It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to which "objective" morality?
I can think of many situations when initiation of force would be more moral than doing nothing.
So prove objecively (that is, using science and logic) that your deontological version of morality which always rejects it is universal and objective.
And first, you must show that my consequentialist utilitarian morality which allows it in some circumstances is actually not objective and universal, since there is a very good proof that it is -
The cant or wont understand that the 3:1 ratio of government payouts vs taxes simply drove every western democracy catastrophically into debt and inflation.
You said it yourself. 3:1 ratio of government payouts vs taxes is what causes economic problems.
I can easily imagine Welfare Capitalism (seems like our property extremists never heard of that, thus they still advocate
All problems you speak of can be solved without returning to early capitalism social catastrophe.
And yet you offer none of these situations for us to scrutinize, and so youre kinda just talkin'.
"The first principle is the well-being of conscious creatures, from which we can build a science-based system of moral values by quantifying whether or not X increases or decreases well-being".
Harris believes we must admit that the question of what normally leads to human flourishing has objective, scientific answers. Harris contends that certain beliefs, actions or legal systems may prove to lead reliably to human suffering (e.g. by resulting in dangerously inadequate access to food or health care).
what would be, in your sage opinion, the optimal level of taxation to payout? Since anything over 1 is unsustainable, and anything under 1 is just an obvious ripoff, would you say that the optimal level of tax to service is 1:1?
If this is the case, why the hell dont I just keep my money and spend it as I see fit? After all, I think we would all want to spend $100 of our money on stuff we actually want instead of deferring to some distant anonymous and corrupt 3rd party.
But just for fun Ill go ahead and point out that 'early capitalism' resulted in the computer you frantically type at at this moment. Enjoy!
And yet you offer none of these situations for us to scrutinize, and so youre kinda just talkin'.
It is morally acceptable to steal some wealth in order to provide basic necessities like food shelter and healthcare from those who will not be harmed a lot by it.
It is morally acceptable to steal even more wealth to save lives or health.
By whos judgment, and by what standard?
It is even morally acceptable to steal some wealth even when it is not so critical, but when it is clearly evident that the purpose will in the end lead to far higher increase in well-being of conscious creatures or decrease in suffering (the criterion for determining morality) than doing nothing (public education and science funding, some public projects etc..).
Harris believes we must admit that the question of what normally leads to human flourishing has objective, scientific answers. Harris contends that certain beliefs, actions or legal systems may prove to lead reliably to human suffering (e.g. by resulting in dangerously inadequate access to food or health care).
Well, wait, what do you mean by "payout"? I thought its the amount the government spends. There is nothing preventing government to spend less or at most only what it gets in taxes. Just make it a constitutional amendment that government borrowing money is illegal, and balanced budget mandatory. Problem of government debt solved.
Because then there would be zero redistribution of wealth.
And that is undesirable, because as I have shown above, there are cases when stealing is the most moral alternative, compared to others (basic necessities unavailable to someone).
Who invented the internet? Who contributed critical part of money to early computer research due to defense needs? Initial costly bootstraping of advanced industries - thats where government excels.
Make no mistake, I am not advocating early capitalist societies should have welfare like we have now. They simply could not afford it, so it was simply not an option. But now it is, we can afford it, so why not do it
This is your first and most obvious contradiction in that you both validate property rights for one person while simultaneously invalidating them for another based on a subjective and arbitrary distinction. (subjective need)
I simply declare that based on your code, I may 'steal' back from you in the amount of which you stole from me.
Thus theft cannot be said to be Universally Preferable Behavior as its universal application results in paradox.
With of course no reference to the lives and health of those you would 'steal' from.
Cant be universalized, thus = fail
By whos judgment, and by what standard?
Since youre so pro initiation of force, (and thus you propose violence against *me* personally) Im not sure any further discussion could be productive, as honestly, I see you as something of a monster.
why has this NOT OCCURRED?
That something is very simple if you replace 'democracy' with 'bribeocracy'
Sorry just to be clear, do you mean that without a violent monopoly to forcibly move money around in the economy, that no one would spend any money and no redistribution would occur? Everyone would just sit on their couch cushions stuffed with hundred dollar bills?
Where did the *wealth* that funded those RaD labs originiate??
Did you skim over the whole 'catastrophically in debt' part, or just ignore it?
Even if we *could* afford it, it would *still* not be morally justified to steal.
The need is not subjective and arbitrary. It is objective. "Need", "Suffering" or "wellbeing" are products of objectively existing material neural networks located in brains of conscious creatures.
Suffering and wellbeing can be objectively and universally compared
(suffering of rich person which got part of their income stolen by taxes is objectivelly far less than suffering of a hungry person or person that is unable to pay for needed healthcare).
Increase in wellbeing of a rich person that would be even richer is objectivelly less than increase of cured or feeded person. To deny this is to deny science (neurology, psychology..), thus to deny A = A. Are you claiming A =/= A ?
Only if you prove that it will result in increase of everall wellbeing of conscious creatures, also taking into account people who need help and probably dont get it without the stealing. Good luck with that.
This is where you are mistaken - that there is universably preferable behaviour or act (deontological morality - acts are moral or immoral in themselves, based on an adherence to a rule). There is not. Even killing is not universally evil - killing Hitler or Stalin would be highly moral.
Instead, morality of an act must be judged only by consequences of said act.
The same act may in some circumstances lead to increase in positive utility
(wellbeing, decrease in suffering), in other circumstances it may have the opposite effects. Or magnitude of an act may change outcome (stealing a little to pay for basics increases overall wellbeing, it is moral. Stealing everything will decrease wellbeing, probably cause civilisation breakdown which further decreases it, thus it is immoral).
Correction: It is morally acceptable to steal even more wealth to save lives or health, if it does not endanger lives or health of those we steal from.
Consequentialist (utilitarian) morality does not demand that acts must be universally good or bad. Only outcomes matter.
?? By our best ability to determine it. By science.
Please define objectively my level of suffering when subjected to utilitarian arguments. Standard 1 - 100 scale will do.
Why must this be an either/or? Perhaps the rich person donated money, of their own free will, to not see that person starve? Heck Im no rich man but I wouldnt let a guy starve on my doorstep before offering him first a ham an cheese
We already defined how the act of stealing, regardless of from whom, is contradictory and thus wrong, or immoral.
Arbitrary distinctions such a 'rich' and 'poor' or 'needy' and 'non needy' have no place in universal ethics.
So ya, since A=A, theft = wrong.
Are you freekin kidding me kid? Are you saying any aggression is justified if I can arbitrarily prove to some arbitrary authority that i *really needed* to kick some guys door down, tie up his kids, rape his wife (as i really *need* to get laid) and steal all his justly earned possessions?
Self defense is completely UPB compliant. Can I defend myself at the same time you do with no contradictions?
This is fine, but as I've noted before, it does not prove that soldiers are wrong in killing people (murder is a bad word to use here, because the definition of the word "murder" is "wrongful killing," and therefore it is conceptually impossible for murder to be permissible). It only proves that soldiers' killing people cannot be justified by the maxim in question. It is logically possible that there is some other maxim which would justify soldiers' actions.
And indeed, such a maxim is not too difficult to come up with. One example would be the maxim, "Whenever I have declared myself to be a combatant of a particular group in a universally recognized manner, and I can kill a recognized combatant of another group who has not surrendered in a universally recognized manner, I will do so." That maxim could be adopted as a universal law without any contradiction that I can think of. But if this is the case, then how is the maxim-based approach supposed to serve as a moral guide? It might seem like any time we come across an action that cannot be justified by a particular maxim, the most we would be able to say is that we simply aren't sure if it's permissible or not. In order to effectively put Stefan's methodology to work, we need a way to determine what the right maxim is.
The implication here is that being located in Syria as opposed to San Francisco cannot represent an ethically significant difference between two scenarios; being Person A instead of Person B is not a morally relevant way to distinguish a circumstance; taking place today instead of tomorrow cannot matter to an ethical theory. For example, notice that the maxim, "Whenever it is May 6, 2008, and I am Danny Shahar, and I can steal a pen from the University Book Store without anyone ever noticing, I will do so," could be adopted as a universal law without coming into any sort of contradiction with anything. But surely that doesn't mean that it would be okay for me to steal the pen. The Principle of Formal Equality helps us explain why: the maxim I've offered is unacceptable because it only works because of distinctions that aren't morally relevant in any way.
However, as we have seen, maxims can coherently contain certain distinctions which allow them to apply only to actions which occur in specific circumstances. So, for example, I am justified in killing in self-defense when I'm being attacked, even though there are other scenarios in which I'm not justified in killing people. What is needed, then, is an account of what kinds of features of a set of circumstances are morally relevant. If we had such an account, we could conceivably come up with a proper description of the set of circumstances in which your action was taking place, and then determine whether the maxim based on that set of circumstances could be acceptably adopted as universal law.
Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Stefan doesn't provide any such account. And perhaps more unfortunately, no one else has either. Until someone does, it seems like any maxim-based approach to ethics is going to be hampered by the Maxim Description Problem. Annnnddd...that's part of the reason why I take a rights-based approach to ethics! [Added later: turns out rights-based approaches to ethics aren't that great either :-P]
*By what standard shall the consequences be judged by, and who will judge them??!*
You know what really causes some negative utility in society? Ramapant and uncheck theft backed by near infinite violence. Not so good utility wise.
Fool. You must *ALWAYS* endanger the life of those you *steal* from because if they dislike being *stolen* from it is within their right to *resist* with appropriate force, and the only response your kind can offer is UNLIMITED VIOLENCE.
Transalation: contradictory and immoral ethical system is rendered false due to gross internal paradoxes and just a generally blatant evil.
Right. Guess you missed the memo on the falsity of the philosopher king thingy. Kinda doesnt work and tends towards massive collapse.
Creepy little bastard you are.
1) Many of you appear to accept the premise that taxation of the rich is tantamount to theft.
99 dolors*, you seem pretty angered
Jokes aside, if you wanted it exactly we would have to determine the concentration of relevant hormones in your brain. In principle, it can be done.
In practice, we dont need to know absolute values. We dont deal with absolutes, but relative comparisons -
even if we dont know for example the exact absolute value of suffering of someone rich who got part of his income stolen through taxes, and absolute value of suffering of someone dying of curable disease, we can safely say one is far higher than the other.
And thats enough for our purpose (determining morality of public healthcare), since its always about comparing one outcome to the other.
Nice physical analogy would be for example quantum vacuum zero-point energy in Quantum field theory: We cannot determine its exact absolute value, we can only determine the differences between values at different points - manifesting as Casimir force.
Perhaps.. If you prove that voluntary charity will be enough to achieve what welfare has achieved, then I will agree that we dont need it. But I highly doubt it. Its not negative thinking, its realistic.
Exactly. You have defined it (assumed). You have not proved it.
Ethics theory which does not take into account the consequence of an action at all is laughable.
A = A implies only "theft = theft" and "wrong = wrong". Learn to logic.
No you cannot. You attack the attacker in selfdefense
And UPB suffers from the same problem as Kants deontological morality - you can always find a self-consistent maxim (moral rule) that justifies your actions:
The standard is whether they increase overall suffering (decrease wellbeing) of conscious creatures or the other way around (compared to doing nothing, or something else).
Who will judge them? I dont know, maybe the one who wants to determine morality of some act. How is that important?
Quantum mechanics also provides only a set of rules to determine how particles will behave, it does not say who is allowed to use the equations to determine it, or on what computer they have to run. Does it make QM false? In the society of course, it should probably be those with the best ability and apparates to determine it, or use the theory - physicists in case of QM, and educated and moral people in case of morality (technocracy, meritocracy, geniocracy).
I agree. I have never advocated such a thing. Theft should be controlled and used only when needed, and violence must be again used only when absolutely necessary.
Reality disagrees. There are billions of people currently paying taxes and not resisting, and not having their life or health endangered in any way.
No I didnt get the memo. Philosopher King was never falsified. In fact, the only few instances when we can say something like it was implemented (enlightened absolutism, some late aristocracies, Singapore benevolent dictatorship..) it lead to great progress.
So you are in effect claiming that someone poor dying of easily curable disease who cannot afford the treatment (or better, his chid ) cannot steal needed money from someone uber-rich to acquire the cure (thats what your moral philosophy says, isnt it?)...
But I am a bastard.. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
You are just angry because I pointed out how absurdly immoral conclusions can be derived from property extremist UPB moral theory, such as the one above.
This reply is not directed to you only. I appreciate a good, civil argument, which most of you are conducting. I applaud the depth and scope of your posts.
I just want to slip in a few things that haven't been addressed yet:
1) Many of you appear to accept the premise that taxation of the rich is tantamount to theft. When the middle or working classes benefit in any way it is somehow illegitimate. Nobody in this thread has yet acknowledged that the middle and working classes also work, pay taxes and contribute to the well-being of society. My father used to say, "When a man steals a loaf of bread, he is called a thief and put in prison. When a man steals a whole railroad he is called a captain of industry."
2) The wealth in this country is supposedly being redistributed downward. In fact, the wealth of the middle and working classes is being redistributed upward. Wages for the middle classes have remained flat for the last 30 years. The wealth of the top 2% has increased many times over.
3) Virtually every society in history has had some form of currency and some system of barter and exchange. In medieval times this often took the form of taxes and/or other produce paid to the lord of the manor, who in turn paid tribute to the king. Even the Bible mentions taxes (e.g. the story of Jesus finding money for his taxes in a fish's mouth.) So this conversation has been going on for thousands of years now. The idea of taxes being used for the general welfare of the population is relatively new.
4) Am I to understand that some of us want to return to a feudal society?
No objective or repeatable data can possibly be shown that could possibly determine objectively what a person sees and feels when they see the colour red.
'We dont deal with absolutes' *IS* and absolute statement. You are saying 'we absolutely dont deal with absolutes.'
Can we safely say this?
Again, you fail to provide *who* will do the comparison, and by *what* standard.
We have determined that the outcome of robbing you blind would provide us with great utility, and since you are rich by our own arbitrary standards, we feel morally justified in taking all that you own.
Quantum physics, while admittedly is super neat, has absolutely *nothing* to do with morality or what is good and virtuous in this world.
Do you believe in Democracy? Democracy is predicated on the premise that 50%+ of the population approves of a certain policy. Since we live in these Democracies, we can safely assume that *at least* 50% of people want to help the poor, and we know this because they continually vote for people who claim to represent that aim. Thus we know * empirically* that more than half of people wish to help the poor.
Thus we can say with near certainty that most people want to help the poor, and thus most people do not need a gun to their head in order to do so.
And as a side note, that you actually believe the welfare state has done anything to help the poor besides creating a massive dependent class, I find to be laughable, and predictable. Giving a man a fish only creates more people who dont know how to fish.
How could any theory not take in to account the consequences of its application? A theory, by definition, is a prediction of consequences.
More like theft = wrong. Learn to read.
Which youve again failed to provide a valid example of.
"Whenever I have declared myself to be a combatant of a particular group in a universally recognized manner, and I can kill a recognized combatant of another group who has not surrendered in a universally recognized manner, I will do so."
However, as we have seen, maxims can coherently contain certain distinctions which allow them to apply only to actions which occur in specific circumstances. So, for example, I am justified in killing in self-defense when I'm being attacked, even though there are other scenarios in which I'm not justified in killing people. What is needed, then, is an account of what kinds of features of a set of circumstances are morally relevant. If we had such an account, we could conceivably come up with a proper description of the set of circumstances in which your action was taking place, and then determine whether the maxim based on that set of circumstances could be acceptably adopted as universal law.
Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Stefan doesn't provide any such account. And perhaps more unfortunately, no one else has either. Until someone does, it seems like any maxim-based approach to ethics is going to be hampered by the Maxim Description Problem. Annnnddd...that's part of the reason why I take a rights-based approach to ethics! [Added later: turns out rights-based approaches to ethics aren't that great either :-P]
And these arbitrary standards are to be determined by *whom*?
I this youve reached one of the central flaws in your belief - you believe the power can be wielded by the powerful without the inevitable corruption that always follows.
I would ignore this babble but I have to ask you - what the sh*t does the above have to do with anything were talking about? As far as I can tell, nothing.
Again you fail to accept that once the power of unlimited violence is granted, unlimited corruptions *must always* follow.
That cattle do not continuously rush an electric fence does not mean that they wish to remain in their pens. All it means is they fear the consequences of leaving them.
So you wish to rule me.
Im claiming whats mine is mine, and youre claiming that whats mine is possibly yours.
So you are in effect claiming that someone poors child dying of easily curable disease who cannot afford the treatment cannot steal needed money from someone uber-rich to acquire the cure.
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Since socialism relies upon the initiation of force, (as all governments do) and the initiation of force is universally and objectively evil, what you said is analogous to saying you are a rapist, to some extent. Kind of a mix between rapist and casual dater, really. Sometimes rape, sometimes dinner and a movie. Too much raping would be bad, of course, but none at all would be worse.
Again, so you advocate some trade and some theft. Forget was is morally right and just, its the middle way we must find between people keeping too much of their money and people like yourself stealing too much. What we need, I guess, is a happy middle ground between voluntary trade and coercive theft. Too much good = bad! Need some violent badness to even out all that good freedom.
"Seeing" and "feeling" or "emotional experiences" or "consciousness" are again properties or products of the neural network (unless you believe in soul). In principle, it can also be quantified and compared, maybe not so easily as simply determining the color seen, but it can be done. Our brain is computable and has finite possible states.
What does this even have to do with the topic? I said we only need to know relative differences between levels of suffering/wellbeing for our purpose.
Yes, 'We dont deal with absolutes in this case" *IS* and absolute statement.
Of course we can. Psychology and neurology has already quantified different levels of stress/suffering in some cases even in absolute values.
And for the relative comparisons, which is all we need for our purpose, we dont even need science, its just common sense and basic empathy.
The same one who is intedned to use your moral theory to determine morality. Concerned person for example.
In objectively would not - taking *ALL* someone owns would cause far greater suffering than the summed increase in wellbeing of those who would take it.
Its just common sense, not having basic needs is far greater increase in suffering than having a bit more luxuries is an increase in wellbeing, even if affecting multiple persons.
You seem to completely misunderstand utilitarianism.
The basic tenet is to take ALL consequences of a moral rule into consideration,
as opposed to the society without, or with different moral rule, and from that determine the effects on average utility.
It is clear that both extremes (society where everyone can steal what he wants, and society where stealing is prohibited even in cases of basic needs etc.. ) are suboptimal in terms of utility to society where in cases when it leads to great increase in utility compared to caused decrease stealing is allowed, and in others it is not.
Voting in democracy for welfare state is far more advantageous for the self than donating for charity