Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 61 of 85 (417508)
08-21-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Stile
08-21-2007 8:48 AM


Re: Just an uneducated Canadian boy
Rather than explain US history (which is WAY off topic), allow me to summarize.
You, given the power to do so, would use a nuclear weapon?
That is, in order to save "the-society-I-live-in's freedoms", you would slaughter 10s of thousands?
But. Given the opportunity between saving humankind OR raping a girl, you would choose to wipe the whole of humanity from the face of the earth?
Murder by nuclear holocaust, not so bad. Rape, oooo icky.
Is that about right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 08-21-2007 8:48 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Stile, posted 08-21-2007 1:15 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 62 of 85 (417509)
08-21-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by JavaMan
08-21-2007 12:17 PM


Re: Morality is a feature of human nature
I've gone over the Pinker thing upthread. To go into any further detail would be taking this thread off topic.
If you would like to start a new thread, I'll join you there.
(PS -- Since 1991.)
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by JavaMan, posted 08-21-2007 12:17 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 63 of 85 (417512)
08-21-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by molbiogirl
08-21-2007 12:40 PM


See Message 54 for Clarification
Oh, you probably just missed my Message 54.
Murder by nuclear holocaust, not so bad. Rape, oooo icky.
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.
You, given the power to do so, would use a nuclear weapon?
No. Only given the power to do so, and the right situation in which to use one.
That is, in order to save "the-society-I-live-in's freedoms", you would slaughter 10s of thousands?
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by molbiogirl, posted 08-21-2007 12:40 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by molbiogirl, posted 08-21-2007 1:24 PM Stile has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 64 of 85 (417513)
08-21-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Stile
08-21-2007 1:15 PM


Re: See Message 54 for Clarification
So you would rape a child in order to save humanity "in the right situation"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Stile, posted 08-21-2007 1:15 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-21-2007 2:01 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 66 by Stile, posted 08-21-2007 2:53 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 85 (417517)
08-21-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by molbiogirl
08-21-2007 1:24 PM


Re: See Message 54 for Clarification
So you would rape a child in order to save humanity "in the right situation"?
lol, the questions that come up in these forums
Out of context, that's a real doosey
But, I think I might understand now what Stile was trying to say in that for all of us, there's at least something that we would not do to maintain survival, either of ourselves or our species.
He just had a bad example with the child-raping (in more ways than one).
WRT my own survival, I can think of many things that I would die for. But for the whole species I cannot. That is, I can't think of anthing worth sacrificing the whole species for.
WRT the topic:
I would also say that maximizing freedom would be immoral if the cost was the survival of our species. So, its clear to me that survival is above freedom, but I think Stile might be having trouble admitting it. And from our previous conversations (Stile and mine's), s/he will probably put more effort into maintaining the original position than learning or exploring the other "options". No direspect to Stile, I think its just the naure of the "debate" function of the board, and that.....well forget it, I'm just rambling now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by molbiogirl, posted 08-21-2007 1:24 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 08-23-2007 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 66 of 85 (417520)
08-21-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by molbiogirl
08-21-2007 1:24 PM


Re: See Message 54 for Clarification
So you would rape a child in order to save humanity "in the right situation"?
I would want to. I believe I said so in Message 54? Yes, here:
Stile, Message 54 writes:
I admit that scenario wasn't any good, and that I would choose survival over freedom there.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by molbiogirl, posted 08-21-2007 1:24 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 67 of 85 (417570)
08-23-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
08-16-2007 4:57 PM


John Stuart Mill
As your last two topics have been entitled:
Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
and
Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality
I think you might find it useful to read a couple of essays by John Stuart Mill called Utilitarianism and On Liberty (if you haven't already). I think you'll find them enlightening (and give you some additional ammunition in these debates ).
The first link below is the Wikipedia article on John Stuart Mill; the second is the article on his essay Utilitarianism; and the third the article on On Liberty. The latter two have links to electronic copies of the essays.
John Stuart Mill - Wikipedia
Utilitarianism (book) - Wikipedia
On Liberty - Wikipedia

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 08-16-2007 4:57 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 08-23-2007 1:07 PM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 85 by Stile, posted 08-29-2007 11:13 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 68 of 85 (417576)
08-23-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Stile
08-20-2007 11:35 AM


Re: Probably more of a range
Stile:
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.
Not much freedom in this picture at all. To begin with, your own choices are ridiculously restricted in this hypothetical scenario. Even at that, you say you would choose to sentence the maximum possible number of innocent people to death without any of them having a say in the matter. That's not freedom for anybody. Yourself, maybe. A little. It's holocaust for everyone else.
I'm interested in hearing you explain why you find it morally preferable to kill that same ten-year-old girl, along with a few billion other people.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Stile, posted 08-20-2007 11:35 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Stile, posted 08-23-2007 1:10 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 69 of 85 (417602)
08-23-2007 12:35 PM


Has it occured to anyone here that you guys are asking bullshit questions to try to corner someone into a moral trap?
Rape a child... kill billions of people... seriously... these questions don't deserve any answer at all. The question "why are unicorns pink?" although also a bullshit question, is less a bullshit question that what you people are asking.
If these bullshit questions are treated with the same seriousness as the real questions, you can use these bullshit questions to invalidate anyone's moral stance. Ask Bush if he would rape a 10 year old Muslim girl to save America. Ask Bush if he would kill the billion plus Muslims in the world to save America's freedom. Ask the pope if he would rape a 10 year old christian girl to save the Catholic church.
Seriously, folks, these are bullshit questions. Stop treating them like they're some kind of valid moral questions.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2007 12:55 PM Taz has replied
 Message 74 by Stile, posted 08-23-2007 1:18 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 81 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-26-2007 3:38 AM Taz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 85 (417610)
08-23-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taz
08-23-2007 12:35 PM


Damn, who shit on your pancakes?
You want some cheese with that whine?
Does somebody need a tissue?
Has it occured to anyone here that you guys are asking bullshit questions to try to corner someone into a moral trap?
Someone set up their own trap by making objective statements about freedom and morallity and survival. They were the one who bought up the child raping and lots of people dying. We are not asking the admittedly bullshit questions to try to trap them, they brought the scenario up themselves.
Seriously, folks, these are bullshit questions. Stop treating them like they're some kind of valid moral questions.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we could type about whatever the hell we felt like typing about and treat them however we want. I also thought that if you don't like a thread that we aremaking, then you can just shut the hell up and stay out of it.
I mean, damn... Must you bitch?
Because you do it a lot...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 08-23-2007 12:35 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Taz, posted 08-23-2007 2:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 71 of 85 (417611)
08-23-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
08-21-2007 2:01 PM


Context is key
Catholic Scientist writes:
WRT my own survival, I can think of many things that I would die for. But for the whole species I cannot. That is, I can't think of anthing worth sacrificing the whole species for.
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).
So, its clear to me that survival is above freedom, but I think Stile might be having trouble admitting it.
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.
s/he will probably put more effort into maintaining the original position than learning or exploring the other "options".
(He)
I can think of many things that I would die for. But for the whole species I cannot. That is, I can't think of anthing worth sacrificing the whole species for.
I just see no reason to switch sides if the only support so far is "I can't think of a reason why not".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-21-2007 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 72 of 85 (417612)
08-23-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by JavaMan
08-23-2007 9:11 AM


Re: John Stuart Mill
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by JavaMan, posted 08-23-2007 9:11 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 73 of 85 (417613)
08-23-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Archer Opteryx
08-23-2007 10:05 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-23-2007 10:05 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 74 of 85 (417617)
08-23-2007 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taz
08-23-2007 12:35 PM


Playtime
Tazmanian Devil writes:
Stop treating them like they're some kind of valid moral questions.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 08-23-2007 12:35 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2007 1:50 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 85 (417623)
08-23-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Stile
08-23-2007 1:18 PM


Re: Playtime
Survival, without freedom to make any decisions... isn't really much of a "life".
Although it isn't much of a life, I think we'd find that even in the most dire circumstances, the will to survive would outweight the desire for freedom, for most people.
I can see how, ideally, freedom should be as important as survival but, in practicality, survival is more important.
So, when discussing how freedom should be the goal of morality, we should keep in mind that survival is technically the ultimate goal. With that as an understood (or given) implication, then I think I can agree with your opinion that maximizing freedom should be at the top of the list for morality.
We just can't really put anything above survival, and with that understood we could just not mention it on the list, as it is always on every list. So now what's on the top of the list? I think you're right that it should be maximizing freedom.
That's a pretty good ideal.
ABE:
Upon further thought, I noticed that you have avoided admitting that survival is more important than freedom by equating them.
That's interesting. Does it have to do with your liberal nature and and unwillingness to sacrifice freedom?
Would you not chain someone down to save their life?
Would you continue to liberalize our society if you thought it meant our doom?
With survival and freedom being equal, you don't have to choose between them. But what if we are hurting ourselves by becoming too free?
Should we not keep our freedom limited for our own protection?
I would think that a liberal would not want to limit freedom and would not think that freedom could hurt us. And given the hypothetical situation where freedom is assumed to hurt survival, you have equated them and avoided the conundrum.
I think that survival is more important than freedom. I think too much freedom can hurt our survival and that changes in our freedoms should be met with resistance to avoid potential damage. I also think that some of the items in the "libreal agenda" could be harmful to our society. Ultimately, they will probably be acheived but I think we should take our time with them. The resistance is good.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : See ABE:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Stile, posted 08-23-2007 1:18 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Stile, posted 08-24-2007 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 79 by Stile, posted 08-24-2007 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024