Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

I have a few questions about understanding some of the basic moral theories. Can someone please explain these to me? I don't believe there is necessarily a right or wrong answer for any of these.

Does ethical egoism mean that a moral society is impossible?

Does natural law theory necessarily require the invocation of God?

Does Utilitarianism require too much from morality?

All help is greatly appreciated.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does ethical egoism mean that a moral society is impossible?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just that morality is not an essential (note: this is a technical term, not a synonym for "necessary") property of society.

[ QUOTE ]
Does natural law theory necessarily require the invocation of God?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but divine command theory does. If it helps, think of natural law theory as a humanist's divine command theory.

[ QUOTE ]
Does Utilitarianism require too much from morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "too much" you mean altruism, then yes.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does Utilitarianism require too much from morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "too much" you mean altruism, then yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the cooperating prisoner (in the prisoner's dilemma) being altruistic?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is the cooperating prisoner (in the prisoner's dilemma) being altruistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post on clarity. First off, there's not a/one "cooperating prisoner" in the prisoner's dilemma. There are two prisoners and four possible outcomes based upon each prisoner's choice of whether to cooperate. Second, even if you discuss the situation in terms of both prisoners and all four possibilities, it does not provide a counter-argument to Utilitarianism.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does Utilitarianism require too much from morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure what the question means, but utilitarianism requires someone to make value judgements for another. It's oppression, dressed up as altruism.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
utilitarianism requires someone to make value judgements for another

[/ QUOTE ]

Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral. Even more interesting, you did it by ignoring the assumption of universal morality that allowed you to define making value judgments for another as immoral.

Scott

PS Neither Utilitarianism nor ethics in general require someone to make value judgments for another. However, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you meant making value judgments about another.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

*Implementing* utilitarianism requires someone to make value judgements for another.

Better?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the cooperating prisoner (in the prisoner's dilemma) being altruistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post on clarity. First off, there's not a/one "cooperating prisoner" in the prisoner's dilemma. There are two prisoners and four possible outcomes based upon each prisoner's choice of whether to cooperate. Second, even if you discuss the situation in terms of both prisoners and all four possibilities, it does not provide a counter-argument to Utilitarianism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your post on Clarity... and liked it. But, I'm unclear as to what you are saying in this post.

I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
*Implementing* utilitarianism requires someone to make value judgements for another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legislating any ethical theory requires us to make value judgments for each other, but that is the nature of law, not morality.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral.
[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If Utilitarianism is oppressive, and oppression is wrong, because it involves making value judgments about each other, then all of ethics is oppressive.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that the prisoner's dilemma does not require altruism (though it does); you have not yet pointed out how Utilitarianism does not require altruism.

Scott

PS You did not say whether, by "cooperation", you mean cooperating with the police or with the other prisoner, and that is another unclarity in your argument.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral.
[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If Utilitarianism is oppressive, and oppression is wrong, because it involves making value judgments about each other, then all of ethics is oppressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making judgments *about* one another is different than making judgements *for* one another. If I decide you're a scumbag, it doesn't really impact you. If I decide you need to spend a portion of your money on something you don't really want, and then I force you to do so with threat of force, that does impact you.

Implementing utilitarianism requires a central decsion-maker who A) determines maximal utility distribution and B) carries out actions needed to achieve that distribution. The oppression is in part B.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Making judgments *about* one another is different than making judgements *for* one another. If I decide you're a scumbag, it doesn't really impact you. If I decide you need to spend a portion of your money on something you don't really want, and then I force you to do so with threat of force, that does impact you.

Implementing utilitarianism requires a central decsion-maker who A) determines maximal utility distribution and B) carries out actions needed to achieve that distribution. The oppression is in part B.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are still conflating morality with legality, and doing it selectively for Utilitarianism alone.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

I'm not concerned with legality at all. It doesn't matter to me if there is legislation backing a utilitarian system or not, it's still oppressive.

I think lots of other systems are oppressive, too. It just happens that Utilitarianism got brought up here.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Would you please change your avatar to the album cover of Pink Floyd's The Wall. I will repeat this one last time . . . you are conflating morality with legality. There is absolutely nothing in Utilitarianism that requires me to make value judgments for you. If you want to buy a Dell 2001fp instead of feeding the homeless, then yes, a Utilitarian could claim you are acting immorally. However, he cannot force you to feed the homeless instead.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two types of implementation for a moral theory. The first is to personally subscribe to it, to judge own's actions according to that value system. The second is to legistlate it, to force others to obey it. The latter is not a part of Utilitarianism, or of any philosophical system. I said that you are conflating morality and legality because you intend only the legal definition of implementation, but refuse to let go of the moral definition of implementation.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Forcing it on others (which many people advocate, implicitly or explicitly) is oppressive.

Talking about it, or using it as a means for making your own decisions, is not oppressive.

The theory itself, obviously, is not oppressive. The "pure" form of it may not be oppressive. Using utilitarianism for a basis of policy is oppressive.

Your "moral implementation" is a trivial case (in that any decisions you make for yourself that don't get imposed on others cannot be aggressive) and clearly not what I was talking about.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that the prisoner's dilemma does not require altruism (though it does);

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I asked my rhetorical question. I was assuming that you didn't think that a cooperating prisoner was being altruistic. But, now I see that you DO think that. I don't. I guess we have different understandings of altruism.

Perhaps I should have stated that I'm referring to an iterated prisoner's dilemma -- where the "tit for tat" strategy is being used. In this way, the prisoners realize or "learn" that they will be happiest if they cooperate and not defect. Thus, their motivation is to help themselves, NOT the other prisoner -- this is why it's not altruism.

[ QUOTE ]
you have not yet pointed out how Utilitarianism does not require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way I just desribed the Prisoner's dilemma not requiring altruism. That is a simpler scenario, and we disagree on that, so I'll stick with that for now.

[ QUOTE ]
PS You did not say whether, by "cooperation", you mean cooperating with the police or with the other prisoner, and that is another unclarity in your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other prisoner. I'm just referencing two people playing a "game". I can describe the scenario in detail if you wish, but it's a common problem, so I thought most people would be familiar with it.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using utilitarianism for a basis of policy is oppressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any policy that forces someone to do or not do something could be seen as oppressive. Even the very basic: "don't steal". Who has the right to tell me what I do and don't own? I think I own the world, and everything in it. Are you going to force me to let you have some of my stuff? That's oppression.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any policy that forces someone to do or not do something could be seen as oppressive. Even the very basic: "don't steal". Who has the right to tell me what I do and don't own?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real owner.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I own the world, and everything in it. Are you going to force me to let you have some of my stuff? That's oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any policy that forces someone to do or not do something could be seen as oppressive. Even the very basic: "don't steal". Who has the right to tell me what I do and don't own?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is??

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I own the world, and everything in it. Are you going to force me to let you have some of my stuff? That's oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try refuting me. So, who gets to decide who owns what? Take our 1000-person island... who owns it? I say I do. And who are you to oppress me by taking my property?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. And both are oppression. So, property rights are gained by oppression. So, now that we are all oppressed, perhaps we should arrange some agreements so that we can be happy?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try refuting me. So, who gets to decide who owns what? Take our 1000-person island... who owns it? I say I do. And who are you to oppress me by taking my property?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, decree is not a legitimate method of acquiring property. It is used (by states, often) as a method of gaining control of property, but it does not confer a legitimate property right.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Force is a method of gaining *control* of property. It does not, however give you a property right.

Property rights stem from self-ownership. If you own yourself, you also own your labor. You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property, which is a legitimate way of obtaining a property right. You also can mix your labor with unowned materials, and obtain a property right in the finished product. Homesteading of land is a way of origination property rights in land.

You can use decree, conquest, or eminent domain (a sort of combination of decree and conquest) to obtain "normative control" of property. That's not the same as legitimately owning it.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Note also, the logical conclusion of this is that states cannot ever legitimately own property, since a state cannot work the land except with either slave labor or by paying for labor (or by paying for the land directly) with stolen property (taxes).

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property

[/ QUOTE ]

And the person who you obtain the property from, please tell me how they obtained it without using force or decree.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Read the next sentence.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights stem from self-ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own the world -- that includes you, and your labor. What right do you have to think that you own yourself? Who is oppressing me by taking my right to own you away?

So, the 1000-peson island... nobody owns anything. The first person to work the land, owns it? How much work is required? And who gets to decide 1) the rule that whoever works on the land now owns it, and 2) the quantity/quality of work that is sufficient for ownership to be bestowed to that person?

(I'm crossing my fingers that you won't ignore this question this time.)

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Scotch: I hope my clarification helped. Can you now explain why you think the Prisoner in the dilemma is acting altruistically by cooperating?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I own the world -- that includes you, and your labor. What right do you have to think that you own yourself? Who is oppressing me by taking my right to own you away?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. As long as you refuse to differentiate between "control" and "rights" there's no point in continuing, because that's the entire issue - that they aren't the same.

If you want me to admit that a big guy with a big club can beat up some smaller guy that doesn't have a club, well, I can't argue with that. If you want to aruge that the big guy is justified in doing so, then I'm willing to talk. As it stands now you are basically saying "can" is interchangable with "may".

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Scotch: I hope my clarification helped. Can you now explain why you think the Prisoner in the dilemma is acting altruistically by cooperating?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. When I said that the prisoner's dilemma requires altruism, I meant that choosing to cooperate from altruism is the theoretical solution to the dilemma, not that the prisoner is being altruistic because he cooperated. If acting altruistically is A and cooperating is B, then I am saying "A therefore B" and (I think) you are hearing "B therefore A".

As to why altruism solves the dilemma . . . let's assume that I am acting from self-interest, and that my interest is to avoid jail. By cooperating, I retain the possibility for minimum punishment, but by confessing I prevent the possibility of maximum punishment. The 'dilemma' arises because I want both but can only choose one.

Now, let's assume that I am acting from altruism, that I want you to serve as little time in jail as possible. By cooperating, I both retain the possibility for you to serve the minimum and prevent the possibility of you serving the maximum. I can effectively exercise my will now. Furthermore, if you also act from altruistic motives, then minimum jail time for both of us is insured. However, if one or both of us acts from self-interest, then the outcome is uncertain and a dilemma arises.

Scott

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scotch: I hope my clarification helped. Can you now explain why you think the Prisoner in the dilemma is acting altruistically by cooperating?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. When I said that the prisoner's dilemma requires altruism, I meant that choosing to cooperate from altruism is the theoretical solution to the dilemma, not that the prisoner is being altruistic because he cooperated. If acting altruistically is A and cooperating is B, then I am saying "A therefore B" and (I think) you are hearing "B therefore A".

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other threads on this, but I'll go further than both of you and state that cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma does require either altruism or irrationality.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then the players aren't playing the prisoner's dilemma, they're playing a different game--so you haven't given a solution to the prisoner's dilemma.

There are some other assumptions that have to be made in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (most importantly, common knowledge of rationality), but including all the assumptions leads to a unique equilibrium where players defect on all rounds. So either one of the assumptions has to go or we have to conclude that players are altruistic.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights stem from self-ownership. If you own yourself, you also own your labor. You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property, which is a legitimate way of obtaining a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn,

I think this "mixing of labor" ala Adam Smith is an antiquated and sloppy way of defining ownership. Labor is actually not required at all. All that is really required is first occupation, i.e. homesteading. "Mixing your labor" with the object can serve as constructive notice of ownership, but it it not sufficient or necessary.

If I pocket a rock while in Antarctica, I haven't "mixed any labor" with it, yet I still own it. If I "mix my labor" with lumber stolen from my neighbor's land to fashion a chair, I don't own it.

The "labor mixing" concept lends itself to silly questions like "how much labor is required," etc (as you see).

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
By cooperating, I retain the possibility for minimum punishment, but by confessing I prevent the possibility of maximum punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's the opposite in the first case. If you defect, you allow for minimum punishment (if the other prisoner cooperates). That's the dilemma -- you have the possibility for minimum punishment by defecting, but in an iterated dilemma, a "tit for tat" cooperation is the best strategy.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other threads on this, but I'll go further than both of you and state that cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma does require either altruism or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's rational self-interest.

[ QUOTE ]
There are some other assumptions that have to be made in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (most importantly, common knowledge of rationality), but including all the assumptions leads to a unique equilibrium where players defect on all rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? If both players are rational, a tit-for-tat strategy (or slightly modified), ensures cooperation on all rounds. That is the rational strategy.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
All that is really required is first occupation, i.e. homesteading.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't homestead without investing labor.

[ QUOTE ]
If I pocket a rock while in Antarctica, I haven't "mixed any labor" with it, yet I still own it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possession of objects (as opposed to land) requires labor - transport, maintenance, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
If I "mix my labor" with lumber stolen from my neighbor's land to fashion a chair, I don't own it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I specified that the materials must be unowned (of course, in the case where you add your labor to materials you already own, the product is unambiguously your property).

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other threads on this, but I'll go further than both of you and state that cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma does require either altruism or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's rational self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it's rational self-interest, then both players defect (in the one-shot game), because they both have a dominant strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are some other assumptions that have to be made in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (most importantly, common knowledge of rationality), but including all the assumptions leads to a unique equilibrium where players defect on all rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? If both players are rational, a tit-for-tat strategy (or slightly modified), ensures cooperation on all rounds. That is the rational strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if we make the assumptions:
1) the game is finite
2) both players know that the other player is rational (CKR)
3) both players have perfect recall
4) both players are capable of calculating as many steps as the game has iterations
5) both players have perfect information, i.e., they know how many rounds the game will last, etc.

Then the unique equilibrium is the backward induction one where both players defect on all rounds. E.g., since both players will defect on the last round, they know that the other player will defect on the next to last round, so they'll defect on the next to last round, but the other player knows that ... and so on.

Now, I think this result is fairly absurd, but then one of the assumptions has to go. So which one is it?