View Full Version : Foundation for law
Hello. I was thinking this morning as I rode the bus on Western jurisprudence and in specific the contradiction with illegal marijuana and legal alcohol. That is NOT what I wish to discuss. Imagine, if you will, you and 1000 people are stranded on a deserted planet and must form a society. How would you decide what is and isn't legal, or what should and shouldn't be legal. Please, if you can, avoid mindless thinking like "x is bad because it's wrong". Think less along the lines or your social conditioning and more along the lines of what is the purpose behind your legal system.
I will go first. One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.
jthegreat
12-14-2005, 01:04 PM
You have to start with the definition of "rights". Then design laws to protect those rights.
MelchyBeau
12-14-2005, 01:23 PM
I think we can stop with your one fundamental rule.
Melch
So law's primary purpose should be the defense of rights?
[ QUOTE ]
Please, if you can, avoid mindless thinking like "x is bad because it's wrong".
...
I will go first. One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Define "hurt".
I think the purpose of the laws should be to maximize the happiness of the society. Hopefully the people on the island are nice, and like other people to be happy -- that will allow the rules to be minimal, and the happiness maximized. Otherwise, there will be a lot of rules, and everyone will suffer for it.
The minimal rule for me would be: act compassionately.
Should we kill people who are unhappy?
[ QUOTE ]
Should we kill people who are unhappy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Only if they want us to. And even then, not always.
[ QUOTE ]
One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Should those who punish others be punished for hurting the people they punished?
Kurn, son of Mogh
12-14-2005, 03:01 PM
Unless this hypothetical planet has food, water and shelter in relative abundance, intiially at least, all law should be ad hoc. I'd say the 1000 people have more to worry about than a system of jurisprudence.
Peter666
12-14-2005, 03:04 PM
The foundation for laws in a society are Natural law and Ethics.
bearly
12-14-2005, 03:31 PM
i know, chez et al have warned me of the futility of my habits of mind, but, i must try. could you tighten this up a lot? describe the nature of the people and the nature of the island, in some detail. you don't even say that they have a written language, a sense of guilt or shame as we know it. are they all what we would call 'sociopaths'? oh boy..............b
Should who they are change their legal system? Why?
tylerdurden
12-14-2005, 03:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How would you decide what is and isn't legal, or what should and shouldn't be legal.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't kill.
Don't steal.
That's all you need.
Avoid legalism at all costs. Law should come only after people show they cannot act virtuously by their own admission.
tylerdurden
12-14-2005, 05:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.
[/ QUOTE ]
How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?
TomCollins
12-14-2005, 05:26 PM
Define hurt others.
If you are a buggy whip manufacturer, and I invent the car, I hurt you pretty badly. Should there be a law against this sort of thing?
[ QUOTE ]
Define hurt others.
If you are a buggy whip manufacturer, and I invent the car, I hurt you pretty badly. Should there be a law against this sort of thing?
[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent point. (And no :P)
You're missing the essence of law, which is the answer to the question: why punish those who hurt others?
bearly
12-14-2005, 05:56 PM
oh good grief....do you need to be spoon fed?.............b
Alas, I was not born knowing all the answers to all the questions of the world. I guess I'm happy for that on second thought.
bearly
12-14-2005, 08:29 PM
ok, despite your fatuous remark, let's make a start. do you understand the concept of "possible worlds"? this is, in critical thinking, what models are to those in the engineering and related fields. make a "possible world" out of your planet and maybe we might get a hint of what you are on about. also , the parrying, a question for a question etc. might be a good device for litigators. in spculative thought it is mainly an evasion. i gave you something besides a question, what have you for us..............b
eviljeff
12-14-2005, 08:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think a better fundamental rule would be that laws should minimize the harm done.
ex. There are 3 people left on the island, you, B, and C. B and you are close and get along famously. B hates C and kills C. punish B? why?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.
[/ QUOTE ]
How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't killing the theft of someone's life?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please, if you can, avoid mindless thinking like "x is bad because it's wrong".
...
I will go first. One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Define "hurt".
I think the purpose of the laws should be to maximize the happiness of the society. Hopefully the people on the island are nice, and like other people to be happy -- that will allow the rules to be minimal, and the happiness maximized. Otherwise, there will be a lot of rules, and everyone will suffer for it.
The minimal rule for me would be: act compassionately.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're required by law to act compassionately? This sounds like the worst basis for a legal system of all time.
Borodog
12-14-2005, 11:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.
[/ QUOTE ]
How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't killing the theft of someone's life?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. So essentially:
Don't Steal.
That's all you need. Which just makes it bleedingly obvious that all rights are property rights.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.
[/ QUOTE ]
How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't killing the theft of someone's life?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. So essentially:
Don't Steal.
That's all you need. Which just makes it bleedingly obvious that all rights are property rights.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
You're required by law to act compassionately? This sounds like the worst basis for a legal system of all time.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm an idealist. Like I said, that would maximize happiness, if people liked other people to be happy. But, there are some jerks out there that get their kicks by hurting other people. So, more rules... and more suffering.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think a better fundamental rule would be that laws should minimize the harm done.
ex. There are 3 people left on the island, you, B, and C. B and you are close and get along famously. B hates C and kills C. punish B? why?
[/ QUOTE ]
This makes much more sense than my initial suggestion.
tylerdurden
12-15-2005, 01:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.
[/ QUOTE ]
How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't killing the theft of someone's life?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I thought it would sound more credible if I had two.
tylerdurden
12-15-2005, 02:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're required by law to act compassionately? This sounds like the worst basis for a legal system of all time.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm an idealist. Like I said, that would maximize happiness, if people liked other people to be happy. But, there are some jerks out there that get their kicks by hurting other people. So, more rules... and more suffering.
[/ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
Once you find the optimal distribution of happiness points, how will you determine which comrades get which happiness rations?
What happens to those who end up less happy because of your engineering than they would have been without it? Too bad for them?
Here's some stuff I've written previously:
You cannot decide what's best for the community, and even if you could, you SHOULD NOT implement it, unless everyone voluntarily agrees. You can determine what YOU think is best for the community. Your DESIRE to do what's best for the community doesn't mean that you actually will make the best decsion. Also, what's best for the community will often be detrimental (sometimes catastropically so) for individuals in that community. Utilitarianism is just another form of oppression.
***
There are some people in the hospital. Two that each need a kidney, two that each need a lung, one that needs a heart, one that needs a liver, and one guy that has a broken leg.
Let's make it more interesting. The people in need of organs are nobel-winning scientists and they all have families, and the guy with a broken leg is a drunkard bum with no family, but has never hurt a fly.
The people that need organs are going to die within the hour if they don't get transplants. A miracle doctor can perform all the transplants in time, but the only prospective donor is the guy with the broken leg.
Should the doctor kill the one broken leg patient to save six others?
***
The funny thing is, we can show that utilitarianism can lead to bad outcomes, but we really don't need to go to so much effort - just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
chezlaw
12-15-2005, 11:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
chez
bearly
12-15-2005, 02:49 PM
ok, since the op is unwilling to clarify, let's try this: the planet is deserted hence it has no stores (it wouldn't be deserted if it did) no food or water supply, no shelter, and the ad hoc prediction of a life-expectancy of 2-3 days. now, what is a good legal system for our little 'society'?................b
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
chezlaw
12-15-2005, 09:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
chez
peritonlogon
12-15-2005, 09:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The foundation for laws in a society are Natural law and Ethics.
[/ QUOTE ]
Spoken like a true High School Social Studies teacher.
RevAgain
12-15-2005, 11:01 PM
Re: 6 transplants needed 1 donor.
Actually this [killing our broken legged friend] seems pretty reasonable to me, and it's pretty much how our society works. We fúck over the few in order that the majority benefit.
Welcome to capitalism, it's better than everyone being miserable.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[ QUOTE ]
Re: 6 transplants needed 1 donor.
Actually this [killing our broken legged friend] seems pretty reasonable to me, and it's pretty much how our society works. We fúck over the few in order that the majority benefit.
Welcome to capitalism, it's better than everyone being miserable.
[/ QUOTE ]
What in the hell kind of insane thing is that to say? Capitalism hinges on enforcing property rights. Pillaging someone for their organs against their will to achieve what is(in your mind) a much more benficial and equitable distribution of organs sounds a lot more like socialism to me.
salloch
12-16-2005, 01:23 AM
The sole purpose of a legal system is to inform people of the rules that will govern their actions, and to administer and enforce those rules.
The alternative to this "rule of law" is "the rule of men" where people are subject to the arbitrary decisions of other people instead of objective rules.
The rules themselves cannot assure any outcome.
Trying to 'design' a legal system is a fools errand, similar to trying to 'manage' and economy, or set prices, or gaurantee certain outcomes.
chezlaw
12-16-2005, 05:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)
What does YMMV mean?
chez
jthegreat
12-16-2005, 10:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
The second equation is ALSO your own happiness. Duh. Re-read what you wrote.
[ QUOTE ]
There are some people in the hospital. Two that each need a kidney, two that each need a lung, one that needs a heart, one that needs a liver, and one guy that has a broken leg.
Let's make it more interesting. The people in need of organs are nobel-winning scientists and they all have families, and the guy with a broken leg is a drunkard bum with no family, but has never hurt a fly.
The people that need organs are going to die within the hour if they don't get transplants. A miracle doctor can perform all the transplants in time, but the only prospective donor is the guy with the broken leg.
Should the doctor kill the one broken leg patient to save six others?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. But the only reason is common sense as it relates to a value equation. I think people are reluctant to answer hypotheticals like these because of some underlying assumption that it commits to a more generalized policy.
This reminds me of the old Philosophy 101 dilemna - you're held captive and given the choice between shooting 1 person in a group in front of you, or having your captor shoot them all. I could never understand how anyone could even hesitate over this - you pick someone and shoot. I suppose the only reason is a lack of flexibility, a need to define good ethical behaviour as having an inherent quality within an act, or maybe just cowardice - but the key point is that there is no such thing as inaction, inaction is action and it's choice. You're culpable if you fail to make a choice just as much (if not more) than if you seek one out.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)
What does YMMV mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
Oliver Wendell Holmes summed it up perfectly when he said (and I paraphrase slightly, I think): "Law is made for the bad man." Absolute genius. That is, laws are designed to channel human instinct/motivation to achieve whatever goals you want to reach.
Of course, "good" and "bad" must be defined externally to the law, but once those are determined, laws need should be designed to reach those objectives. "Good" men don't need an external set of rules with associated punishments (laws) to do "good," because they're "good." But the "bad man's" badness must be counteracted with a set of rules which provide incentives/punishments for bad behavior, thereby encouraging him to be good. Law is therefore made for the bad man.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "good" and "bad" must be defined externally to the law, but once those are determined, laws need should be designed to reach those objectives.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cool! I think something is "good" to the extent that it increases happiness.
chezlaw
12-16-2005, 04:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
The second equation is ALSO your own happiness. Duh. Re-read what you wrote.
[/ QUOTE ]
The second equation is
increase in my happiness = +50 units
decrease in others happiness = -100 units
Net change in happiness over everybody = -50 units
???
chez
chezlaw
12-16-2005, 04:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)
What does YMMV mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.
I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it /images/graemlins/smile.gif Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???
chez
DrButch
12-16-2005, 05:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I will go first. One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Close... but not quite. I claim there are two fundamental and complimentary purposes of laws. First, to avoid harm to others (and therefore promote a peaceful socienty), and second, to protect the rights of individuals (since a group my define "harm" such that it makes impositions on the freedoms of individuals). This is an incredible delicate balance.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)
What does YMMV mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.
I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it /images/graemlins/smile.gif Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.
(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)
tylerdurden
12-16-2005, 06:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the doctor kill the one broken leg patient to save six others?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. But the only reason is common sense as it relates to a value equation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. What's this equation? Should the doctor kill the broken leg guy (man A) if there are only two people that need the organs? What if it's just one (man B)? How about if man A is a single guy, retired, and man B is young and married? What if man A has a kid, but man B has two kids? What if man A is a CEO, and man B is just a factory worker?
I hope I never end up in the emergency room at your hospital.
chezlaw
12-16-2005, 06:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)
What does YMMV mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.
I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it /images/graemlins/smile.gif Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.
(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but back in the real world and making decisions I have to decide which I want to maximise, sadly, I cant choose to maximise both. (big suprise I took the payrise /images/graemlins/smile.gif, people were unhappy about it).
There must be some maximum level of embedded quotes.
chez
Scotch78
12-16-2005, 07:29 PM
Though the intent of laws may be to facilitate a healthy society, intention is only one component of action, and often the least affective one. I was unable to find the particular quote I had in mind, but the sense of it was that good men do not need laws and bad men will not be stopped by them. If one truly wishes to improve society, then study the humanties and social sciences, and most importantly, become a teacher.
Scott
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)
What does YMMV mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.
I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it /images/graemlins/smile.gif Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.
(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but back in the real world and making decisions I have to decide which I want to maximise, sadly, I cant choose to maximise both. (big suprise I took the payrise /images/graemlins/smile.gif, people were unhappy about it).
There must be some maximum level of embedded quotes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am talking about the real world... and how we can strive to maximize happiness. But, one person can't maximize happiness for everyone -- everyone has to be involved. In your situation, you did the right thing, I think. Your co-workers should be happy for you. If they are not, then they are not acting in order to increase happiness.
Yes, surely we will reach the edge of the quoting universe soon. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
chezlaw
12-16-2005, 08:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)
What does YMMV mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.
I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it /images/graemlins/smile.gif Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.
(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but back in the real world and making decisions I have to decide which I want to maximise, sadly, I cant choose to maximise both. (big suprise I took the payrise /images/graemlins/smile.gif, people were unhappy about it).
There must be some maximum level of embedded quotes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am talking about the real world... and how we can strive to maximize happiness. But, one person can't maximize happiness for everyone -- everyone has to be involved. In your situation, you did the right thing, I think. Your co-workers should be happy for you. If they are not, then they are not acting in order to increase happiness.
Yes, surely we will reach the edge of the quoting universe soon. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
then its not a matter of actions. they didn't need to do anything to maximise happiness, they just needed to change their nature and become happier people.
Sounds about right. The way to make the world happier is for people to stop being so bloody miserable /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm one the naturally happy people (most of the time) but there seem to be a lot of people who try really hard to be miserable.
Just these quotes is enough to have me gurgling with delight. I bet someone out there is infuriated by them.
chez
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.
[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.
I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.
Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.
They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.
I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.
One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.
That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).
Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.
This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.
(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.
maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units
maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units
So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.
(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)
What does YMMV mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.
I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it /images/graemlins/smile.gif Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.
(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but back in the real world and making decisions I have to decide which I want to maximise, sadly, I cant choose to maximise both. (big suprise I took the payrise /images/graemlins/smile.gif, people were unhappy about it).
There must be some maximum level of embedded quotes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am talking about the real world... and how we can strive to maximize happiness. But, one person can't maximize happiness for everyone -- everyone has to be involved. In your situation, you did the right thing, I think. Your co-workers should be happy for you. If they are not, then they are not acting in order to increase happiness.
Yes, surely we will reach the edge of the quoting universe soon. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
then its not a matter of actions. they didn't need to do anything to maximise happiness, they just needed to change their nature and become happier people.
Sounds about right. The way to make the world happier is for people to stop being so bloody miserable /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm one the naturally happy people (most of the time) but there seem to be a lot of people who try really hard to be miserable.
Just these quotes is enough to have me gurgling with delight. I bet someone out there is infuriated by them.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. Me too! These quotes are just great. I am cutting your signature "chez" off of them... just to make it harder to keep up with who is saying what. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Gurgle gurgle. Makes me smile.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the doctor kill the one broken leg patient to save six others?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. But the only reason is common sense as it relates to a value equation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. What's this equation? Should the doctor kill the broken leg guy (man A) if there are only two people that need the organs? What if it's just one (man B)? How about if man A is a single guy, retired, and man B is young and married? What if man A has a kid, but man B has two kids? What if man A is a CEO, and man B is just a factory worker?
I hope I never end up in the emergency room at your hospital.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I was trying to say, is that when people pose these questions in Philosophy the underlying agenda is to try and take from the conclusion a more generalized understanding of what constitutes good ethical behaviour. But a general policy can't be found in hypotheticals like these.
You exercise judgement, as best you can. The original example was, as I'm sure you intended it, an extreme example, so the solution was pretty obvious. If you make it less extreme, it becomes more and more fuzzy. All that's left is exercising judgement as to the values of the options available, as best you can, in a particular and unique situation - much like a poker game. You wouldn't want to be in that situation, but you are, and choosing to do nothing is just as much a choice as choosing to do something. There is no golden rule to be found, and there will be no subsequent verification that a choice was correct/incorrect.
tylerdurden
12-17-2005, 10:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You exercise judgement, as best you can. The original example was, as I'm sure you intended it, an extreme example, so the solution was pretty obvious.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought it was obvious, and you thought it was obvious, but we both found different "obvious" answers.
[ QUOTE ]
If you make it less extreme, it becomes more and more fuzzy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not for me.
What's wrong with you retards? If you want to quote the person you are responding too thats cool... but I am not gonna scroll three pages for each reply.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You exercise judgement, as best you can. The original example was, as I'm sure you intended it, an extreme example, so the solution was pretty obvious.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought it was obvious, and you thought it was obvious, but we both found different "obvious" answers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and that's fine, I'm surely not saying your answer is the wrong one, I don't claim any kind of greater access to ethical certainty.
I was trying to get across the idea that you can't universalize an answer. To take your own equation, would you sacrifice the guy to save your family? to save all of humankind? - how about not sacrifice him just beat him up, break one of his nails, call him a bad name? Somewhere along this continuum everyone gets to the point where they'd commit an act that'd be in isolation wrong, but clearly prudent/right in a greater utilitarian sense. I'd go as far as to say that an individual who didn't have a tipping point along this line is ethically bankrupt.
Judging where that line should be exactly is impossible, all we can hope for is that a situation will be looked at with compassion, consideration and intelligence - and that whoever is put in a crisis decision, has the courage to do what they believe is best on balance - so we come full circle to virtue ethics. It's unfortunate that life doesn't happen in an ethical vacuum.
chezlaw
12-17-2005, 04:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with you retards? If you want to quote the person you are responding too thats cool... but I am not gonna scroll three pages for each reply.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, got carried away. I'm going to stand in the corner for 5 minutes /images/graemlins/frown.gif
chez
I think there are laws that exist that that are eternal and unchanging, these laws govern how we feel and/or are as a result of breaking them. Because of how the human being is put together there are personal repercussions when a person breaks these laws. Ahh... In defing a new legal system, research should govern good from bad. If drugs messes up lives maybe we should leave the chemicals in our brains to perform the function they were there to perform. Something, if proven to lessen peoples ability to live a healthy and full life should be made illegal. We need laws to help those who want to know how to get the most out of life and to ensure that peoples rights are not violated. Every person should be helped to live a full and healthy life and the law should support this.
[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with you retards? If you want to quote the person you are responding too thats cool... but I am not gonna scroll three pages for each reply.
[/ QUOTE ]
By your diagnosis, what is wrong with us, is that we are retards. We can't help it, fate made us keep quoting each other.
[ QUOTE ]
I think there are laws that exist that that are eternal and unchanging, these laws govern how we feel and/or are as a result of breaking them. Because of how the human being is put together there are personal repercussions when a person breaks these laws. Ahh... In defing a new legal system, research should govern good from bad. If drugs messes up lives maybe we should leave the chemicals in our brains to perform the function they were there to perform. Something, if proven to lessen peoples ability to live a healthy and full life should be made illegal. We need laws to help those who want to know how to get the most out of life and to ensure that peoples rights are not violated. Every person should be helped to live a full and healthy life and the law should support this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't get me started /images/graemlins/mad.gif
hashi92
12-18-2005, 05:14 PM
If its going to be a democratic society than everything should be put up to a vote. One person brings up and issue another person seconds it. Than let the majority rule.
hashi92
12-18-2005, 05:18 PM
how do u decide who own what
bearly
12-19-2005, 07:36 PM
my fear is not that this thread will take our minds off an important issue like the avian flu, but that it is the avian flu.....................b
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.