May be.

May be — Purple Pond

:D

Seriously, what do you think?

I honestly don't know what to think. How is damning for consequentialism? Is it because we can never know what the outcome of an event means?

Is it because we can never know what the outcome of an event means? — Purple Pond

Yes, because the chain the causation doesn't stop...it continues unto the end of the universe itself.

The story seems to be a damning report on consequnetialism as a moral theory. — TheMadFool

How is it damning to consequentialism? It is more like a confirmation of causal determinism and the best thing to do is pretty much say 'you never know' and letting go of holding onto the need to control; by doing so, you will find that both wrong and right, good or bad are united in a certain flow with nature.

Yes, because the chain the causation doesn't stop...it continues unto the end of the universe itself. — TheMadFool

So what if the causes never stop? We can still track the causes that are meaningful, and ignore the rest. And the "maybe" story is rare, there's usually only one meaningful effect to a cause.

Always loved that story. Stoicism, of a Confucian variety, I always thought. (BTW you mis-spelled 'consequentialism' in your OP.)

See also moral luck.

We can still track the causes that are meaningful, and ignore the rest. — Purple Pond

Indeed, one would have to be dealing with foreseeable consequences, but not necessarily probable ones. Thus drunk driving is an offence even though most times no accident occurs.

I think we operate consequentially when the immediate effects of our actions are clear and determinate, which covers a lot of our actions. When effects of actions are not easy to determine we rely on our what we have learn't and what we believe to be correct...and act conscientiously.

The story seems to be a damning report on consequnetialism as a moral theory.

What do you think? — TheMadFool

For commentary on the Taoist quote, I like what Professor Charles Anderson Edward Berry had to say on the subject - "C'est la vie say the old folks. It goes to show you never can tell."

One can never know the short term consequences if any action or long term, which is an important idea that scientists totally ignore, particularly those involved with biology of any type.

How is it damning to consequentialism? It is more like a confirmation of causal determinism and the best thing to do is pretty much say 'you never know' and letting go of holding onto the need to control; by doing so, you will find that both wrong and right, good or bad are united in a certain flow with nature. — TimeLine

What I want to say is that we have no way of knowing the consequences of our actions. The May be story brings that out very clearly. And Consequentialism is based on knowledge of the effects of our actions. So, doesn't the story undermine Consequentialism?

So what if the causes never stop? We can still track the causes that are meaningful, and ignore the rest. And the "maybe" story is rare, there's usually only one meaningful effect to a cause. — Purple Pond

That's a nice way to look at it but the punchline of the May be story is that it's impossible to know both the effects and their magnitude of our actions. Isn't this a fatal blow to consequentialist moral theory?

Indeed, one would have to be dealing with foreseeable consequences — unenlightened

You're right. Consequentialism should be based on, as you put it, foreseeable effects of our actions BUT the point of the story is that effects don't stop at a point in time; the chain of causation continues onwards. There's no reason to prefer immediate effects over remote effects because as per conequentialism. Time isn't a feature of moral theory, at least not in the prescriptive sense. Look at how people blame the US for al qaeda - terrorism has its seeds in US involvement during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. What do you think?

Always loved that story. Stoicism, of a Confucian variety, I always thought. (BTW you mis-spelled 'consequentialism' in your OP.) — Wayfarer

Thanks for spotting the error. Will correct it ASAP.

I think we operate consequentially when the immediate effects of our actions are clear and determinate, which covers a lot of our actions. When effects of actions are not easy to determine we rely on our what we have learn't and what we believe to be correct...and act — Cavacava

As I said in my response above, consequentialism doesn't have a time frame for effects of our actions. Most importantly, one can't deny the fact that causation never stops. The causal web is too complex for consequentialism to be a sound moral theory.

"C'est la vie said the old folks. It goes to show you never can tell." — T Clark

Exactly.

One can never know the short term consequences if any action or long term, which is an important idea that scientists totally ignore, particularly those involved with biology of any type. — Rich

So, is consequentialism dead in the water?

You're right. Consequentialism should be based on, as you put it, foreseeable effects of our actions BUT the point of the story is that effects don't stop at a point in time; the chain of causation continues onwards. There's no reason to prefer immediate effects over remote effects because as per conequentialism. Time isn't a feature of moral theory, at least not in the prescriptive sense. Look at how people blame the US for al qaeda - terrorism has its seeds in US involvement during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. What do you think? — TheMadFool

There is an argument to had, and it is had: some say it is wrong to beat your child because it hurts them, and others say that to spare the rod will spoil he child. But both sides are consequential. I can imagine a panglossian argument that the Holocaust was a good thing because it fixed in the mind the depths of degradation to which for ever after man will strive to avoid. It's a poor argument and there's little truth in it, nor that the atomic bombing of Japan has served to keep the nuclear peace.

But again, these are consequential arguments, that bad things can lead to good, or in your example, the reverse - well no, in that case, there was nothing good in the first place that I can see.

The chain of consequences disappears into the unforeseeable future - we can agree. And perhaps we can agree too, that moral action is invariably motivated by foreseen consequences - one is not usually motivated to break one's leg on the off chance that the military will be recruiting, but only if it is foreseen, just as the farmer works his crops foreseeing a harvest. I suspect that even Abraham set out to sacrifice his son foreseeing blessings from God.

But then we arrive at the Platonic argument that every man is motivated by foreseen good of some sort. Even Hitler foresaw a world without Jews, and thought it good. But I want to say that Hitler's actions were evil, and that his motives were evil.

Well we distinguish the conscientious objector from the coward in terms of their motives, as unselfish and selfish, respectively, and this is the other factor that has to be accounted for. But it modifies, rather than negates consequentialism, just as foreseeability modifies but does not negate it. And just as a coward may pretend even to himself to be a conscientious objector, so Hitler convinced himself that he was acting unselfishly for the good of the thousand year Reich.

And I suppose, from the difficulty of discerning even one's own motivation, one might arrive at virtue ethics, where the cultivation of good habit is the best bet, but the bet still concerns consequences.

And I suppose, from the difficulty of discerning even one's own motivation, one might arrive at virtue ethics, where the cultivation of good habit is the best bet, but the bet still concerns consequences. — unenlightened

Here you've led me into the fog that's been bothering me but I've kept it on the backburner coz I thought it might clear up on its own.

As you have correctly pointed out and if I've understood it, all moral theories are, well, consequentialist in nature. Even Kant's theories and his categorical imperative are consequence based. But there must be a difference between the two, deontology which is, purportedly, not about consequences and consequentialism which is wholly about consequences. So, what's the difference between deontology and consequentialism?

The point of the Taoist story seems to be that there can be no workable moral theory based on consequences no matter how we may try to find one. Consequences are simply beyond our control.

Consequences are simply beyond our control. — TheMadFool

But they're not; not simply, anyway. Simply, if you chuck a brick at someone's window, you know what to expect; an broken window and an angry resident. So don't do it. Now we could make up some scenario where you managed by doing so to distract him from murdering his wife, and if you saw him doing that through the window, then that would justify breaking the window. But don't go breaking windows on the off chance. The Taoist still works his land with the maybe harvest in mind, rather than the maybe someone will murder him for his harvest.

The point of the Taoist story seems to be that there can be no workable moral theory based on consequences no matter how we may try to find one. Consequences are simply beyond our control. — TheMadFool

I didn't read the story as having anything to do with morality or moral theory. I also don't think it's a rejection of science generally, which would follow your same logic since science depends entirely upon reproducible results.

If the fable were an actual representation of a typical course of events, then we'd have really big problems navigating our world, sure. It's not though. It's just a fable. It's not even an actual counter example of an predictable world. It's a made up story.

If you told a rocket scientist he shouldn't expect his rocket to make it to the moon because according to the "maybe" story a gale force wind might divert it, I think he might point out that he makes his predictions on actual prior results and not ancient fables.

But they're not; not simply, anyway. Simply, if you chuck a brick at someone's window, you know what to expect; an broken window and an angry resident. So don't do it. Now we could make up some scenario where you managed by doing so to distract him from murdering his wife, and if you saw him doing that through the window, then that would justify breaking the window. But don't go breaking windows on the off chance. The Taoist still works his land with the maybe harvest in mind, rather than the maybe someone will murder him for his harvest. — unenlightened

I agree that consequences, their anticipation and manipulation, form 99.99% of our daily activity; much as @Hanover said.

However, my issue is not with what you and Hanover said. I'm talking about the moral ambiguity of the consequences of our actions. As the story clearly demonstrates. Any action can be good AND bad in so many different permutations that it's impossible to use it as a principle to guide our actions. Again, you did say that we're only responsible to the extent that an effect is foreseeable. I agree but my point is that the moral consequences of an action are just not foreseeable and so we should, by that reason, give up on consequentialism.

Suppose you were a British agent (& latter an actual Don in Philosophy) in France working with the French resistance during the time of WWII and you have to interview a prisoner. The French have explained that they plan to kill the prisoner regardless of what he might say.

You question the prisoner, who informs you that he will not say a thing unless you can guarantee he will not be killed.

Do you lie to him?
or
Do you tell him that you can't make that guarantee?

However, my issue is not with what you and Hanover said. I'm talking about the moral ambiguity of the consequences of our actions. As the story clearly demonstrates. Any action can be good AND bad in so many different permutations that it's impossible to use it as a principle to guide our actions. Again, you did say that we're only responsible to the extent that an effect is foreseeable. I agree but my point is that the moral consequences of an action are just not foreseeable and so we should, by that reason, give up on consequentialism. — TheMadFool

The "story" cannot be used to demonstrate anything. It's not empirical evidence. It's a made up story. As I said, if the story were an accurate portrayal of the typical course of reality, then we could consider it as evidence of the futility of making any plans for the future due to the absolute unpredictability of it. Fortunately, the story describes an extreme, but not something we should typically expect.

Do you lie to him?
or
Do you tell him that you can't make that guarantee? — Cavacava

Something is always better than nothing but that puts consequentialism on the backfoot. I shouldn't be happy I got sushi if the only thing on the menu is sushi, right?

The "story" cannot be used to demonstrate anything. It's not empirical evidence. It's a made up story. As I said, if the story were an accurate portrayal of the typical course of reality, then we could consider it as evidence of the futility of making any plans for the future due to the absolute unpredictability of it. Fortunately, the story describes an extreme, but not something we should typically expect. — Hanover

I have a real world example. USA supported the Taliban, calling them freedom fighters during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Taliban were the good guys. Fastforward a couple decades and now the Taliban=Terrorists, the evil guys. Who knows what'll happen another couple of decades later. This is a true story but, thematically, ditto to the Taoist tale.

That's a nice way to look at it but the punchline of the May be story is that it's impossible to know both the effects and their magnitude of our actions. Isn't this a fatal blow to consequentialist moral theory? — TheMadFool

That may be a problem with consequentialist epistemology but not consequentialist ontology.

Something is always better than nothing but that puts consequentialism on the backfoot. I shouldn't be happy I got sushi if the only thing on the menu is sushi, right?

Is this out of the Tao? :-O

What I want to say is that we have no way of knowing the consequences of our actions. The May be story brings that out very clearly. And Consequentialism is based on knowledge of the effects of our actions. So, doesn't the story undermine Consequentialism? — TheMadFool

It reinforces consequentialism rather than undermines it; determinism implies that only one result will occur out of a number of probable outcomes - this outcome being the consequence - and since there is no (clear) way one can with either facts or even awareness of the probable outcomes change this, there is no way one can control that outcome. The statement is trying to show the yin and yang between positive and negative irrelevant to consequences.

So, is consequentialism dead in the water? — TheMadFool

Objectively yes. Subjectively is all we have and it is filled with all kinds of problems.

That may be a problem with consequentialist epistemology but not consequentialist ontology. — Purple Pond

Wherever the shoe pinches, you still can't walk.

The statement is trying to show the yin and yang between positive and negative irrelevant to consequences. — TimeLine

I just thought of something.

The causal web consists of two kinds of factors:

1. Free agents: people, like us, who have free will (controversial but widely believed to be true). We can, sort of, insert ourselves in the causal web and make changes.

2. Non-free agents: non-human factors like animals, the weather, etc. These have no free will and so can't be said to insert themselves into the causal web.

So, to be fair to consequentialism, we're responsible for only type 1 effects, where we, as free agents, insert ourselves in the causal web. How does that sound?

Is this out of the Tao? :-O — Cavacava

:D. Any objections?

1. Free agents: people, like us, who have free will (controversial but widely believed to be true). We can, sort of, insert ourselves in the causal web and make changes.

2. Non-free agents: non-human factors like animals, the weather, etc. These have no free will and so can't be said to insert themselves into the causal web. — TheMadFool

There is no escaping determinism except through consciousness (transcendence) where we have the capacity to become aware of ourselves, our person-hood as separate to the external world and it is what we do with this capacity that enables us to exercise free-will as autonomous agents. Consciousness is like the algorithm that sets the universe in motion.

Taoists see nature as a harmony between destructive (death) and peaceful (life) and consciousness mirrors the same process we see in nature, only we have the capacity to use it effectively. So, whilst we are a part of the causal web in every other way, moral responsibility (life) is the necessary balance against the destructive qualities we possess (violence, hatred, ignorance, evil) and once we go beyond good and evil, we become one with 'nature' or the ebb and flow of this monism. If the trajectory of your will is attuned to this moral outlook, you are taking those necessary steps towards enlightenment.

So, to be fair to consequentialism, we're responsible for only type 1 effects, where we, as free agents, insert ourselves in the causal web. How does that sound? — TheMadFool

I actually practised this, not always successfully but as an example, several weeks ago my place got flooded after a storm raged through my city and I was not at all phased by it, no stress or anxiety. My landlord then told us that we all had to leave and because of the emergency situation my housemates and I decided to share elsewhere, so I moved in with a friend. This friend has a housemate who is related to one of my favourite writers and she put me in touch with him; he has offered to mentor me during my writing. It has also given me the opportunity to save more money because the rent is exponentially cheaper and it is only for six months so I can adequately prepare to find my own place during that period. It turned out for the way better.

I am steadily learning this process and it quite literally why I often feel happy and at peace. There is a balance between bad and good that almost cancels itself out, leaving only peace.

There is no escaping determinism except through consciousness (transcendence) — TimeLine

Very interesting. I was just thinking on determinism and free will. My thoughts aren't clear enough to deserve a post though.

There is a balance between bad and good that almost cancels itself out, leaving only peace. — TimeLine

Peace, different from happiness. Another interesting thing you've said.

I need some time to think over what you've said. Thanks.

There is no escaping determinism except through consciousness (transcendence) where we have the capacity to become aware of ourselves, our person-hood as separate to the external world and it is what we do with this capacity that enables us to exercise free-will as autonomous agents. Consciousness is like the algorithm that sets the universe in motion — TimeLine

But if consciousness is simply a product of the physical brain, there is no separation--our consciousness is part of "the external world" just like everything else, and so we have no free will. This is something I've been struggling with ever since I started studying Taoism a few years back. There was about a year where I was very satisfied with things and the Taoist philosophy brought me so much peace, but eventually I could no longer ignore the dissonance between my newfound philosophy and my previously-held beliefs about the nature of consciousness.

I truly love Taoist philosophy and wish I could embrace it fully, but my lack of belief in free will won't allow me. Can you offer any sort of help with this issue?