The Real Life Important Point about Being Moral or Ethical.

Good points. Although the majority of ethical and moral debates has little to do with faults in deductive reasoning and more to do with the abandonment of reason altogether in favor of emotional responses veiled with logical argument meant as justification for the underlying responses.

i.e., instead of Axioms --> A --> B --> conclusion, they usually go Conclusions --> A --> B.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

why does this thread have 140k views?!?!?!

[Macdaddy Warsaw]

I feel like this thread must be coming up on some kind of popular google search or something. What's going on?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
why does this thread have 140k views?!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks about right to me. I know I've read it 78,563 times myself.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"My point is that there often is no one well defined "consistent" way to apply a whole complex of competing moral principles. There is no well defined mathematics for the "proper" way to bring them all into balance."

There is NEVER a way to consistently apply competing moral principles. That had nothing to do with my post. I'm simply saying that just like many poker conclusions are wrong because the player doesn't know how to get from his initial assessments to the right play, the same goes for morals or ethics. People often expuose a position that is flat out contraditory to their OWN principles because they don't know haw to create valid analogies or don't understand syllogisms, and thus screw up when there is a chain of reasoning involved.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
People often expuose a position that is flat out contraditory to their OWN principles because they don't know haw to create valid analogies or don't understand syllogisms, and thus screw up when there is a chain of reasoning involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming most people can't even articulate what their own principles are, how can you be sure they are contradicting them?

Typical example is an average recreational gambler. He invariably states that he puts a high value on winning, yet when you watch his behaviors the thrill he gets from the action is clearly what it's about for him. Winning is a just a bonus.

Then there are the problem gamblers who, according to psychologists/psychiatrists, subconsciously want to lose. It may be among their most important values to feel a real struggle in life, and that is given to them by both gambling and the aftermath when they've lost it all.

Are you sure the apparent contradictions in their statements vs. behaviors are from their lack of logical abilities? Couldn't it be from a mistake in your assumptions about their principles/values and their lack of ability (or willingness) to articulate them?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"My point is that there often is no one well defined "consistent" way to apply a whole complex of competing moral principles. There is no well defined mathematics for the "proper" way to bring them all into balance."

There is NEVER a way to consistently apply competing moral principles. That had nothing to do with my post. I'm simply saying that just like many poker conclusions are wrong because the player doesn't know how to get from his initial assessments to the right play, the same goes for morals or ethics. People often expuose a position that is flat out contraditory to their OWN principles because they don't know haw to create valid analogies or don't understand syllogisms, and thus screw up when there is a chain of reasoning involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS --
"There is NEVER a way to consistently apply competing moral principles. That had nothing to do with my post."

That has everything to do with your post David because in practice there are virtually Always competing principles involved.

Look at this latest Pat Robertson Quirk Story where he favors a covert US operation to kill Venezuela's President Chavez. He clearly has competing moral principles that went into his formation of that opinion. That's how morals and ethics Work in practice.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

You just don't understand. Use whatever technique you want to balance out compering moral principles to come to a conclusion. But then don't contradict that conclusion later on because of logic errors in your chain of reaoning. That applies to ALL subjects. It just comes up a lot more in ethics debates.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
You just don't understand. Use whatever technique you want to balance out competing moral principles to come to a conclusion. But then don't contradict that conclusion later on because of logic errors in your chain of reaoning. That applies to ALL subjects. It just comes up a lot more in ethics debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really need to give some examples for this. If you take a person's Conclusion A and you claim it logically implies Conclusion B which the person does not want to accept, it may be that you have introduced elements which alter the balancing process or which touch on additional hidden principles which were not active in reaching conclusion A. Just because you think there is a "Pure" logical chain of inferences doesn't necessarily mean that's really the case. The chain may appear logical but it's purity is another matter.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just don't understand. Use whatever technique you want to balance out competing moral principles to come to a conclusion. But then don't contradict that conclusion later on because of logic errors in your chain of reaoning. That applies to ALL subjects. It just comes up a lot more in ethics debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really need to give some examples for this. If you take a person's Conclusion A and you claim it logically implies Conclusion B which the person does not want to accept, it may be that you have introduced elements which alter the balancing process or which touch on additional hidden principles which were not active in reaching conclusion A. Just because you think there is a "Pure" logical chain of inferences doesn't necessarily mean that's really the case. The chain may appear logical but it's purity is another matter.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Heres an example. George Bush and most anti stem cell types say that regarless of the good that comes from stem cell research, you are not justified in taking innocent life. George Bush and many of the same anti stem cell research types believe that the innocent life that is lost in Iraq is justified by the wars good ends.

I dont know of any accurate numbers, but it seems reasonable to think that at least a couple dozen of completly innocent Iraqi infants have died in pursuit of Bushs noble cause.