maybe such a comparison is simply un-called for. Maybe the comparison should be individual freedom vs. individual survival and a seperate comparison for species freedom vs. species survival? I may have jumped the gun on the single-individual's freedom being more important than everyone else's survival (freedom to survive?). Yes, I'm pretty sure I have, now that you've forced me to think through it. I admit that scenario wasn't any good, and that I would choose survival over freedom there. I was using a bad example to try and portray what I'm thinking. What I'm thinking is still there, it just wasn't described by that scenario. Say it's the choice between human's becoming non-existant and humans never again being able to have a single freedom. That is, we'ed all be forced to do the same thing, every day. Not even choosing to put on your left or right sock on first. This is what I'm thinking about... remove that freedom, and what do you have? Is it even human anymore? I guess you could argue that removing such an all-encompasing freedom is removing our survival... maybe that's what I'm arguing But I still think a scenario exists where I would choose freedom over survival. Or, maybe, I'm only thinking of the scenario where the removal of freedom is the removal of survival. They seem to get kind of similar at a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Oh? So there's some level of freedom for you, too, that's above total anihilation of the species? How many? 5 billion? 450 million? seven? Why is any "worth it"? Harry Truman was responsible for the deaths of ten of thousands of civilians (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Had you been in his position during WWII, I'm assuming you wouldn't have pushed the red button. Would you have entered the war (if you were in FDR's position)? After all, you would have been sending thousands of young men to their deaths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I would like to answer your questions, but I'm afraid I am unfamiliar with the scenario.
molbiogirl writes: Harry Truman was responsible for the deaths of ten of thousands of civilians (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Had you been in his position during WWII, I'm assuming you wouldn't have pushed the red button. I don't know. What position was "his position"? Firing nuclear bombs? I do think nuclear force (and even greater force, if necessary) has it's place. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a situation where I'd use it before in history. In order to answer this to your satisfaction, I'd need to know what you think "his position" was, though.
Would you have entered the war (if you were in FDR's position)? After all, you would have been sending thousands of young men to their deaths. Again, I don't know. What was "FDR's position" according to you? I'm not against fighting, and even dying. Of course, I'd only do so "for the right reasons". That is, if someone wants to forcibly take away the-society-I-live-in's freedoms. However, I would not send thousands of young men (or anyone) do die for me, unless I was convinced that they agreed with my position. And in most cases, it would be to die with me (I'd be going along). Unless I was somehow the military genious behind our assult. But I'd guess there'd be much more qualified people for that job. I hope that answers what you're trying to ask without me even knowing the specifics of the situations you're asking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4493 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
arrh but its not insane if you have a moral stand point , that you consider absolute ..
you would 1 never comit the moral crime , and 2 you would always oppose anyone that tried to make you as imoral as them ,. the question becoems .. will you scarfice you own life( or the life you consider worth living ) AND commit the crime .. .it the choice betwwen "me" and the rest of the world .. and it can be take further .."thinks"... what would the world be like if i did the crime and saved it if is now a place of moral corruption .. cos if i can be perverted so can the rest of the world , better it end now than be a world of "evil". want an example ... The whole cold war MAD policy was based on i will destroy the planet rather than let you win .......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4493 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
Harry Truman choice was based uponn the fact that he was in the middle of a war , over the upcoming weeks there WAS going to be mass deaths .. he picked a route to keep the total number lower and save lives on his side .., and yes there where also other issues ..
often forgtten fact is the nuke bombs killed less people that the fire bombing raids .. Truman was already killing 10 of 1000s each night . FDR had war declared upon the USA by Japan ... he went to war with German and Italy as he had no choice once he was at war with Japan . Remember that Japan was a Axis ally ... and yes a ton of other issue as well .. War are never simple issues and morality plays little part in the reasoning .... A interesting one is .. why does the UN wait until a regional conflict reaches the level of death to qualifies as genocide before it demands troops go in to stop the conflict , ....is one or 10 or 100 death not enough must it reach a majic number to trigger a moral outrage ? ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
Evolution has endowed us with an innate moral sense I think you're claiming too much here. All your quotation from Pinker claims is that evolution has endowed us with certain characteristics that are essential to forming a moral sense. But gaining a moral sense requires more than that. Just as we aren't born able to understand and speak language, we aren't born with a moral sense - if we grow up isolated from other people during our formative years we aren't capable of acquiring either skill. By the way, I'm impressed that Laurie Anderson is a friend of yours. How long have you known her? 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
But on what basis can you declare what morality itself 'should' do? Maybe I'm being stupid, but isn't that what moral philosophy is all about? Surely as soon as you start to question the moral code you've been brought up with, your first step has to be to understand what morality is really about, and that means not just observing what it is, but also what it should be. 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024