On a slight tangent how do people deal with moral problems?
The same way you make any decision. You identify possible outcomes and weigh them against one another.
Except that it's very subjective.
That's why you have to make every attempt to think rationally in the face of a moral problem, rather than allowing yourself to be driven solely by emotion.
But morality is subjective. What's moral to one person can be immoral to another. Not everyone is operating on the same rule set.
Consider also that not everyone's morality is based on rationality. Rational people do not fly planes into buildings because it's not rational. Someone who thinks it's morally superior to fly a plane into a building and murder as many people as possible in the process, regardless of their relevance to their problem, may see themselves as very moral, but I don't think any rational person would agree.
Consider also that not everyone's morality is based on rationality. Rational people do not fly planes into buildings because it's not rational. Someone who thinks it's morally superior to fly a plane into a building and murder as many people as possible in the process, regardless of their relevance to their problem, may see themselves as very moral, but I don't think any rational person would agree.
It's one of the odder things about people - it doesn't matter if you're a fucking saint, or you murder orphans in your spare time and use their skin to make particularly attractive little handbags that you sell at market for a tidy little profit because murdering orphans and making handbags from their skin is a business with a very low operating cost, nobody is the Villain in their own story.
Consider also that not everyone's morality is based on rationality. Rational people do not fly planes into buildings because it's not rational. Someone who thinks it's morally superior to fly a plane into a building and murder as many people as possible in the process, regardless of their relevance to their problem, may see themselves as very moral, but I don't think any rational person would agree.
I understand and agree with your point.
It's one of the odder things about people - it doesn't matter if you're a fucking saint, or you murder orphans in your spare time and use their skin to make particularly attractive little handbags that you sell at market for a tidy little profit, nobody is the Villain in their own story.
I also agree with this.
We humans like to think we play nice, but we're just fucked up.
Consider also that not everyone's morality is based on rationality. Rational people do not fly planes into buildings because it's not rational. Someone who thinks it's morally superior to fly a plane into a building and murder as many people as possible in the process, regardless of their relevance to their problem, may see themselves as very moral, but I don't think any rational person would agree.
I'm not so sure. If you consider a world where all those people are dead (yourself included) to be a better one than one where they are not, isn't it rational to fly the plane into the building?
It's a really weird thing to fully realise, it makes you think back about all the times where YOU felt like the victim, or you thought you were being a good person, and examine them to see if you were really being a jizzbiscut.
@Lackofcheese; That was to do with my escape from solipsism. It is my choice to do those things, just as it is my choice to accept certain facts that are shown to me. That is not to say that I dumbly believe everything that is shown to me. It is just that there are some accepted things that form the rules of my existence. ie the sun will rise.
I was asking if anyone had a particular ethics theory that they followed.
Being rational about human affairs is not possible without asserting truths about the human condition, which by their very nature are moral and entirely subjective.
The opposite of free will would be to be wholly determined. I don't think this is really possible, since a determined consciousness which is externally motivated becomes pure exteriority and thus ceases to be consciousness.
Being rational about human affairs is not possible without asserting truths about the human condition, which by their very nature are moral and entirely subjective.
The fact that our values are subjective does not mean that we cannot find an objective basis for our morality. Sam Harris has much of interest to say on this topic.
The fact that our values are subjective does not mean that they cannot have an underlying objective basis.
I disagree. Values are subjective, period. They have objectivity placed on top of them.
Take the classic problem of controlling the train that will either kill one person or five. You objectively decide to kill one, as that is less harm than five. However, harm is subjective. The value of "killing is wrong" is completely subjective. Maybe you think killing is good. In that case five is better.
The opposite of free will would be to be wholly determined. I don't think this is really possible, since a determined consciousness which is externally motivated becomes pure exteriority and thus ceases to be consciousness.
I disagree entirely. There is no magical difference between the neurons in your brain and all other matter in the universe, it just happens that subjective experience results when matter behaves in a certain way. This is true regardless of whether the universe is deterministic.
The entirety of reality is "exteriority", but consciousness does not need to exist independently of reality itself.
Consider also that not everyone's morality is based on rationality. Rational people do not fly planes into buildings because it's not rational. Someone who thinks it's morally superior to fly a plane into a building and murder as many people as possible in the process, regardless of their relevance to their problem, may see themselves as very moral, but I don't think any rational person would agree.
I'm not so sure. If you consider a world where all those people are dead (yourself included) to be a better one than one where they are not, isn't it rational to fly the plane into the building?
Interesting point. But being dead and killing everyone around me with the assertion that it is in fact rational to do such a thing is a hard argument. One would have to argue that suicide is a good thing, and in fact doing so while killing thousands of people who really have nothing to do with you is also good or beneficial to you in some way. I would argue that a rational person would never say being dead is better than being alive, debasing the whole 'rational' side of the argument. The plane-fliers had to believe that they were going to get something out of killing all those people, or they wouldn't have done it. It could be that they thought it would scare the US into submission, or make the US pull troops out of wherever, or to show people they should be feared, or to get their virgins in the afterlife. Any of those suppositions is easily proven wrong, and I would also argue that rational people generally don't commit suicide with the hope of getting laid by virgins for eternity. While they may have believed what they were doing was for a good cause, whatever that may be, it was not rational. It was, in fact, the least effective way to do anything except kill people. It didn't further a greater cause, it certainly didn't get the US out of the middle east, the fear and shock has worn off and been replaced with racism, hatred and increased security all of which are detrimental to their cause and people as a whole. EVERYTHING they did had a negative effect towards anything related to them. Hence, no rational value.
Interesting point. But being dead and killing everyone around me with the assertion that it is in fact rational to do such a thing is a hard argument. One would have to argue that suicide is a good thing, and in fact doing so while killing thousands of people who really have nothing to do with you is also good or beneficial to you in some way.
The suicide doesn't have to be good in and of itself. Although it might suck that you yourself died, the positive value of the large number of dead heathens might outweigh the negative value of you yourself dying.
I would argue that a rational person would never say being dead is better than being alive, debasing the whole 'rational' side of the argument. The plane-fliers had to believe that they were going to get something out of killing all those people, or they wouldn't have done it. It could be that they thought it would scare the US into submission, or make the US pull troops out of wherever, or to show people they should be feared, or to get their virgins in the afterlife. Any of those suppositions is easily proven wrong, and I would also argue that rational people generally don't commit suicide with the hope of getting laid by virgins for eternity.
They do if 1) They have calculated a high probability of it occurring. 2) The "virgins" in question are not, in fact, virgins.
Rational people do not fly planes into buildings because it's not rational.
This is an overly broad statement, I think. I look at the 9/11 attacks as a political statement, and as far as they go, I don't think there has been any greater. Here's a quote from Osama Bin Laden after the fact: "...neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad..."
Suicide bombing IS (or can be) a valid and rational strategy, although it is something I'll try to avoid myself.
Being rational about human affairs is not possible without asserting truths about the human condition, which by their very nature are moral and entirely subjective.
The fact that our values are subjective does not mean that we cannot find an objective basis for our morality.
I was merely pointing out that rationality with regards to human affairs is just as non-universal as morality (the "objective" formulations of which are more objective by consensus than objective by proof from first principles).
The reason I brought this up is that sometimes "rationality" is treated like an exact tool which it may be when you try to figure out, e.g., how to apportion scarce resources between equal recipients. This facade of being an extension of logic is, however, severely flawed in most cases to do with human affairs due to limits of information, limits of time, limits of cognitive ability, etc. Bounded rationality is a much more apt concept.
To say that "Rational people don't do X", just begs the question; what kind of rationality?
I minored in Philosophy, but honestly, my own reading and research prior to my formal studies and after my formal studies changed had a far larger impact on my perception and perspective of reality.
Rational people do not fly planes into buildings because it's not rational.
This is an overly broad statement, I think. I look at the 9/11 attacks as a political statement, and as far as they go, I don't think there has been any greater. Here's a quote from Osama Bin Laden after the fact: "...neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad..."
Suicide bombing IS (or can be) a valid and rational strategy, although it is something I'll try to avoid myself.
Except it got them the exact opposite of what they wanted. US military presence was far smaller before the attacks. Also, anyone studying history will note that terrorists generally don't get what they want from the US, and in fact the result is generally exactly the opposite of what they wanted. I'd also question weather or not Bin Ladin really gave two shits about Palestine since he doesn't seem to be doing anything to make them safer. One can not argue that taking part in an activity that has been patently proven to get you exactly the opposite of what you want is a rational behavior.
terrorists generally don't get what they want from the US, and in fact the result is generally exactly the opposite of what they wanted.
If they wanted us to be groped and xrayed before we can fly domestically, then they most certainly did get it. The "terrorists" are winning, because us Americans are responding overwhelmingly and expensively (both ideologically and monetarily) asymmetrically.
I'd also question weather or not Bin Ladin really gave two shits about Palestine since he doesn't seem to be doing anything to make them safer.
Palestine isn't a goal so much as a weapon. It's a powderkeg that can easily be used to vex US interests. He's getting exactly what he always wanted in our predictable overreaction to "terrorism."
One can not argue that taking part in an activity that has been patently proven to get you exactly the opposite of what you want is a rational behavior.
And while the individual terrorists are usually not getting what they want, the people directing them and lying to them are. And us, by overreacting with the TSA and massive security programs, are playing into their hands.
Also, anyone studying history will note that terrorists generally don't get what they want from the US, and in fact the result is generally exactly the opposite of what they wanted.
Anyone studying history will note that the very start of the US as a country begins with acts of terrorism.
Osama bin Laden said he wanted Americans to feel fear. Mission accomplished.
terrorists generally don't get what they want from the US, and in fact the result is generally exactly the opposite of what they wanted.
If they wanted us to be groped and xrayed before we can fly domestically, then they most certainly did get it.The "terrorists"arewinning, because us Americans are responding overwhelmingly and expensively (both ideologically and monetarily) asymmetrically.
Thus making it harder for them to do anything. Congratulations, you made us more like Israel in regards to security and liking you even less. You made your minor enemy more like your major one through your own actions.
I'd also question weather or not Bin Ladin really gave two shits about Palestine since he doesn't seem to be doing anything to make them safer.
Palestine isn't a goal so much as a weapon. It's a powderkeg that can easily be used to vex US interests. He's getting exactly what he always wanted in our predictable overreaction to "terrorism."
They're doing it wrong then. Hell, even Hamas did a good job convincing Palestine (albeit temporarily) they were going to do a lot of good, and they didn't mention killing Americans in their campaigns as far as I recall. I'd also not call increased security in airports an over reaction as much as a reaction. An over reaction would be not letting any civilian fly without a full body cavity search, and an x-ray, and a polygraph, and gave proof they were not Muslim.
One can not argue that taking part in an activity that has been patently proven to get you exactly the opposite of what you want is a rational behavior.
And while the individual terrorists are usually not getting what they want, the people directing them and lying to themare. And us, by overreacting with the TSA and massive security programs, are playing into their hands.
"Haha! I have made it harder for my operatives to do anything and made the world hate Muslims! I've also brought my enemies closer together! I'm brilliant! They'll cave in to us any day now!"
Also, anyone studying history will note that terrorists generally don't get what they want from the US, and in fact the result is generally exactly the opposite of what they wanted.
Anyone studying history will note that the very start of the US as a country begins with acts of terrorism.
Osama bin Laden said he wanted Americans to feel fear. Mission accomplished.
Fear for a bit. Followed promptly by blind and vengeful hatred. If his goal was to have some Americans feel fear in the short term followed by an abrupt overreaction towards genocide, then well done.
Fear for a bit. Followed promptly by blind and vengeful hatred. If his goal was to have some Americans feel fear in the short term followed by an abrupt overreaction towards genocide, then well done.
We are obviously looking at the situation from such different viewpoints that our data is very different. Also, I'm not going to continue this discussion, because you are now talking about very specific events, while I was talking about the application of rationality to acts of aggression and terrorism in general.
Fear for a bit. Followed promptly by blind and vengeful hatred. If his goal was to have some Americans feel fear in the short term followed by an abrupt overreaction towards genocide, then well done.
We are obviously looking at the situation from such different viewpoints that our data is very different. Also, I'm not going to continue this discussion, because you are now talking about very specific events, while I was talking about the application of rationality to acts of aggression and terrorism in general.
Sadly the arguments do break down when we get into specifics. I can easily think of times when acts that would be considered 'terrorist-ish' would be very justified and rational. Hell, there have even been some fun games about it.
Terrorist and freedom fighter are relative terms, just like someone is a patriot or traitor depending on political leanings. To Godwin right away, would a suicide attack by Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany be terrorism?
If the outcome is successful is another measure. You can rationally decide to do something, but because you lack all knowledge, the plan may fail. With hindsight, we say "Idiot!" or "Genius!" depending if they succeed.
Thus making it harder for them to do anything. Congratulations, you made us more like Israel in regards to security and liking you even less. You made your minor enemy more like your major one through your own actions.
You're kidding, right? It would be trivial to bomb the security line, or any train terminal, or any public place. All we've done is make it annoying for non-terrorists to fly: our security is literally nothing like Israel's.
Fear for a bit. Followed promptly by blind and vengeful hatred. If his goal was to have some Americans feel fear in the short term followed by an abrupt overreaction towards genocide, then well done.
You're not kidding... You do realize that our misguided invasion of Iraq created far more opportunities for terrorists and their interests due to the destabilization of what was previously a relatively modern and secular state, right? That our continued reactions only serve to make the world situation worse, not better? Did you even read the article I linked to? Dollar for dollar, the terrorists are kicking our asses, and the TSA is the forefront of those losses.
I respect you, but your stance on this issue is ludicrous and misguided. This isn't the thread for further discussion, but I'm honestly disappointed in you.
The bombing of a security line would likely result in further reaching security measures. Sure, they can still bomb those other things, but they're certainly not going to be taking over airliners anytime soon. But I don't think "making travel a pain in the ass" was the goal for them. I think it was more lofty, in their eyes. They wanted us to live in a constant state of fear, which just isn't the case. We reacted, certainly, but I never felt any hysteria. The biggest and longest-lasting reaction I have seen is a general racism that has cropped up from the conservatives in this country and others. I do agree that invading Iraq was a ludicrously bad decision and should have never been done in the first place. My point was if your goal was to 'get the Americans out of the middle east' then suicide bombings abroad have had the exact opposite effect. Weather or not it was a good idea for us to put them there, the troops are in the middle east at a greater number than before the terrorist attacks. I'd count that as a loss if I was a rational creature. Of course, getting back to the root argument, I don't think the terrorists were working from a rational standpoint in the first place.
Adam, you are so incredibly misguided. Airport security doesn't do anything. The only things that have made airplanes safer since 9/11 are the sealed cockpit doors and the educated passengers who know that they should fight back. Every single other security measure, including groping and full body scanning, has not increased security in any way.
You really need to read Bruce Schneier's blog. Judging by the level to which you are misguided on this topic, you probably need to read the whole thing starting at the beginning. http://www.schneier.com/
Comments
We humans like to think we play nice, but we're just fucked up.
And we have no free will. Or do we. I dunno.
It's a really weird thing to fully realise, it makes you think back about all the times where YOU felt like the victim, or you thought you were being a good person, and examine them to see if you were really being a jizzbiscut.
I was asking if anyone had a particular ethics theory that they followed.
Sam Harris has much of interest to say on this topic.
Take the classic problem of controlling the train that will either kill one person or five. You objectively decide to kill one, as that is less harm than five. However, harm is subjective. The value of "killing is wrong" is completely subjective. Maybe you think killing is good. In that case five is better.
IIRC Sam Harris' ted talk was BS.
The entirety of reality is "exteriority", but consciousness does not need to exist independently of reality itself.
I would argue that a rational person would never say being dead is better than being alive, debasing the whole 'rational' side of the argument. The plane-fliers had to believe that they were going to get something out of killing all those people, or they wouldn't have done it. It could be that they thought it would scare the US into submission, or make the US pull troops out of wherever, or to show people they should be feared, or to get their virgins in the afterlife. Any of those suppositions is easily proven wrong, and I would also argue that rational people generally don't commit suicide with the hope of getting laid by virgins for eternity.
While they may have believed what they were doing was for a good cause, whatever that may be, it was not rational. It was, in fact, the least effective way to do anything except kill people. It didn't further a greater cause, it certainly didn't get the US out of the middle east, the fear and shock has worn off and been replaced with racism, hatred and increased security all of which are detrimental to their cause and people as a whole. EVERYTHING they did had a negative effect towards anything related to them. Hence, no rational value.
1) They have calculated a high probability of it occurring.
2) The "virgins" in question are not, in fact, virgins.
not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad..."
Suicide bombing IS (or can be) a valid and rational strategy, although it is something I'll try to avoid myself.
The reason I brought this up is that sometimes "rationality" is treated like an exact tool which it may be when you try to figure out, e.g., how to apportion scarce resources between equal recipients. This facade of being an extension of logic is, however, severely flawed in most cases to do with human affairs due to limits of information, limits of time, limits of cognitive ability, etc. Bounded rationality is a much more apt concept.
To say that "Rational people don't do X", just begs the question; what kind of rationality?
One can not argue that taking part in an activity that has been patently proven to get you exactly the opposite of what you want is a rational behavior.
Osama bin Laden said he wanted Americans to feel fear. Mission accomplished.
If the outcome is successful is another measure. You can rationally decide to do something, but because you lack all knowledge, the plan may fail. With hindsight, we say "Idiot!" or "Genius!" depending if they succeed.
I respect you, but your stance on this issue is ludicrous and misguided. This isn't the thread for further discussion, but I'm honestly disappointed in you.
But I don't think "making travel a pain in the ass" was the goal for them. I think it was more lofty, in their eyes. They wanted us to live in a constant state of fear, which just isn't the case. We reacted, certainly, but I never felt any hysteria. The biggest and longest-lasting reaction I have seen is a general racism that has cropped up from the conservatives in this country and others.
I do agree that invading Iraq was a ludicrously bad decision and should have never been done in the first place. My point was if your goal was to 'get the Americans out of the middle east' then suicide bombings abroad have had the exact opposite effect. Weather or not it was a good idea for us to put them there, the troops are in the middle east at a greater number than before the terrorist attacks. I'd count that as a loss if I was a rational creature.
Of course, getting back to the root argument, I don't think the terrorists were working from a rational standpoint in the first place.
You really need to read Bruce Schneier's blog. Judging by the level to which you are misguided on this topic, you probably need to read the whole thing starting at the beginning. http://www.schneier.com/