Understood. I will go with yes then; because in your scenario, the act of altruism is good for one's salvation in some case, and harmful for one's salvation in another case. And if we cannot know when it is the case, then we cannot know how to help one's salvation. Maybe to be safe, just make everyone suffer equally, including yourself.

I do have one remark about proposition 9 in your scenario: So altruistic conduct is helpful for her. (because Jody never has a chance of reaching salvation). If she never has a chance of reaching salvation, how is altruism (or anything else) helpful to her?

I'm afraid I have to disagree with nearly everything you have said.

None of those questions make any difference to the only relevant question, which is whether more human suffering can be alleviated by giving locally than by giving in sub-Saharan Africa. [...] we know we can relieve suffering by giving to carefully chosen aid agencies, and that more suffering is relieved in that way than by giving locally. — andrewk

I do not know that in any obvious way, and it is improbable for it to always be the case. Thus the point of these questions is to find out when it is the case. If in doubt, my personal advice is to give locally because of direct experience of the problems and outcomes; others don't have to agree with me. Regardless, this disagreement is on facts, not on the goal of abiding to the GCB ethics.

Yet most people don't. — andrewk

Still unconvinced. I could not tell you if being charitable is a trait found in the majority of people, but it is not an uncommon trait by any means. And for those who are not, it is possible that they cannot.

So the evidence is powerful that your GCB principle is not innate to them. — andrewk

Even if you happen to be right about everything else, this conclusion still does not follow. We cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. The GCB ethics is backed up by an innate knowledge of duty, not by acts. Your claims are compatible with the existence of the ethics, and in which case, it would follow that these people are unethical. Does that really sound surprising? Even without the GCB, surely you have heard of the Golden Rule, which "occurs in some form in nearly every religion and ethical tradition." (Source). Would you not want to receive help from others if you were in need?

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I thought the goal of Buddha in creating his eightfold path was to cease suffering; where as it sounds like you are saying that suffering is necessary for salvation. Maybe these propositions can be reconciled, but how so?

Also, what do you mean by "Only some people have a chance to reach Salvation"? Why is that, and how do we know which ones?

If what you say about the needy in Africa is true, then it follows that we ought to provide as much help as we can offer before considering our personal pleasures, in accordance to the GCB ethics. The one obstacle I (and I think many others) have, is matters of facts about the problem: Is there a real lack of resources, or a bad distribution of it? Are there not people within their own country that can help out, and if so, why don't they? Will giving money provide a long-term solution, or is it missing the root cause? The further away it is, and the harder it is to know the real facts about the problem, the cause, the best solution, and even about the charities we are giving money to.

But I want to reiterate that, if we could have certainty on efficiency, then that is what we ought to do.

What do you think about trying to become the best? — 12paul123

If you want to reach a consensus, it is best (sorry) to define the term 'best'. Here is my attempt:
Best is ranking #1 at quality X, relative to others also having this quality. We can derive a few things from this definition:

1. Best is a relative term only, and says nothing about absolutes. You don't necessarily need to be good at X to be the best at X.
2. It is fully dependent on others having that quality.
3. It is competitive. There can only be one #1. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be if it starts to fail the Golden Rule of ethics.

My take: Trying to become the best at X is not necessarily bad and can be a good motivator to be better at it, but we must remember to also become good at X in the absolute sense.

Hello.
I think you are using the term 'bliss' incorrectly in that expression.
'Bliss' is close to 'blessedness' which means 'moral goodness', not 'subjective contentment'. Under this new definition, here is why it is true:

If a needy is at your doorstep and you can help him, then you should help him, out of duty; and you are a morally bad person if you choose not to, therefore not 'bliss'. But if you don't know that a needy is at your doorstep, then it is not your duty, because you cannot have any duty over what you don't know. Therefore ignorance is bliss.

Hello. I will try to turn this paradox into a syllogism for clarity.

P1: One's suffering is necessary for one's salvation.
P2: Altruism creates suffering in the emitter and removes suffering in the receiver.
C1: Altruism helps the salvation of the emitter but harms the salvation of the receiver. It is therefore selfish because it benefits only the altruist in the end.
But altruism is by definition an act of selflessness. This contradicts C1.

The argument is valid, but I dispute P1. A heartless man is not likely to receive salvation, even if he happens to suffer a great deal. Much like said, what is necessary for salvation is a good will, and suffering is only an effect of this, not a necessity.

Man that was a lot of technical terms, but great summary of its history.
If, as I suspect, the GCB hierarchy is innate knowledge, a first principle or an eternal truth, then it can be rediscovered over and over again from its roots, without having to worry about its bumpy evolution throughout history.

I know you've said it was your last response, and I am just leaving this for completeness of the argument.

Then you need to argue in favour of utilitarianism. Regarding the rest of the paragraph: special pleading. — Πετροκότσυφας

I agree that utilitarianism is compatible with this GCB ethics; the difference being that instead of the subjective happiness found in utilitarianism, the evaluation criteria is on the amount of good done to a being, with more weight given to higher beings in the hierarchy. You keep calling special pleading, but never explained why.

Except that: We're not talking about the law of excluded middle, Samuel. We're talking about the GCB hierarchy, which of course is indubitable only to you. — Πετροκότσυφας

The claim that the feeling of duty is indubitable only to me is again unfounded. And whatever reason comes up to debunk indubitable thoughts, watch that does not accidentally debunk the indubitable thoughts that are the laws of logic along with it, or else it is my turn to call special pleading.

Homeless people or other needy humans do not simply disappear if they're not at your doorstep thus making it fine to violate your hierarchy by privileging other animals over them. If you're going to introduce other criteria (like proximity or quotas of care) which, at times, take precedence over your hierarchy, you have to provide an explanation as to how that's possible - since your axiom, by itself, does not warrant such exceptions. — Πετροκότσυφας

The goal is optimize the net outcome, and you are forgetting such factors as efficiency of care and law of diminishing returns. It is less efficient to give to the needy that are far away; and once the needy in proximity have received the basic care, then any additional marginal amount of care diminishes. In fact, they might not even want too much charity at some point. And yes, if you give absolutely nothing to the needy when you could have, it follows that you are an unethical person according to the GCB ethics.

The problem is that being unable to doubt what you're out to defend, does not make it necessarily true. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes it does. The highest kind of proof is logical proof, where the contrary of the conclusion entails a contradiction. Can you prove the law of non-contradiction to be true? No, we cannot logically prove logic to be true. But it is strong because, and only because, it is indubitable. So if you deny that an indubitable proposition is necessarily true, then you must also deny that the laws of logic are necessarily true.

No, it doesn't. Humans care for animal life besides its utility and every instance of such care is care that could have been provided to humans but it wasn't. There's no escaping this. And this difficulty pervades every ring of your chain. — Πετροκότσυφας

I already addressed this issue here. Let's put it another way. It would be unethical for me to use all my money to buy a pet if a poor person was at my doorstep begging for food. But if I give a reasonable amount of money, then it seems correct to keep some money to buy a pet. Don't you agree?

If you can't doubt it, you can't genuinely entertain alternatives, and if you can't do that, there's no contrast. — Πετροκότσυφας

That sounds right. So what? If indubitable, then it is necessarily true, then you cannot disagree.

If you cannot even doubt it, it can't be reached through argument. — Πετροκότσυφας

Can you explain why?

Since it also shows that there are countless cases where humans care for animals while they could have cared for humans instead. — Πετροκότσυφας

Aside from their ontological values, humans also care for plants and animals because they benefit humans as a means to survival like for food, transport and clothing. So it all abides to the GCB ethics.

Pets (and other animals) are not mere pleasure. — Πετροκότσυφας

Indeed. This works in favour of the GCB hierarchy which claims that animals have ontological value of their own.

So, it is indeed an axiom, not a conclusion reached through argument. — Πετροκότσυφας

It is indeed an axiom or first principle, but it is found through argument. The whole point of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that the GCB hierarchy is innate.

The money you spent on your pet could very well be spent for people who don't have food, shelter or access to doctors. — Πετροκότσυφας

That is a good point. Where is the right balance between duty towards others and personal pleasure? Using common sense alone, it seems too extreme to spend all our money on our own pleasure, and also too extreme to spend all our money to help others with nothing left for our own pleasure. The right answer is somewhere in between and I don't know it. But I don't think it really harms the GCB ethics, it only makes it complicated to apply in some cases.

Even if we would all answer that we'd save the human, even if in practice we would all save the human, that would still not entail innateness. It could still be learned behaviour. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes. One way to check this, as Pascal and Descartes say, is that "we cannot doubt natural principles [or innate knowledge] if we speak sincerely and in all good faith". I personally cannot doubt that it is my duty to save the human first, and cannot imagine that it is my duty to save another first (given the conditions established before). To clarify: I can imagine myself behaving otherwise, but not out of duty.

Yeah I agree when it comes to moral perfection. Kant says 'ought implies can'. Thus being morally perfect means doing the best we can do.

Mr Crank, I understand your point. But I think this is not a case of the ethics decreasing with distance, but rather accuracy of facts decreasing and technical issues increasing. I too would rather contribute to local charities and avoid contributing to distant charities. This is not because I am a nationalist, but I reason that my money is more efficient if spent close by. I also have direct experience of my area, and only indirect experience of distant events. Our ethical goal is to optimize the net outcome. It would be absurd to ask each individual to help all the poor in the world, as opposed to focus their effort to help the poor in their proximity. Also it is not unethical to avoid rescuing a human being if you are not confident in your skills. Getting killed in the process does not result in the greatest net gain at all.

Bottom line is that the GCB ethics is still the standard to follow, and we can only do our best in practice, given the limited info and abilities we have.

That is correct. And they don't, do they? They are only represented as humans with wings as a symbol, like God is represented as a light or an old man.

Would I say if people who have pets are unethical? No, they are not. That's just an absurdity resulting from the GCB's lack of nuance regarding ethics. — Πετροκότσυφας

Maybe I misunderstood what you originally said. The GCB ethics does not entail that having pets is unethical, inasmuch as doing something for pleasure is not unethical. Choosing to have a pet is unethical only if that choice results in the harm of a higher being.

You are right that it does not prove the ethics to be true. But likewise, the argument that some people do not act according to the GCB does not prove the ethics to be untrue. To avoid circular logic, we can look in ourselves for this innate knowledge.

You wrote that you want to "show that we all have an innate knowledge of it". Then you asked what we'd do in a specific situation. How would you show that it's innate to all of us based on our answers? — Πετροκότσυφας

Like any experiment, by using the good old inductive reasoning. If most answers are "I personally believe we ought to save the human first, animal second, plant third, and object fourth", then we can reasonably draw that conclusion. Say there are a few exceptions? Well the exception makes the rule!

Which means that, based on how we would behave in this specific situation, he wants to show that we all have an innate knowledge of the GCB. — Πετροκότσυφας

Not so much how 'we would' but how 'we should, or feel we should'; and also how you would. Innate knowledge can only be tested as a personal thing. Sure the fact may be that some other people may behave differently, but it is hard for me to interpret their thought based on the act because I am not them.

In real terms: much like many of us anthropomorphizes our own pets, there are people who objectify or animalize other humans. This is not a disease; it is on one hand an aberration, and on the other hand, it can serve as a survival tool, when survival is aided or is only possible by murdering another person. — szardosszemagad

Part of the GCB ethics is to pick the choice that results in the greatest net gain. It may not be unethical to kill someone for the sake of survival, say as self-defence, because it is one human life vs another. Nobody considers an abortion to be unethical it is the only way to save the mother's life.

It may be a picture of someone that you love that you value over a human, animal, or plant. — yatagarasu

Would you choose a pic over a human? Would you not call this rescuer insane?

It could be a valuable plant that you think may be the cure to a terrible illness. Same thing with the human or animal. — yatagarasu

The thought experiment states that the object has no monetary value. Even then, the cure would be to benefit humans, either directly or indirectly. It it does not, then it has no worth. If it does, then this act would abide to the GCB ethics.

When enough people agree on common definitions and common values we call those ideas morals. — yatagarasu

It would follow that slavery was morally good at the time it existed, and that Nazism would be morally good if Hitler had won. But this is absurd.

Hitler and his dogs (he had many!) would not save you over his little kittens. Especially, if you're a jew. — Πετροκότσυφας

This is true. But it is also true that Hitler is seen as unethical by a large majority, thereby confirming the ethics based on the GCB.

My point is that while some may claim that people would in every case save humans over non-humans, that's factually wrong. — Πετροκότσυφας

Not in every case indeed. But ethics is about 'what ought to be', not about 'what is'; and the thought experiment is about you, not about other cases in history. You and I are on the same page that some people would indeed not abide to the GCB ethics, but then this entails an unethical behaviour, not an error in the ethics itself.

The fact that there are people who care for pets or strays, while there are countless humans without access to food, meds or shelter, demonstrably shows that in practice the cases where we value non-humans over humans are extremely common. — Πετροκότσυφας

There are indeed. But ethics is about 'what ought to be', not 'what is'. Would you not say that such people are either crazy, uninformed, or else unethical? And I don't mean just subjective opinion, but objective fact, much like it is an objective fact that Hitler is unethical.

I like CS Lewis. Where does this quote come from?
I agree with you regarding the murderer case. It may not be unethical to let Hitler burn. This in fact supports the GCB hierarchy where we ought to find the largest net gain. That gain is not found if we have reasons to believe the murderer will murder again.

I might prioritize my couch. I like my couch. It's been good to me. The dog likes the couch too. — Bitter Crank

Do I detect irony? I am fairly sure that in some countries, as a rescuer you would get sued for failing of duty.

What are angels? — fishfry

Here is my understanding. In essence, angels are rational immaterial beings with free will, in contrast to humans who are rational material beings with free will. Good angels are just called angels, and evil angels are called demons. If the definition of gender is related to sex, then angels have no gender because of no sexual organs. If the definition is about emission and reception of things, then they may be male if they emit, and female if they receive. God is represented as male because he always emits (love, info, existence) to all other beings, who are all female in relation because they receive all of this. That is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the 'husband' and Israel as the 'bride'.

The adult Hitler is inside and he's fully evil already.
Your system says you should save Hitler because he's human. I say, save your cat who loves you.
In this case an animal may be placed above a human in ontological value. — fishfry

Actually I agree with you that, in this case, I too would not save Hitler. But that is because we know Hitler to be evil because he killed many humans, and is likely to kill more humans if saved; and this choice would not result in the largest net gain. So the GCB hierarchy is still followed.

I think the christian doctrine says that Jesus condescended down to the human level to become human, thereby not being perfect in every way during that time. I think he kept his omniscience but not his omnipotence because he could suffer physical evil. As for deifying animals, I think their definition of gods is not the same as the christian definition of God. A god (lower case g) may be better than a human but is not perfect in every way.

Good and bad may be subjective or objective depending on its kind. Good and bad in taste is subjective. Good and bad in morality is objective. Everyone wants justice done to them; nobody wants injustice done to them.

So it is possible for something to be perfect even if it is incomplete? — Sir2u

If by 'complete' we mean 'reaching its full potential', then no. But if we mean 'includes all properties', then yes.

Not worked out too well yet though has it? When are we supposed to be saved? — Sir2u

After we die. Instead of ceasing to exist after death, we resurrect in the afterlife and the physical evil is gone, as well as the original sin.

this is supposed to be a complete being, so I would guess he needs to have every single possible property. — Sir2u

Completion is not synonymous with perfection. A perfect score on a multiple choice exam includes only the right answers and excludes the wrong ones.

Sending your only son to die is a good quality?
Letting "your favorite group of people" wonder around a dessert after being slaves for a long time is a good trait?
Letting some nitwit that is not nearly as powerful as you bully you into letting him tempt your creation into doing bad is a good quality?. — Sir2u

Yes, it is all logically possible that these are good acts; inasmuch as it is good to allow a short-term evil for a long-term good. Jesus died for our salvation. God let his people wander around because they sinned and may have needed to learn a lesson. Etc.

Hello. I think I can prove that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science is by definition the search for truth that is empirically verifiable. The christian God by definition is an immaterial being and therefore not made of any divine matter or energy that could be tested empirically.

I suppose a scientist could test the authenticity of a miraculous event (ie if explained by the laws of physics then it is false, if unexplained by the laws of physics, then it is true), but if true, a scientist could always conclude that we need to revisit the laws of physics, instead of labelling the event as a miracle.

And surely the perfect being would be a combination of ALL possible properties. — Sir2u

I accept your definition of 'quality', but reject your definition of a 'perfect being'. A perfect being is one that possesses all good qualities and no bad ones. Possessing all possible qualities results in a contradiction because some qualities like omnibenevolent and omnimalevolent are contradictory.

Actually I think that salvation answers that question precisely. This condamnation for another's sin would be unfair IF there was no salvation. But there is salvation, and so justice prevails in the end.

Now I admit I am a bit unconfortable with that answer because it sounds like this salvation act is done out of duty, rather than out of charity as taught in the Christian doctrine, and so I could be missing something. But it is a possible explanation.

For God created us deformed and made us ‘born sinners’ from the start. Yet He was kind enough to save us from ourselves? God cannot be that wicked or arrogant. God doles out mercy when and where He wills. But to condemn the human race collectively (original sin) and then swoop in later to save the human race is not glorious, its illogical. — Modern Conviviality

Hi. God did not create us deformed and 'born sinners'. In the bible, God created Adam and Eve without sin, but with free will (for free will is necessary for love). Free will is the ability to choose between good and evil. They chose evil, which damned them and their children. But God did not condemn us; Adam and Eve did. And this 'condemnation' may be a necessary result from willing evil, inasmuch as 4 necessarily results from 2+2.

I agree with you that we can know God if God reveals himself to us, like through Jesus and the bible. But why do you claim that we cannot know God any other way? You have not provided any reasons for that claim. Can you refute any of the arguments stated here?

Weakness and shyness are not qualities, are they? They are properties that are considered negative, like ugliness and laziness. The perfect being would not possess these.