There is an important distinction between what you think is in your interest, and what is actually in your interest. The former is subjective, while the latter is objective, and can be observed through its effects on your subjective experience. Though you may think that something is in your interest, you can be objectively wrong in doing so.
self interest is a bad barometer for right and wrong.
Is it moral for me to kill and eat a man if I am starving? What about a child? What about a Nazi? All would serve the same end of feeding a starving me.
Also, if self interest is the barometer of morality then sacrifice is immoral.
self interest is a bad barometer for right and wrong.
I agree. That's why I said you have to extend this to other beings as well, and I do see that the choice of how to extend this seems somewhat arbitrary and is not objectively supported. Nonetheless, as a starting point, I think self-interest is invaluable to morality, because for a start it's a concept that we can all identify with.
Also, if self interest is the barometer of morality then sacrifice is immoral.
Yes, generally speaking, sacrifice is immoral.
Is it moral for me to kill and eat a man if I am starving? What about a child? What about a Nazi? All would serve the same end of feeding a starving me.
Probably not, since you could likely find a source of food that does not involve killing someone.
I would want my kids to be Twilight Sparkle and/or Fluttershy since they would be so well behaved and easy to deal with. Apple Jack would be ok-ish, but if Apple Bloom is any indication...
Is it moral for me to kill and eat a man if I am starving? What about a child? What about a Nazi? All would serve the same end of feeding a starving me.
Probably not, since you could likely find a source of food that does not involve killing someone.
Nope.
In the middle of the ocean with a guaranteed rescue that is exactly one cannibalism away. Death is the only alternative. Also the other guy is in a coma and a strict vegetarian so him eating me is also not an option and killing him cannot be considered self defense.
Apple Jack would be ok-ish, but if Apple Bloom is any indication...
Apple Bloom behaves wonderfully. Most parents would love to have a child so well-mannered. What's your problem with her?
Rainbow Dash would be a problem like a Bart Simpson would. I picture Applejack as being extremely obstinate, and Fluttershy hiding from the other ponies. Pinkie Pie... I somehow imagine Pinkie Pie as being extremely, surprisingly somber as a child, only to straight-facedly do something crazy every now and then.
In the middle of the ocean with a guaranteed rescue that is exactly one cannibalism away. Death is the only alternative. Also the other guy is in a coma and a strict vegetarian so him eating me is also not an option so killing him cannot be considered self defense.
Either you both die, or only he does, and it's obvious that the latter is preferable.
If it came down to me or some other dude, other dude is getting killed and eaten.
I like me more than I like you.
But there's nothing "moral" about it. The only factor is survival.
Pinkie Pie... I somehow imagine Pinkie Pie as being extremely, surprisingly somber as a child, only to straight-facedly do something crazy every now and then.
I have dealt with Pinkie Pie children. They require two parents, as they are quite tiring.
If it came down to me or some other dude, other dude is getting killed and eaten.
I like me more than I like you.
But there's nothing "moral" about it. The only factor is survival.
In this specific situation, it is almost certainly moral, because if you don't kill and eat him, you'll both die. Also, I would argue that as a general rule (though not always), survival is moral.
In the middle of the ocean with a guaranteed rescue that is exactly one cannibalism away. Death is the only alternative. Also the other guy is in a coma and a strict vegetarian so him eating me is also not an option so killing him cannot be considered self defense.
Either you both die, or only he does, and it's obvious that the latter is preferable.
He is extremely fat and his vegetarianism combined with the coma will slow his metabolism to the point where he will not starve before he is rescued. Only you will die if you don't eat him.
In the middle of the ocean with a guaranteed rescue that is exactly one cannibalism away. Death is the only alternative. Also the other guy is in a coma and a strict vegetarian so him eating me is also not an option so killing him cannot be considered self defense.
Either you both die, or only he does, and it's obvious that the latter is preferable.
He is extremely fat and his vegetarianism combined with the coma will slow his metabolism to the point where he will not starve before he is rescued. Only you will die if you don't eat him.
In this specific situation, it is almost certainly moral, because if you don't kill and eat him, you'll both die. Also, I would argue that as a general rule (though not always), survival is moral.
By your definition of "morality = self-interest?" OK, I buy that. However, there's a flaw in your argument:
In a world where you are the only conscious being, there is indeed an objective morality: that which is in your interest is necessarily moral, and that which is not is immoral.
Assuming that you are a true solipsistic entity, then the only thing you can possibly know is that you exist. How can you determine what is in your own self-interest?
Remember, solipsism. You know that you exist, and nothing else. The instant you say that "X is necessary for my survival," you've made a subjective assessment. You're assuming that your physical form is actually what you think it is. You could be a brain in a jar of nutrient goop, and the apparent threat to your survival is just a dream.
So your morality is still subjective, no matter how you slice it.
In the middle of the ocean with a guaranteed rescue that is exactly one cannibalism away. Death is the only alternative. Also the other guy is in a coma and a strict vegetarian so him eating me is also not an option so killing him cannot be considered self defense.
Either you both die, or only he does, and it's obvious that the latter is preferable.
He is [this part does not matter]. Only you will die if you don't eat him.
I say eat him. My life is more important than his.
To speak to the contrived circumstances of the other guy/girl/whatever if he is in a coma you can not guarantee that he will live the who-knows-how-many-days-before-he's-rescued they a wave wont come along and over turn the dingy/whatever and he'll then drown. A man in a coma in a boat lost at sea has less chance of being rescued than a well fed one.
Also, while you can say these things, how the hell are you supposed to know them while your lost at sea? How do you get a fat vegetarian? How do you know his coma isn't permanent? In all honesty if you are lost at sea and your friend/family member/whatever has fallen asleep and not woken up for a few days then well he's as good as dead, eat him so that at least someone can deliver the news to his family.
In the middle of the ocean with a guaranteed rescue that is exactly one cannibalism away. Death is the only alternative. Also the other guy is in a coma and a strict vegetarian so him eating me is also not an option so killing him cannot be considered self defense.
Either you both die, or only he does, and it's obvious that the latter is preferable.
He is [this part does not matter]. Only you will die if you don't eat him.
I say eat him. My life is more important than his.
To speak to the contrived circumstances of the other guy/girl/whatever if he is in a coma you can not guarantee that he will live the who-knows-how-many-days-before-he's-rescued they a wave wont come along and over turn the dingy/whatever and he'll then drown. A man in a coma in a boat lost at sea has less chance of being rescued than a well fed one.
Also, while you can say these things, how the hell are you supposed to know them while your lost at sea? How do you get a fat vegetarian? How do you know his coma isn't permanent? In all honesty if you are lost at sea and your friend/family member/whatever has fallen asleep and not woken up for a few days then well he's as good as dead, eat him so that at least someone can deliver the news to his family.
You know them because this is a hypothetical situation in which you must kill and eat a man who would not die otherwise and poses no threat to you in order to survive.
Is that action moral because it ensures your survival?
Also he is fat because of a thyroid condition that will be immediately cured along with is coma upon rescue.
Assuming that you are a true solipsistic entity, then the only thing you can possibly know is that you exist. How can you determine what is in your own self-interest?
Remember, solipsism. You know that you exist, and nothing else. The instant you say that "X is necessary for my survival," you've made a subjective assessment.
So your morality is still subjective, no matter how you slice it.
That is a flaw in every argument, because everything is subjective. Does anyone really care about that distinction? Pragmatically speaking, we accept the existence of an objective reality. Similarly, we should accept that in that situation there is an optimal course of action, and try to come as close to it as possible, even though we cannot with 100% certainty determine what that course of action is.
One way out of solipsism is to say first that NOTHING is objective. Period.
Then...
Admit this fundamental flaw in all further statements. Proceed now with observationally-confirmed measurements as being objective for all intents and purposes.
Similarly, we should accept that in that situation there is an optimal course of action, and try to come as close to it as possible, even though we cannot with 100% certainty determine what that course of action is.
The problem is that you think there is an optimal course of action. This mindset will tend to drive people to tunnel vision; that is, they'll more often falsely dichotomize the situation. That sort of game theory thinking works in the very narrow confines of a game, and perhaps certain discrete real-world situation which are immediately mathematical. But the larger part of life is filled with more variables than you can really control most of the time, so any such assessment will be necessarily flawed and perhaps even dangerously inadequate.
My answer to the hypothetical? I fucking go fishing.
My other answer? Your hypothetical is so ridiculous and contrived that it is of no practical value in a discussion about morality, which itself must have a practical focus.
Similarly, we should accept that in that situation there is an optimal course of action, and try to come as close to it as possible, even though we cannot with 100% certainty determine what that course of action is.
The problem is that you think there is an optimal course of action. This mindset will tend to drive people to tunnel vision; that is, they'll more often falsely dichotomize the situation.
That is a problem with other people, not with me. Still, for the sake of those idiot other people, we can stick with the idea that some courses of action are better than others.
That is a problem with other people, not with me. Still, for the sake of those idiot other people, we can stick with the idea that some courses of action are better than others.
You don't seriously think you're immune to that flaw, do you? That's some serious Scott Rubin action right there.
But OK, so an action which is "better" is one that best ensures your own self-interest, irrespective of consequence to others?
Then the moral thing to do is eat the other guy.
Here's a question: let's pretend your moral code would tell you that the action is immoral. Would you still do it?
Would you knowingly do something that you felt was wrong, if it guaranteed your own survival? And since we're allowed to make arbitrary definitions of the situation, let's pretend that it's actually life-or-death. Don't do the immoral thing and you die. Do the immoral thing and you live.
Still, for the sake of those idiot other people, we can stick with the idea that some courses of action are better than others.
Only better for people who agree with some number of arbitrary assumptions. As long as one is aware of the assumptions, then one can make moral judgements.
Comments
Though you may think that something is in your interest, you can be objectively wrong in doing so.
Is it moral for me to kill and eat a man if I am starving? What about a child? What about a Nazi? All would serve the same end of feeding a starving me.
Also, if self interest is the barometer of morality then sacrifice is immoral.
What would X do?
I'd want my kids to be like Apple Jack. She would never commit Kung Fu Treachery.
And ponies take over another thread.
In the middle of the ocean with a guaranteed rescue that is exactly one cannibalism away. Death is the only alternative. Also the other guy is in a coma and a strict vegetarian so him eating me is also not an option and killing him cannot be considered self defense.
Rainbow Dash would be a problem like a Bart Simpson would. I picture Applejack as being extremely obstinate, and Fluttershy hiding from the other ponies. Pinkie Pie... I somehow imagine Pinkie Pie as being extremely, surprisingly somber as a child, only to straight-facedly do something crazy every now and then.
I like me more than I like you.
But there's nothing "moral" about it. The only factor is survival. I have dealt with Pinkie Pie children. They require two parents, as they are quite tiring.
Also, I would argue that as a general rule (though not always), survival is moral.
Remember, solipsism. You know that you exist, and nothing else. The instant you say that "X is necessary for my survival," you've made a subjective assessment. You're assuming that your physical form is actually what you think it is. You could be a brain in a jar of nutrient goop, and the apparent threat to your survival is just a dream.
So your morality is still subjective, no matter how you slice it.
To speak to the contrived circumstances of the other guy/girl/whatever if he is in a coma you can not guarantee that he will live the who-knows-how-many-days-before-he's-rescued they a wave wont come along and over turn the dingy/whatever and he'll then drown. A man in a coma in a boat lost at sea has less chance of being rescued than a well fed one.
Also, while you can say these things, how the hell are you supposed to know them while your lost at sea? How do you get a fat vegetarian? How do you know his coma isn't permanent? In all honesty if you are lost at sea and your friend/family member/whatever has fallen asleep and not woken up for a few days then well he's as good as dead, eat him so that at least someone can deliver the news to his family.
Is that action moral because it ensures your survival?
Also he is fat because of a thyroid condition that will be immediately cured along with is coma upon rescue.
Pragmatically speaking, we accept the existence of an objective reality. Similarly, we should accept that in that situation there is an optimal course of action, and try to come as close to it as possible, even though we cannot with 100% certainty determine what that course of action is.
Then...
Admit this fundamental flaw in all further statements. Proceed now with observationally-confirmed measurements as being objective for all intents and purposes.
You must kill a man who will not otherwise die and poses no threat to you in order to survive. Is is moral to do so?
My answer to the hypothetical? I fucking go fishing.
My other answer? Your hypothetical is so ridiculous and contrived that it is of no practical value in a discussion about morality, which itself must have a practical focus.
But OK, so an action which is "better" is one that best ensures your own self-interest, irrespective of consequence to others?
Then the moral thing to do is eat the other guy.
Here's a question: let's pretend your moral code would tell you that the action is immoral. Would you still do it?
Would you knowingly do something that you felt was wrong, if it guaranteed your own survival? And since we're allowed to make arbitrary definitions of the situation, let's pretend that it's actually life-or-death. Don't do the immoral thing and you die. Do the immoral thing and you live.