Moderately Interesting Ethical Discussion

Because the thing is, is it better to do so and have the possibility of your friend rotting in jail for three years, or is it better to split the punishment, or is it better to just remain silent and hope your friend does the same? The point of this exercise is to show why the purely rational approach doesn't work. In pure rationality you are the centre, and it doesn't consider the ramifications of others, and their own ethical and moral approaches to a problem. In this case, you deal not only with your own ethical or moral quandaries, but with those of your partner in crime as well. You have to take into account his own ethical and moral systems. Will he withhold information and expect you to do the same? Will he speak up and rat you out? It, in a fairly banal way admittedly, shows why the purely rational approach does not work in day to day life.

The assumption that because "you are the center", as you put it, the effects your actions have on other people don't matter is a poor one. And since that's really the root of your objection, if it falls, your whole objection fails.

What if, as one of the prisoners, I cared enough about my partner in crime that I didn't want him to serve the maximum sentence? I would refuse to sell him out, risking longer jail time for myself, but nothing about that decision would escape the fact that I'm acting in a manner that creates the set of circumstances that I desire. It would only mean that I value that person more than an extra year of my own freedom. What I desire, what circumstances I wish to actualize, are not always what is best for me personally to the exclusion of anyone else.

Edit: I should add that I'm not in perfect agreement with rebelsquirrel here. Just for the sake of clarity.

Which is what the point of the whole thing was in the end. Thank you for making that obvious Mag.

I'd also like to point out that desire is not synonymous with self-serving action.

Vermillion_Hawk said:

Which is what the point of the whole thing was in the end. Thank you for making that obvious Mag.

I'd also like to point out that desire is not synonymous with self-serving action.

Click to expand...

Odd that we agree (especially the last sentence) but that I'm using that point to directly contradict your initial point, that "the rational approach" doesn't work. Because if every action is the result of our attempts to actualize desired outcomes (as demonstrated by the fact that what we desire is not always self serving), then our moral choices are dictated by these "rational oughts".

Magorian Aximand said:

Edit: I should add that I'm not in perfect agreement with rebelsquirrel here. Just for the sake of clarity.

Click to expand...

Just so were clear my "world view" as Mage called it is something I came up with yesterday and I just happen to a be a asshat who likes to argue on the internet. 

I'll PM you a link. It'll help.

Morality, and by extension ethics, are a human construct to ensure social growth and cohesion. We are a pack animal, and as such thrive off joint constructive enterprise. However, notions of right/wrong, good/evil, legal/illegal are all societal and cultural creations stemming from the context of the civilization in question. There's no objective "need" or "duty" to abide by these rules, aside from the basic fact that it's very hard for a human being to survive purely on its own, thus we clan together and establish rules most of us agree upon to make sure we can survive more easily.

To obey morality stems out of self-interest: give each member a set of rules that they feel good abiding by, and you have a stable group that can thrive. To refuse to abide by them is a far more selfish notion as it implies a conscious neglect of the greater good of your group as seen by the majority, and unless undertaken by a smart individual, will be seen as nothing more than petty criminality. Of course, as societies grew bigger and bigger, and with the influx of a greater number of ideologies, there is now a fixed set of right and wrongs which have been set in stone, with a central tenant of the value of man and the human life. At least in our society.

The prisoner's dilemma in its basic context is almost purely mathematical: each prisoner has three possible outcomes: 1 year, 2 years or 3 years in jail. There is no way, mathematically, to tip these odds in any one's favour. It is all to do with the particular person, how well they know each other. This then establishes a probability for each outcome: it is then assumed that whichever prisoner knows the other one best will have the upper hand in knowing these probabilities, and his decision to act upon this information then stems from his own "moral compass". That is to say, pure self-interest: rat him out and aim for the 1 year sentence, disregarding the other person's well-being, but ONLY if you're sure that he doesn't rat you out. If you believe the probability of that being greater than him testifying against you as well. Etc etc for the other possibilities.

This gets us no closer to the problem at hand, it's merely a little thought test, as it all hinges on the particular beliefs of each individual, which have to be stripped down to the bare bones to be computable, otherwise you just end up with a mess of data.

Mage246 said:

If I am in a blizzard and I give my coat away to a child of a stranger, is this not selfless and disinterested? Your facile interpretation of the words claims that simply the satisfaction of having lived up to my own worldview is a benefit. But this benefit is entirely outweighed by the fact that I will now suffer from the cold.

Click to expand...

Nope. You trade your comfort for the feeling of being better person, because you value the idea of it more than the coat itself. If you did not, you would not give your coat away.

Of course everything I do I do in self interest one way or another.

One another example you experience quite often, that is similar to Mage's example: referee in foil fencing decides you have won an action and gives you point. On the other hand you think (and lets say you are right) your opponent should be given said point. There is absolutely no reason to try to persuade the referee that he was wrong and your opponent was damaged by his decision. Why do you do it then? Selfnessness? No. You just do it because you want to perceive yourself as a moral person, someone ethically superior, and you demonstrate it to others (and not least, to yourself) by showing that you will gladly sacrifice the point or match or competition just for this image of yourself. Once again, if you would not care about your image, you would not shoot yourself into the foot. It is just about meassuring costs and profits.

I've always wondered about people who think that morality is merely herd instinct or something similar. Would they have no problems with genocide and widespread indiscriminate torture and torture for the sake of torture itself if it was part of our herd instinct and made us feel good? How in the world can you stand outside morality and ethics and make ethical judgements anyway when you can't escape making moral statements when you talk about morality and ethics int he first place?

BenKenobi said:

Nope. You trade your comfort for the feeling of being better person, because you value the idea of it more than the coat itself. If you did not, you would not give your coat away.

Of course everything I do I do in self interest one way or another.

One another example you experience quite often, that is similar to Mage's example: referee in foil fencing decides you have won an action and gives you point. On the other hand you think (and lets say you are right) your opponent should be given said point. There is absolutely no reason to try to persuade the referee that he was wrong and your opponent was damaged by his decision. Why do you do it then? Selfnessness? No. You just do it because you want to perceive yourself as a moral person, someone ethically superior, and you demonstrate it to others (and not least, to yourself) by showing that you will gladly sacrifice the point or match or competition just for this image of yourself. Once again, if you would not care about your image, you would not shoot yourself into the foot. It is just about meassuring costs and profits.

Click to expand...

Aren't you just changing the story that he has put forth to meet your own views? It's like someone telling you they would have been unequivocally far happier if they avoided doing the right thing, but they knew they would be in the ****s if it was done and they still did it, and you doubt them for no apparent reason other than to satisfy your own current views. Doubting someone's claims is not uncommon nor necessarily unjustified, but doubting the way they feel when they're the only ones who are privy to it themselves seems to be going a bit far.

And why not address his question directly: Are there absolutely no situations where someone would do what he or she thinks is right, yet can acquire no benefit from doing so even from self gratification? I believe it would be possible. Being gratified and doing the right thing need not be mutually exclusive in any case; that something is gratifying does not mean that it is any less right. Demonstrating that an action will reward the person in one way or another would be merely demonstrating that the right thing to do would also offer some benefit for the person doing it.

rebelsquirrell said:

Duh said:

Helping your group (through ethical behavior) increases its chance for survival and thereby also yours.

Click to expand...

Both of these are self interested.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. It is in ones interest to act in such a manner and if one is aware of that and the motivation for an action is this idea, then its a clear case of self interest. We should however also take into account that if the assumption - It is natural to be ethical, since evolution favored groups, which leaned towards such behavior - is true, we will be inclined to act in a moral manner regardless of awareness.

Are you saying that you are acting out of self interest, if you are unaware of the consequences of your actions?

Additionally it should be considered that altruism/ethics/morality may cause someone to sacrifice himself for others - which is not in his/her own base interest.

Swadius 2.0 said:

Are there absolutely no situations where someone would do what he or she thinks is right, yet can acquire no benefit from doing so even from self gratification?

Click to expand...

No.

The benefit is the mere feeling of doing the right thing. It is up to you whether you consider it more significant than other benefits of that decision. It is just a trade.

Duh said:

Additionally it should be considered that the altruism/ethical behavior/morality may cause someone to sacrifice himself for others - which is not in your own base interest.

Click to expand...

Or, even worse, torture in some cases. No amount of feel good gratification will balance that off.

BenKenobi said:

Swadius 2.0 said:

Are there absolutely no situations where someone would do what he or she thinks is right, yet can acquire no benefit from doing so even from self gratification?

Click to expand...

No.

The benefit is the mere feeling of doing the right thing. It is up to you whether you consider it more significant than other benefits of that decision. It is just a trade.

Click to expand...

So a good person would weigh whatever they think is goodness the heaviest. How does that not make them a good person? If they are not rewarded emotionally, nor physically, how are they selfish if they're only appealing to reason?

Swadius 2.0 said:

So a good person would weigh whatever they think is goodness the heaviest. How does that not make them a good person? If they are not rewarded emotionally, nor physically, how are they selfish if they're only appealing to reason?

Click to expand...

I haven't said a single time that it makes a man less "good" or anything. I said one always does things in self-interest.

Anyway, give me an example of a situation when you are not acting in your self-interest.

How about jumping on a grenade?

You can't apply the logic from the fencing example, as implying that a person is only killing himself to make the other soldiers think he's a cool dude would be silly.

I don't think proving to others how cool you are is the valuable part. Proving it to yourself is.

BenKenobi said:

Swadius 2.0 said:

So a good person would weigh whatever they think is goodness the heaviest. How does that not make them a good person? If they are not rewarded emotionally, nor physically, how are they selfish if they're only appealing to reason?

Click to expand...

I haven't said a single time that it makes a man less "good" or anything. I said one always does things in self-interest.

Anyway, give me an example of a situation when you are not acting in your self-interest.

Click to expand...

I escape prison and become a well meaning person with a fake identity. I then know about a poor sap is arrested because the authorities think he is me. If I turn myself in, I would be turning myself into an incredibly harsh and disproportionately punishing prison institution. Doing so would be the right thing to do anyway, even if there would be no emotional nor physical reward for it. In fact I know I will feel abjectly worse if I do.

On the other hand, I am walking down the deserted streets at night, and I see a piece of trash next to a garbage can. I pick it up and toss it in there. I feel no different than if I didn't, and I promptly forget about it later.

I really, really hate someone, and me killing this person would bring me an infinite amount of joy. I know I can do it without anyone knowing it was me, and I know most people wouldn't care about this person in any case, and I certainly know I won't feel bad about it, whatever the reasons. Yet, I don't do it, and my life is worse off because of it.

Also, there's the case of the anonymous and indifferent philanthropist.

BenKenobi said:

I don't think proving to others how cool you are is the valuable part. Proving it to yourself is.

Click to expand...

I think saying he jumped on a grenade just to prove himself is a little silly. Death does not override peer acceptance.

BenKenobi said:

I don't think proving to others how cool you are is the valuable part. Proving it to yourself is.

Click to expand...

No, you don't think 'Oh, I wonder if I'm totally selfless enough to jump on this grenade' you do it because you're trained to do it, you do it to save the lives of your squad.

Evolution (including social evolution) is all about competition. When a culture is evolving, its morals revolve around survival of the fittest and pushing forward, so it mostly lives by "eye for an eye" morals. When a culture is highly evolved and in decline, it is beneficial to maintain status quo. So "treat others like you want them to treat you" morals kick in. Of course there will be still some neanderthals around.
Just a random thought.

As to prison break example, I think that morals do not necessarily dictate your actions here. But they do dictate how you should feel about committing those actions and how others will deem them. Kind of a social construct that tells you what is a general consensus on accepted behaviour in a certain place at a certain time.

Swadius 2.0 said:

I escape prison and become a well meaning person with a fake identity. I then know about a poor sap is arrested because the authorities think he is me. If I turn myself in, I would be turning myself into an incredibly harsh and disproportionately punishing prison institution. Doing so would be the right thing to do anyway, even if there would be no emotional nor physical reward for it. In fact I know I will feel abjectly worse if I do.

I really, really hate someone, and me killing this person would bring me an infinite amount of joy. I know I can do it without anyone knowing it was me, and I know most people wouldn't care about this person in any case, and I certainly know I won't feel bad about it, whatever the reasons. Yet, I don't do it, and my life is worse off because of it.

Click to expand...

Jean Valjean received very obvious psychological benefits from these acts. He reaffirmed his new life paradigm and maintained psychological homeostasis. Otherwise his self-image would shatter and he'd descend into a severe depression.

Would you kindly bother to read what I have written?

In case you won't:

The benefit is the mere feeling of doing the right thing.

Click to expand...

All your examples are the same. As for first: you escape prison and you turn yourself back in to save the poor Edmond Dantes. Why? Firstly, lets assume you are moral person (otherwise you would let him rot in Chateau d'If forever). And because you care, you would feel bad yourself about the idea of an innocent person suffering in the dungeons and wouldnt be able to look yourself in the face. Secondly, you feel it is "the right thing to do" (by your morals that is, otherwise you would not even think about handing yourself in) and thus you personally want to do it. All in all, you just evaluate if all that is worth the punishment you will receive from the authorities.

Remaining two examples are similar.

You seem unable to accept that the fulfillment of your visions, shaping the world according to your morals and achieving your image of moral person is something that is benefiting you and that is in your own interest to do.

Swadius 2.0 said:

Also, there's the case of the anonymous and indifferent philanthropist.

Click to expand...

BenKenobi said:

I don't think proving to others how cool you are is the valuable part. Proving it to yourself is.

Click to expand...