Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality

No, not really. Not here, nor in the last thread I started. In fact, I find them both extremely obvious and pretty much universal. I emphatically agree. Personally, I would never have started this thread if not for the previous discussion where it originated. In order to give this thread a bit of substance, I tried to lean in this direction, yes. 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?

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. Of course, you must realize, that I have no respect for the opinion of anyone who thinks such a thing is un-respectable. 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"? 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. Almost? And where is your line drawn? Some arbitrary "enough people" level? Why is one person not "enough"?

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.

I would like to answer your questions, but I'm afraid I am unfamiliar with the scenario. 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. 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.

Oh, you probably just missed my Message 54. Not what I meant at all, and hopefully cleared up in Message 54. I admit that it's my mistake in using such an example, but the example still didn't show what I was attempting to describe. I made a mistake, that's all. No. Only given the power to do so, and the right situation in which to use one. Again, no. I would only slaughter 10s of thousands in order to save "the-society-I-live-in's freedoms" in the right situation. That is, if those 10s of thousands I'm about to slaughter are the same 10s of thousands bent on destroying "the-society-I-live-in's freedoms".

I would want to. I believe I said so in Message 54? Yes, here: However, you seem to want specifics for some reason, so here's a bit more in-depth. I'm not sure if I'd be physically capable. I have a hard time simply kissing my girlfriend-of-over-two-years if I don't read from her body language that she specifically "wants to be kissed" at that particular time. I'm just not very good at forcing myself on others, I may very well be simply incapable of raping anyone. In which case, I'm afraid the human race is done-for. And no, I'm not up for testing to find out Like how Catholic Scientist was saying. He said (in so many words) "I'd do anything in order to prevent the obliteration of the human species". I'd re-word it to "I'd do anything in order to prevent the obliteration of freedom for the human species". But, practically, they amount to the same thing. My raping of the girl may not specifically be for "the greater survival of the species" so much as "the greater freedom (to life) of the species". But it doesn't really make a difference.So, I still don't know where I stand on survival or freedom being my favoured purpose to social interaction. And it seems to me that the two become almost synonyms as we press the issue.

I think I would only be willing to sacrifice the whole species, if the freedom of the whole species was at stake. But, I can't really think of a situation where this would be so, and there wouldn't be a ton of other issues to consider (does the whole species agree on some ideal, for one). I agree already that survival on a species level is above freedom on an individual level. I just don't know if survival is above freedom. I know it isn't true for me personally (on an individual level) so my basis is simply extrapolating that onto a species level. (He) I just see no reason to switch sides if the only support so far is "I can't think of a reason why not".

Thanks, I'll check those out.I admit I'm more of a "free-lancing thinker", though. This is more of a hobby of mine rather than anything I tend to take super-seriously. I've never read any certified philosophy or taken any courses in such. Then again, maybe now's a good time to start In any case, thanks very much for the extra information.

Yes, I've already been through a few times how I screwed that up. It's not really what I meant to describe.

I tend to think better if I can relate to an actual scenario in order to understand a moral stance. What I'm trying to find out (in this current mini-side-track, anyway) is if species-survival is above, below, or equal to species-freedom.I think I'm starting to think they're equal. But that may just be the way I describe "survival".Survival, without freedom to make any decisions... isn't really much of a "life". Whether it's on an individual or species level doesn't seem to matter. I'm just incapable of thinking of an actual scenario to represent this thought-exercise.In generaly morality discussions can easily sound silly and useless. I tend to agree with the following quote:"Morality is the play-thing of the well-fed".Not sure where it's from, but it tends to hold a lot of truth, I find, anyway.Then again, as long as I'm full, why can't I play?

But... what is survival without freedom? Can we even answer that question? I suppose this is my main focus. Why would we sacrifice something (freedom) in order to gain something that isn't desireable in any way? In fact, it would be to gain something that is even abhorent in a lot of ways. I'm not so much avoiding admitting survival is more important, I just can't see how it is. I equated them, because it seemed that they honestly get equated at some point. That is, if we removed freedom to the point that we were all robots... would a "human" still exist? It seems honest to me to admit that the two are equal at some point. Sure I would, if I could safely assume they'ed want their life to be saved (and such a stance would be the "default"). Of course, the chaining would be temporary. I don't know what I'd do if it was "chain them down for the rest of their life" in order to keep them from dying. I mean, if we take "chain them down" to symbolize them being restricted from doing anything at all... I'm not so sure if the default stance is still to save their "life". What life do they have left if they can't do anything at all?In such situations, we can only make our best decision on what their likely thoughts would be. Would most of the species rather "live" in a vegetable state, never to be awakened, or die right away? I know I'd choose to die right away, as long as the possibility or hope of recovery is impossible. And that's the situation I'm talking about.If I knew they'ed rather die, then, of course, I would not chain them down. Similar to how I wouldn't hesitate to pull the plug on someone's breathing machine, if I knew that would be their wishes in such a scenario. No. If "ultimate freedom" would also mean "ultimate death", then it's not worth it. But given the choice between "zero freedom" and "ultimate death", I'd go with ultimate death, even on a species-level.
I mean, let's say you choose "zero freedom". No one's going to be happy or thank-ful about it, they're no longer free to feel that way. They're simply robots, waiting for the next input to perform the next task. With no hope, or possible exit from that state, ever.Maybe that last part wasn't clear. If we're saying "survival" is more important than "removing all freedoms, but maybe, one day, it's possible that we can get those freedoms back.." Then I agree that survival is more important. But, of course, this isn't removing all freedom. If it's removing all freedom, or surviving... I think that we should choose to die. This is a seperate question, not the one I'm looking into. I agree that "ultimate freedom" isn't worth our existance. And we should limit our freedom for our own protection, if such limits are necessary for that protection. But this says nothing for why we should choose to "survive" over being free.I still see the two as equal. If we choose to survive, but sacrifice all freedom... we're now robots, and I don't consider robots "alive" anyway, so we've lost the very thing we were trying to save.If we choose death. At least we retain our dignity, and end up with exactly the same result. I think you're assuming too much of me. I agree that safety precautions, being cautious, and a healthy dose of skepticism are good things. This, however, changes nothing with my stance that freedom (overall) is more important than survival (overall).Can you describe "surviving" without any freedom at all? And why it should be cosidered a good thing in any way? Perhaps if you could do that, I'd see why you think survival is more important.

I think I agree with this.In fact, I think we've really agreed this whole time. I admit that the scenario I'm thinking of in which freedom should be chosen over survival most likey doesn't exist in a practical sense. I don't see how anyone could "guarantee" that we would stay in a state of "zero freedom" forever. And, as long as we're alive, there's hope for recovery.I agree that in this practical sense, survival should be thought of as greater than freedom.But, well, theoretically, I still find freedom to be more important. And I've kinda been talking theoretically from the beginning of this thread I agree, on a practical level, as long as we can assume that no one can destroy any "hope" of freedom-recovery.I understand how the choice of human-species destruction is rather theoretical in itself. But I do admit that such a choice has a higher-chance of being a part of reality than "infinitely preventing all chance of freedom-recovery for all eternity" does.

I see.. not enough information.Do I have this right?Choice A:
-100 billion people die (within the current generation)
-unconditional surrender to the Dominion (within the current generation)But... what does the surrender entail? Becoming complete slaves? Or simply living under their social rules of conduct?
And how long does this last? Is there no chance, ever, of becoming free again?Choice B:
-surrender right away, save 100 billion lives (current generation)
-10 generations later, an uprising occurs and humanity forms even stronger than before and destroys the DominionBut, again, what does "surrender" entail? Are the terms slightly better in some way?Do I have the information correct?In general, I suppose we'ed have to know "how good" these Think Tank guys are. Are they ever wrong? Are they ever fooled? Can they possibly understand exactly how things are going to unfold... 10 generations into the future?But, the question is valid, I'll just make a few assumptions:1. The Think Tank is undisputable. For purposes of this scenario, they will be taken as perfect, absolute predictors of the future.
2. It will be assumed that losing to the Dominion in Choice A will entail complete slavery of the worst conditions, with absolutely no chance of ever being free again, for eternity.In this case, I'd easily opt for Choice B. I don't see how anyone couldn't. It's then simply the difference between choosing future freedom over the loss of eternal freedom.The two assumptions are key, of course. Any unknowns on either of those two assumptions would add to leaning towards Choice A over Choice B.

Yeah, I never really meant the scenario as realistic in anyway in the first place. In fact, any scenario I describe is always meant in an extreme "theoretical" fashion. That is, it's the ideal that's important to look at or try to understand, not the actual scenario in and of itself. Seems to me, that when we make stuff up, it's good to keep in mind that, well... we just made it up.Then again, I am thankful for the resulting dialect from that scenario. Although not exactly the way I wanted to go about it, it certainly did get me thinking through some un-thought-about situations, and therefore I learnt stuff.At the end, the most I can see is that freedom = survival as we remove more and more freedom. Which, to me, insinuates that freedom is greater than survival. Of course, there's much over-lap and likely plenty of difficult scenarios to think through. But my main first-thought on the matter (freedom is more important than survival) has remained unchanged.

Just wanted to say thanks for the links again, JavaMan.I've read over a bunch of the wikipedia articles, in addition:Utilitarianism - Wikipedia
(where all of the following quotes are taken).I agree with most points of Utilitarianism. But I do like the definition provided by this fellow. That is, instead of looking for "happiness", we're looking for: I agree that it should be the individual's personal preferences that should be followed by that individual rather than anyone's particular idea of happiness. Such an alternative isn't really what's intended by "happiness" in this context anyway, but Peter Singer's description seems to make it clearer.Which tends to bring up the simple problem of how to deal with sadists, or anyone who prefers to hurt others. The answer is rather obvious though, and comes from the very foundation of the principle itself. As I've attempted to say many times: That is to say, the governing principle is: And given such definitions, this seems to be the biggest misconception I run into: Which, of course, is ridiculous. And better clarified by: I'm still not thrilled with that wording, but the ideal I'm thinking of is nicely shown with the provided examples: The only problem now, is "measuring happiness". And, well, I'm not sure if that's empirically possible. And therefore must be confronted with nothing less than "the best use of our abilities to judge." But, if anyone has a moral system that doesn't run into this problem, or deals with it in better terms while still treating all people's subjective preferences equally, I'm certainly listening.I do plan on reading the online PDFs available for Mill's essays you brought up, but such reading will take me a while. Likely, this thread will be long forgotten by the time I'm through with those. But thanks again for pointing to the information. I'm not quite sure if I'm a utilitarian or not. Some of the objection-related "extreme case" scenarios from strictly following the principles seem very strange indeed. But I'm not sure if those scenario's come up from following the ideal of "letting people do what they want as long as they don't harm others", or if it's a bit of a straw-man extreme-ideal created by the objectors.In any case, the reading is very interesting to me, and I'm learning a great deal from it, thanks.