one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues — Alkis Piskas

Not easy!

Here's a riddle.

I hit P hard with a wooden plank and, in an unrelated event, save Q from certain death. I get charged for assault and am given a citation for bravery.

Now, imagine I hit R hard with a wooden plank on his back to disconnect R from a live wire which is electrocuting him, saving R in the process. There are no assault charges filed against me, but I do get my citation.

The trolly scheme to collect travelers down the rail. Trollybus company bosses can be difficult... what if the driver knew he would loose his job? — EugeneW

I see, you mean the program, the regular plan that the driver should follow.
Well, does this include what you should do when you are approaching persons tied on the trolley rails?

Accident cases are judged based on the circumstances, whether the person who has provoked an accident acted correctly or wrongly according not only to rules pertinent to the job or the activity he was carrying out, but also on moral issues. There are a lot of cases where people have violated the rules pertaining to their jobs to save peoples' lives, they are finally judged to act correctly and they have been declared innocent. And as far as I can remember, the decision was always based on "major good for the greatest number". Why? Because this is the only rational way to see ethics.

one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues
— Alkis Piskas
Not easy! — Agent Smith

Certainly.
(BTW, this is the phrase that @L'éléphant used referring to the inadequacy of etchics based on "major good for the greatest number".)

I hit R hard with a wooden plank on his back to disconnect R from a live wire which is electrocuting him, saving R in the process. There are no assault charges filed against me, but I do get my citation. — Agent Smith

Of course. You have acted based on "major good". This is exactly what I have mentioned a while ago to @EugeneW, bringing up court cases.

@L'éléphant

Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save.

God's plan? How does not killing fit into it while saving not?

Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith

I have improved my Latin (and philosophical terminology) by looking up "salve veritate". Thanks! :smile:
The above two statements are quite different for me. First, because one requires from someone to avoid, refrain from doing something (no action), while the other one requires from someone to do something (action). No action is basically --but not always-- much easier than action. Also, while it is a moral and applauded action to save a life, you cannot require that from someone.

BTW, I'm totally against "The Ten Commandments" or any "preset" moral codes or dogmas as a basis for morality. Or for whatever else in that matter. I have already mentioned in this thread that they impair moral judgement, and thus judgement in general.

How does not killing fit into it while saving not? — Agent Smith

They actually both fit in. But not if you rely on "The Ten Commandments".

BTW, I'm totally against "The Ten Commandments" or any "preset" moral codes or dogmas as a basis for morality. Or for whatever else in that matter. I have already mentioned in this thread that they impair moral judgement, and thus judgement in general. — Alkis Piskas

I don't quite get the descriptor "preset". Anyway, here's the deal. if you don't quite like the idea of a code, you're really rejecting all of ethics, ethics being a system of laws/injunctions/rules (codes).

In short what's the alternative?

They actually both fit in. But not if you rely on "The Ten Commandments". — Alkis Piskas

How? Explain, please. If God wills your death, how does saving you square with God's plan?

I don't quite get the descriptor "preset" — Agent Smith

Prepared in advance. (The term "preset" is mainly used in music, but I like it! ). Maybe the word "predefined" is more appropiate. What I mean is a laid down list --formulated methodically-- of things to do or not to do. (The word "list" is used loosely here, of course. But "The Ten Commandments" is actually such a list.)

if you don't quite like the idea of a code, you're really rejecting all of ethics, ethics being a system of laws/injunctions/rules (codes). — Agent Smith

I'm not sure about that. Codes can be a lot of things. They are usually any kind of symbols (words, images) used to represent other things, a systematic collection of laws or pronciples, etc. In this case, it's a set of conventions or moral principles governing behaviour in a particular situation.
Not every system of ethics --in fact only a few, I guess-- include such codes.

Ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" do not include any kind of codes. And, while one can argue about it, even reject it on a personal basis, it can certainly not be rejected as a system, in general. That would be just absurd.

But I can see what is the problem here: There's too much theoretical talking and very little thinking about what is actually happening in life. But this is not the only time. Far from it. This happens too often, unfortunately.
I have given a lot of examples concening ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" --as I always try to do for any subject, when needed-- but I feel that they are just ignored. They are not even examined. At least not really, as situations in life, not as words.

In short what's the alternative? — Agent Smith

I trust your goodwill @Agent Smith. Really. But I can't believe that you are asking this after so many times that I presented my position on the subject of ethics. In fact, no one came to me with his/her position! So your question sounds quite ironic, doen't it. (No offense.)

If God wills your death, how does saving you square with God's plan? — Agent Smith

What if I don't believe in your God or to any God? Does that make me immoral?
See --I mean, I believe you see-- what happens when we put restrictions to and/or conditions on morality?

Prepared in advance. (The term "preset" is mainly used in music, but I like it! ). Maybe the word "predefined" is more appropiate. What I mean is a laid down list --formulated methodically-- of things to do or not to do. (The word "list" is used loosely here, of course. But "The Ten Commandments" is actually such a list.) — Alkis Piskas

No, no I meant how does a moral code being preset diminish or invalidate the moral code that is (preset)?

Ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" do not include any kind of codes — Alkis Piskas

You mean to say major good for the greatest number is NOT a code. It looks like a code e.g. the code don't lie or don't kill.

I trust your goodwill Agent Smith. Really. But I can't believe that you are asking this after so many times that I presented my position on the subject of ethics. In fact, no one came to me with his/her position! So your question sounds quite ironic, doen't it. (No offense.) — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, it must've slipped under my radar. The forum is a bustling cyberpolis with multiple active threads, hard to keep track of all the posters and their pet theories. I hope you understand my situation. Would appreciate it if you could.

What if I don't believe in your God or to any God? — Alkis Piskas

That's a different kettle of fish.

major good for the greatest number" — Alkis Piskas

The "greatest number" is easily measured. But what is the "greatest good"? Doesn't this beg the question?

Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith

If you don't save you don't kill.

I meant how does a moral code being preset diminish or invalidate the moral code that is (preset)? — Agent Smith

Do you mean if a moral code can never diminish/invalidate the morality of an action and that it shows what is always the right thing to do for a certain situation? Well, let's take one of the most commonly discussed principle of "The Ten Commandments" , "You shall not kill". This can be very easily "broken" without diminishing morality, by just considering the case of killing to defend oneself. This is cosidered a justified action, which is not punished by courts or the society. So, what is actually invalidated here is the commandment itself. It is proven useless in this case. It proves that you cannot always act based on a predefined rule.

You mean to say major good for the greatest number is NOT a code — Agent Smith

Right. It's not a code. It's more even than a principle. It's the foundation on which ethics and etchical behaviour are built. A code is addressed to a particular situation or a kind of situations. A foundation is independed of and covers any situation.

I hope you understand my situation. — Agent Smith

:smile: I certainly do. Thank you for coming back to that.

What if I don't believe in your God or to any God?
— Alkis Piskas
That's a different kettle of fish. — Agent Smith

Well, it's quite big a kettle though, isn't it? :grin:

"major good for the greatest number"
— Alkis Piskas
The "greatest number" is easily measured. — EugeneW

Actually, not even the "greatest number" is always easily to judge. It is not based so much on numbers as to areas of larger magnitude and importance. These are like concentric spheres, one inside the other, whith the individual in the center. But of course, the number always matters.

One of the best descriptions of this morality is given by Montesquieu, who was not even referring to morality!

(Free translation)
"If I knew something that was useful to me and was detrimental to my family, I would reject it from my mind. If I knew something was useful to my family and not in my homeland, I would try to forget it. If I knew something was useful to my country but prejudicial to Europe, or which was useful to Europe and prejudicial to the human race, I would consider it a crime." ("My thoughts, 11 - Thought 741")

But what is the "greatest good"? Doesn't this beg the question — EugeneW

This is mostly were reasoning and judgment come in. It's not always easy to tell. It's not an absolute. It's
subjective. I must act based on what I consider, I really believe is the correct thing to do. And I have to take certainly into consideration also "the greatest number", the other "spheres", outside me. "Major good" and "greatest number" are inseparable.

I could condense the "major good for the greatest number" foundation into simply "major good".
It could maybe easier to think of this by considering its opposite, as in our example in this thread of the "Trolley problem": "Avoid major damage". (This is not a commandement! :smile:)

I see that you keep critisizing or findng inadequate etchics based on "major good for the greatest number". That "it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues", etc. OK. But you have still not answered my question: "What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?" — Alkis Piskas

How about the constructivist approach to ethics? In this system, we have multiple moral principles that get continuously evaluated based on events and the agents involved. This system would use pluralism (not relativism) and rationality (deliberation and choices) as its main method of arriving at the proper course of action. It could also use some universality, a la Ralwsian contract theory, and it could incorporate some Kant's categorical imperative (some), and finally it considers human nature (self-interest) when coming up with moral solutions.

Note that we aren't after the "greatest happiness" (whatever this is), rather we want equilibrium: we might not be the "happiest", but at least we don't trample on some individuals so that a greater number could be satisfied.

Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith

Empty phrase that needs work.

At the risk of actually addressing the OP, here is the paper: Should the numbers count?

At issue is the justification for (P2). Taurek encourages us to consider more complex, and hence more realistic, situations than the absurdly, indeed annoyingly simple perversion of the trolly problem so beloved of adolescent philosophers.

Thank you for drawing my attention to this paper. It presents a series of arguments that seem to me to show, yet again, the ineffectiveness of moral "laws"; no sooner are they espoused than competing counterexamples are presented. Ethics cannot be algorithmic. That's the poverty of both consequentialism and deontology.

Numerous compelling examples are given in the paper. It's well worth a read.

Welcome to the forum. You have arrived at a low point in the contributors here, which is why the quality of responses has been so poor. No one even bothered to find out what Taurek's argument was. That is poor. Embarrassingly so, for the forum.

Welcome to the forum. You have arrived at a low point in the contributors here, which is why the quality of responses has been so poor. — Banno

This has also been fashionable to say here in the forum. I wonder why? For those who disagree with other views, their counter is that the contributions here have been so poor in quality.

I won't go this low. Everyone, there are good and bad posts in any history of forum community. Do not believe the hype.

Empty phrase that needs work. — L'éléphant

Help me then!

God said "don't kill" (people, animals, perhaps even plants).

He never said "save" (people, animals, or plants).

If God's plan is real, we're not supposed to interfere with it, oui?

How is not killing part of the plan while saving isn't?

Naturalists doing field work follow a principle: Don't interfere with nature, if you see a pack of wild dogs disemboweling a deer and eating it alive don't try to save the deer from such a horrible fate. However do ensure that you don't go hunting for deer yourself. Thou shalt not kill! However, that doesn't mean Thou shalt save!

I'll get back to you later. Sorry, I have a lot on my plate. Good day.

"You shall not kill". This can be very easily "broken" without diminishing morality, by just considering the case of killing to defend oneself. — Alkis Piskas

There's a thread on just war, does it exist/not.

In a confrontational/threatening situation, there are 3 options:

1. Fight (to the death)
2. Flight (run for your life)
3. Freeze (die)

Killing in self-defense is 1. What about 2 and 3? Some animals are known to roll over and play dead (possums); I, however, can't tell you how successful the possum strategy is. Reminds me of a war movie in which soldiers bayonet enemy soldiers lying on the ground, you know, to make sure they're really dead!

A digression perhaps, but it seems vital to study all possible responses nature, in her wisdom, has endowed us with.

The bottom line - it isn't necessary to kill (even in self-defense), you could just die! :chin:

Going by difficulty level, and doing/being good is no walk in the park, I'd say Freeze (just die, you a**hole!) hasta be the best a person can ever hope to be, ja? :grin:

Right. It's not a code. It's more even than a principle. It's the foundation on which ethics and etchical behaviour are built. A code is addressed to a particular situation or a kind of situations. A foundation is independed of and covers any situation. — Alkis Piskas

So, you're positing an ethics without a code? Suppose you say each individual ethical case needs to be examined separately because each is unique and that precludes mechanical application of moral injunctions. Isn't that a code?

That's all for now.

Should the numbers count? — Banno

A thousand thanks for the link. What I'd do is not refute the thesis that numbers count; let's grant utilitarians that it is a mathematical calculation: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

However, what if this one person you're willing to kill/sacrifice is going to find the cure for cancer or is Jesus, the savior? This one person is actually equivalent to the millions s/he'll save, oui? What now? Should I still kill/sacrifice this individual to save just 5 (trolley problem).

The future, mon ami, is shrouded in darkness; utilitarianism is predicated on being able to tell fortunes, not something any person, living or dead, has done till date. Yes attempts have been made, but the success rate = zip/nada/zilch/nix/sifr/zero!

Hoisted by his own petard!

Thank you for coming up with an alternative ethics scheme. I was craving for one! :grin:

How about the constructivist approach to ethics? — L'éléphant

I tried to learn about "moral constructism" but I was kind of lost ... So I will stick to your description.

we have multiple moral principles that get continuously evaluated based on events and the agents involved. — L'éléphant

It would be good to see one or two examples here of how this works ...

This system would use pluralism (not relativism) and rationality (deliberation and choices) as its main method of arriving at the proper course of action. — L'éléphant

OK, this is similar to or implied by the previous description.

It could also use some universality, a la Ralwsian contract theory, and it could incorporate some Kant's categorical imperative (some), and finally it considers human nature (self-interest) when coming up with moral solutions. — L'éléphant

There. You lost me. I have no idea about Ralwsian's theory, not even Ralwsian himself. As for Kant's ethics, I have to refresh my memory --something which I have in mind to do anyway-- since it has passed a long time ...

we aren't after the "greatest happiness" (whatever this is), rather we want equilibrium — L'éléphant

Interesting. How's that achieved? It would be good to see here too one or two examples here of how this works ...

Well, all this is OK, but it is too theoretical for me. I cannot put it in practice; in real life situations.
But it can satisfy others, of course. And it certainly enriches this thread!

Anyway, thank you again for responding to my call and offering an alternative ethical scheme.

Thank you for your coming back with all that!
I'll try to reciprocate! :smile:

1. Fight (to the death)
2. Flight (run for your life)
3. Freeze (die)
Killing in self-defense is 1. What about 2 and 3? Some animals are known to roll over and play dead (possums) — Agent Smith

Yes, flies too do that. And then they are crashed! :grin:
So we can forget No. 3 because it's not a solution.
No. 2, escaping, can be a good solution. Only that it wouldn't be that dangerous a situation if one could just do that. But what if a soldier decides to do that in a battle? He will be punished as a deserter. And what if the enemy is a fire and you are a father who runs away out of the house to save your life, leaving your wife and children to die? Certainly, this would not considered moral, would it?
Therefore, in both of the above, and all the similar cases, the most morally accepted solution is No. 1. No one would condemn that. Instead, the opposite: it could be applauded.

The bottom line - it isn't necessary to kill (even in self-defense), you could just die! :chin: — Agent Smith

Right, it certainly isn't necessary. But the above example shows that in most cases, fighting is the generally accepted solution. Besides, aside from your situation you presented, in which death is certain, in real situations it is not always certain that someone will kiiled in the fight. So, by fighting you could save both lives. Or, by killing the aggressor, you may save other people's lives from being taken by the aggressor.

So, you're positing an ethics without a code? — Agent Smith

Not exactly. I just said that "major good" is not a code, not that codes are not needed. Any entity --individual, family, group-- can and usually does have a code of ethical conduct, "silent" if not expressed orally or in writing, which pertains to specific subjects. Rights, for exemple, is between the most important and known one in a group or society. Also about racism, etc. A family can set or does have a code for children's behaviour, inside and outside the house. The couples also have commonly agreed codes of conduct for themselves. And you, as an individual, can set and do actually have a code of conduct for yourself regarding various subjects. Even if you have not laid it down expressedly or even be really aware of it, you don't want to break it!

Suppose you say each individual ethical case needs to be examined separately because each is unique and that precludes mechanical application of moral injunctions. Isn't that a code? — Agent Smith

I wouldn't classify this as a "code". Maybe as a method or rule. It's too general.
A code is an agerement or moral principle based on which one must act or behave regarding a particular subject or area or sphere. So, since the statement "Each individual ethical case needs to be examined separately" is general, i.e. it does not refer to a particular subject, it cannot be considered a code.
The examples I mentioned above refer to specific subjects (right, racism, etc.), so they can be called codes.

Anyway, I wouldn't get stuck on codes, in general. They are supplementary to an ethics theory or system, which I think is the main issue in this latest part of the discussion.

So we can forget No. 3 because it's not a solution. — Alkis Piskas

I most humbly beg to differ. These responses have been documented in the animal world, aren't we too, animals? I for one see it as a viable option and I believe, if memory serves, I did respond by freezing up once upon a time. My life has never been the same and, odd as it seems, I'm thankful for it.

this would not considered moral — Alkis Piskas

No, no, he has a point!

However, I've, of late, given up trying to figure out what God's plan is. It's just too complex. Have you ever had the pleasure of watching Rube Goldberg machines? You might intend to shoot your enemy, you pull out your gun, your arch foe is in your cross hairs, with all your hate you pull the trigger. Bang! You die! Don't ask me to explain this. Deep down you know what I'm saying is the truth! :smile:

God moves in a mysterious way. — William Cowper

You could, with little difference, swap God's plan with mother nature's. Trust mother nature, some call her Gaia, she's always right! You'll see :grin: If there's a freeze among the options, believe me it's there for a good reason!

Die if need be, never kill. — Cândido Rondon

A tough act to follow, talk is cheap, easier said than done, but that's exactly what makes it so amazingly profound. Pragmatism you might respond, but what a cop-out it is to say we must stick to doable things! Where's the fun in that?!

I just said that "major good" is not a code, not that codes are not needed. — Alkis Piskas

So major good is not a code! You know ethics becomes meaningless without a code, right? Ethics is about how to handle situations that are ethical in character, which in very general terms can be described as that involving hedonism (suffering/pain vs. joy/pleasure). We need formulae, that's what we call codes in math (I learnt that in high school).

Maybe as a method or rule. — Alkis Piskas

Word play Alkis Piskas, word play.

Good day.

I respect your view about No.3 and also your experience regarding it. For me, experience is most important in formulating our realities.

Have you ever had the pleasure of watching Rube Goldberg machines? — Agent Smith

I knew about them but not that they had that name or any name! :smile: Thanks for letting me know. (But I can't promise I won't forget soon this name! :grin:) Yes, killing oneself that way is not impossible. There's also Murphy's Law! :grin:

God moves in a mysterious way. — Agent Smith

Sorry, but I don't like this at all. In fact, I find that besides that it cannot be even considered an argument or an acceptable reply in any discussion, it's also a coward way to explain out things. "I don't know" or "You are right" are at least honest replies. At least one "dies" with honor and dignity. It also shows wisdom. (Indeed, "Openly giving up", by admitting one's defeat is a missing category in your example-situation! :smile:)

Talking about wisdom (not morality), such kind of a giving up often occurs in fights between two masculine animals. One of them just stops fighting and the fight ends just there. Or it just refuses to fight at all in a confrontation and the fight does not take place. Both animals "know their place" and they both live. Animals are often wiser than humans.

Right. Same thing applies if, as you say, you "swap God's plan with mother nature's".

Die if need be, never kill. — Agent Smith

Here it is. Another "preset" code that is to be followed blindly, ignoring circumstances and human judgement, esp. moral judgement. In fact, following such a "forced upon" code might not even show morality. It could show "obedience". One can of course really agree with such a code. But why don't you let the individual decide himself about what is right or wrong, if he can kill or not, etc., by just laying down for him the foundations of an ethics system? Wouldn't that be more fruitful?

***

Nice to have this exchange with you, @Agent Smith! :smile:

let's grant utilitarians that it is a mathematical calculation: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. — Agent Smith

Spock was interesting precisely because the writers could never quite make his total dedication to logic functional.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, only ceteris paribus; the novelty of the Taurek paper is that Taurek shows that it is never the case that all other things are equal. Or rather, that it is our choice as to what is to be considered relevant and what isn't. Consider the Captain and the Islanders in the final example in the paper, who are caught in the need to determine what it is that is relevant to the evacuation.

I completely forgot about virtue ethics (no codes). What would a virtuous person do (in such-and-such situation)? Is that like asking (@Banno) "what would Spock do?"

However Aristotle, the author of virtue ethics, was severly criticized for the absence of codes in his ethics. People couldn't use virtue ethics to solve moral problems as easily as they would've liked.

Spock was interesting precisely because the writers could never quite make his total dedication to logic functional.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, only ceteris paribus; the novelty of the Taurek paper is that Taurek shows that it is never the case that all other things are equal. Or rather, that it is our choice as to what is to be considered relevant and what isn't. Consider the Captain and the Islanders in the final example in the paper, who are caught in the need to determine what it is that is relevant to the evacuation. — Banno

:up: You're correct! There are way too many variables for anyone to carry out the felicific calculus; any done would invariably fall short of the mark, oui?

In other words, utilitarianism is as impractical as virtue ethich; in the former, there's a code (felicific calculus) but real-life scenarios are just too complex for the code to handle and in the former, there is no code. This, if nothing else, showcases the mind-boggling complexity of ethics.

I completely forgot about virtue ethics (no codes). — Agent Smith

Indeed.

People couldn't use virtue ethics to solve moral problems as easily as they would've liked. — Agent Smith

Yep. Ethics is hard.Much harder than just consequences and duty. It requires working on oneself so that one is better placed to make the right decision.

Good to know we see eye to eye on the matter.

I'm curious, how did Aristotle define a virtuous person? Did he do so in terms of his aurea mediocritas (the golden mean) or something else?

If the aurea mediocritas is his (Aristotle's) benchmark, we do have a code of ethics (avoid extremes), no?

It looks complicated!

Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. — Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein, A1 physicist, not an ethicist!

Zombies are alive, technically.
— baker
Yes, Frankenstein's monster too. — Alkis Piskas

My point is that acting on principles like

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival — Alkis Piskas

we don't avoid a zombie apocalypse scenario. Ie. if a great number of people survive, it seems inevitable that they will lead low-quality lives.