From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Mon Aug 11 2003 - 12:21:21 MDT
> > Paul Grant <shade999@optonline.net> writes:
> > > the limit on this line of reasoning though, is in the duration of
> > > the act .... for instance, say you were prescient, and saw a man
> > > who was going to mug you (with a knife) 10 minutes
> > > from now, and hit him over a head; then you would be
> > > acting morally (given ur prescience). Lets say you are
> > > not prescient, and you hit him over the head on the
> > > possibility that he might mug you; than you are acting
> > > immorally.
> >
> > <brett> In the real world, where our moral judgement
> > is supposed to assist us, (or at least that is my contention)
> > we are *never* fully prescient and so there is always
> > *some* chance the suspected or likely mugger may not
> > in fact mug us.
> >
> > <Paul> ....in real life, I generally prepare for the
> > attack, rather than instigate a pre-emptive attack.
>
> <brett> There a couple of ramifications to this. First you
> leave your pponent with more degrees of freedom and
> more power than if you take
> the initiative. So you take on more risk.
>
> <me> hardly; practically speaking, it means knowing
> when to attack, and when not to attack (based on your
> enemies movements).
Hey you've now come full circle if you are contemplating
when to attack (as opposed to merely preparing to defend)
you are accepting in some instance pre-emption. That was
the point I started with - sometimes pre-emption *is* moral,
it depends on the circumstances.
> It is a fallacy to think that because you are reacting you
> are necessarily @ a weaker advantage; more often than
> not the one moving with "more degrees of freedom" is
> at the disadvantage because so little is known (certain).
I depends. With conventional military force they used
to argue it took three times as many men to storm
entrenched positions. But we are not just talking about
the civil war through to WWI I presume. We're talking
about pre-emption and whether it is ever moral to act
pre-emptively. I am say of course it is *sometimes*.
> I just started reading sun tzu (a recent translation)
> the art of war, and I am impressed with the clarity of
> his understanding of warfare. He reaches a similar
> conclusion; that most warfare is decided prior to
> the actual conflict, generally by skillful manipulation
> of the situation (by a talented general) and by not
> rushing foolishly into a situation where there are too
> many unknowns.
Where heading off topic :-) All things being equal
the clearer thinker, the better game theorist will win.
All things are not always equal. Sun Tzu also says
if a battle can't be won - don't fight it. This is not
to say surrender - it is to say choose a time and
terrain and circumstances of your chosing, or
hell why not even just negotiate.
> <brett> Second would you not agree that the
> circumstances change when one has others under
> ones authority or control like a leader, a military
> commander, or a president who has to
> be able to think in terms of minimising loss
> of life sometimes when the other is clearly intending
> on taking life.
>
> <me> no :) I run my life like I would run an army :)
> that is to say that my personal decisions affect all
> those around me, and so, I take my actions seriously.
> I take pains to avoid unnecessary suffering, intentional
> or otherwise.
Not quite the same. As a military commander your would
give orders that you would know would result in the death
of some persons (your troops). They would not be partially
dead, their entire subjective universe is snuffed out. That
is a different proposition to running ones own life. That is
where hard moral decisions are needed and hard moral
judgements must be made. Because not to put ones
troops lives on the line (not to play God as it were) will
leave open in many cases the certainty of more loss of
life. We do not get to choose the all good option over
the all bad option or very rarely anyway.
>
> > <brett> Assuming one values oneself, how can we do
> > otherwise than weigh up the chances as best we can?
> > My answer - we can't. Therefore the point becomes
> > how best we can.
> >
> > <me> learn to recognize (and avoid) abuse and a
> > abusive behaviors.. that includes learning not to abuse
> > others in an attempt to prevent said abuse.
>
> <brett> Where this works and it often would its laudable.
> Sometimes though the abusive behavior cannot be avoided.
> Such is the human condition. Some folks will go out of their
> way to remove the option of avoiding them.
>
> <me> I'll agree with this statement; but they're attempt to
> impose their presence on you despite your attempts to
> avoid them is in and of itself a declarative action;
So now are you saying responding to declarative actions
is not really pre-emption. :-) What about when they don't
see the utility in telling you they are going to kill you, they
make no declaration, but go about the business of what
to you looks like taking all the necessary preparatory steps
do you then extend your notion of declarative action to
implied declarative action. I'm getting a sense of deja vu
all over again here :-)
> I have no problem scratching an itch, preferably with
> a 10 pound sledgehammer. I hate dealing with
> annoyances.
Too silly.
>
> <brett> The irony of being free is that others are too
> and the person who decides to compete or predate on
> one immediately reduces ones degrees of freedom. The
> re-actor has less practical choices than the actor. The
> actor can compete, cooperate or ignore. The re-actor
> can be forced to compete (or be defeated), cooperate
> or not, but hardly ignore a person determined to compete.
>
> <me> hahaha :) I think that this is a fundamental difference
> between me and other people; I believe you can sedate
> the things you hate; others do not. Its come up on several
> occassions.... Suffice it to say that in my case, I never ever
> have to deal with people I don't want to deal with (law
> enforcement/violent crime excepted sans prep time).
Who said anything about hate? A lion doesn't hate a zebra,
the lion probably thinks zebras are delicious.
A mugger may just want what you have and not want you to
report his face to the police - hate is not necessary.
Sometimes one can disarm or passify or negotiate with an
aggressor but if you think you can do it all the time I think
you either have some remarkable strategies or you have
not really come up against a lion that thinks your a zebra.
> > <brett> At this point I think its worth distinguishing
> > between a moral
> > code, which may be a preconsidered framework that
> > one uses to help reach a particular moral judgement
> > and moral judgements per se.
> >
> > <brett> There are *no* moral codes that provide
> > definitive answers to all the moral dilemmas that arise
> > just as there are no maps on a scale of 1:1, therefore
> > whenever a particular moral judgement is required
> > there is no dodging that the subjective individual
> > must make it with or without the benefit of a more
> > or less sophisticated moral code.
> >
> > <me> I see things in black and white; I don't have
> > a particularly sophisticated moral code; just a
> > sophisticated world-view. The rules themselves
> > are quite easy. I might add that you can generate
> > a complex world view from an array of black/white
> > values... and if it is a matter of black and white
> > values, then my moral code does have a 1-to-1
> > correspondence.
>
> <brett> Then if you've codified to 1-to-1 (ie.
> predecided what you will do in all possible moral
> dilemnas) then can the future not throw you a curly
> one at all that will require you to make a new judgement?
>
> <me> It isn't predecided; it is partitioned what is good
> and what is bad in reference too different axis; the
> actual selection of my own responses happens according
> to a simple ruleset that operates on these states.
So you haven't codied 1-1, you use guidelines, not an
entirely proscriptive code.
> Practically speaking, I am very rarely thrust into
> situtations that can't be analyzed .... and yield a
> satisfactory action. In fact, I am fully capable of
> generating (apparent) conflicting actions when
> dealing with seperate parties which are in reality,
> united under a general operating principle..
>
> Generally such instances are preceded by, "if I
> was in your shoes..." The closest I come to moral
> crisis is what I would term "games"; generally they
> are very abstract points that have not had resolution
> yet based on my experiences; they fundamentally
> alter the set of possible outcomes :)
Game theory is a rich source of inspiration for reason
based morality.
>
> <brett> For instance say that IVF technology was
> improved to the point that a given embryo was more
> likely to go through to a health birth than the more
> than 70% from memory that naturally abort.
>
> <brett> What would be your moral position if you were a
> superior court judge and a state governement wanted
> to pass a law that all reproduction should be via IVF
> as that wasted less embryos than reproduction by the
> natural method. Would your moral code cover that
> - with the consequence that all sex for pleasure must
> involve careful steps to avoid reckless and risky
> procreation or would you have to think anew guided
> by your moral code perhaps but not being able to do
> a one to one look up to say point 356 of your specific
> code?
>
> <me> it depends; are you asking me as a person,
> or me as a citizen responsible for crafting
> policy to be inflicted (and I choose inflicted
> on purpose) on others...
>
> <me> if you ask me as a person; I would say present
> your evidence and I *may* choose to do as u wish;
> in this case I am *already* planning on procreating
> through IVF :) If you ask me as a citizen crafting
> policy, I would say, nobody has a right to limit how
> you choose to procreate, short of physical rape (e.g.
> date rape is crap IMHO).
No these are not what I was asking you. I put you in
the position of a superior court judge and posited you
the responsibility of deciding policy that would affect
others (a whole state).
I said the fact of the matter is that natural conceptions
will result in 70% loss of embryos through natural
abortion but by using a new positied form of IVF
this could be got down to below 70% and as
a consequence one state wanted to make sex by
the natural means illegal in deference to the rights
of embryos.
They are the facts of the case presented to you how
will you rule as a judge what law will you make for
that state?
You might resign or excuse yourself from the case
but if the case is brought up *someone* is going to
decide it, you not deciding just means someone else
will.
>
> > > Lets say you are not prescient, and he is mugging
> > > someone else (as it is apparent to you from your
> > > vantage point), and you intervene by hitting him
> > > over the head... Then you're actions may or may
> > > not be immoral, on the basis that he may not be
> > > the one doing the mugging, but rather, may be the
> > > muggee.
> >
<snip>
> > <me> ...the proper action is to act to separate them,
> > without harming one party or the another precisely
> > because you are ill-informed.
>
> <brett> Hmm. I'm around 6 foot, weight around 90 kilo
> and am a former state karate champion. Yet there are
> some males that are so much stronger than me that I
> would not be able to separate them as you say.
>
> <me> we have a saying in egyptian; "the army teaches
> you to improvise".... can't seperate them, locate
> resources that will enable you to seperate them;
> this may be police, threatening to run them both down
> if they don't stop, or calling for nearby passengers :)
Hey hang on, it was your example above I was replying
to. You said intervening in a mugging by hitting the person
I think is the mugger over the head is morally wrong if I
mistakely identify the mugger. A hit over the head is doable
with minimal strenght as opposed to wrestling two males
apart.
You point out below the army and the police may use
the resources at hand to break up a situation. By hitting
the person I think is the mugger over the head that is
exactly what I would have done.
The only difference is whose judgement is used. Mine or
the police or the armies. My point is that in agreement
with your next paragraph sometime I have to decide
'cause I'm the only one there. Its not immoral to make
it mistake, it may be unfortunate and it may be illegal
(if my judgement really stinks) but you can hardly accuse
me of immorality.
> I am a firm believer that the reason why life sucks is
> that most people do not do their duty in establishing a
> reasonable operating environment; sometimes the police
> are not available, and you have a duty in ceasing harmful
> activities in progress.
>
> <brett> Yet as a third
> party coming onto the scene with them grappling with
> other I would in all likelihood be able to render on or
> the other unconscious having the advantage of the
> element of surprise (as indeed could my youngest
> sister, who is much lighter and has no special training
> in any martial arts, if she kept her wits about her).
>
> <brett> Your scenario contains details for you that I didn't
> see. Those details change the context. One must
> act in real time within the context with the options
> that one has. If the two protagonists were school
> boys then separating them might be relatively easy
> and involve only words. It depends.
>
> <me> well I've been thrust into that situation on several
> occassions :) and I've never had a problem... granted
> no weapons were involved. That also included random
> strangers btw :) The point is to stop the escalation
> without being partial to either of the combatants, because
> you realize that you are *NOT* in full possession of the
> facts.
So if someone is mugging someone else and your not
sure who is who do you supervise the splitting of the
wallet's contents 50/50 :-)
Seriously, we are recovering ground. The point is
we must make judgements and if they are judgements
made on best endeavours in the circumstances they
are not immoral though they could be foolish or illegal.
The point is to thine ownself we must be true.
>
> > You should have a duty (under your moral code)
> > to negotiate in good faith, and having said that,
> > you have an obligation to do due diligence in an
> > attempt to (as completely as possible) understand
> > the situation. Properly exercised restraint is a
> > remarkeably under-appreciated quality.
>
> <brett> Agreed. But "due" diligence depends on the
> circumstances. Too much diligence, too much
> forebearance is also a risk.
>
> <me> agreed; there is a time for action; I would say
> err on the side of too much diligence than too less.
You thinking on the personal one crisis at a time scale.
On the larger stage too much due diligence on problem
A can leave you unable to give enough due diligence to
problem B.
> <brett> The weighting of the
> risks is a moral judgement that the individual
> cannot get away from as no code can fully
> anticipate all contingencies.
>
> <me> I shift the preponderance of the work towards
> establishing the environment you are in (accurately);
> so my moral code is simple and complete :) [ergo sophisiticated
> world-view statement above].
>
> > you can't have a good moral code if you're judgement
> > is consistently unable to judge according to that moral code..
>
> <brett> I think I see your point. A better code, one that endorses
> reasoning rather than believing as a means to making decisions, is a
> better guide to moral behavior, but we can never have a code so good
> that the need for moral judgments disappear altogether unless there are
> no new challenges thrown at us, like the challenges that technologies
> might throw up.
>
> <me> its more basic than that; its an age-old systems problem; if a
> system is theoretically perfect, but always implemented poorly (due to
> agent errors),
> can it really be considered theoretically perfect?
You misunderstood I think. I meant (1) I see your point that a good
moral code is not good if it doesn't produce consistent judgements.
The I went on to say why I thought reasoning was a better
component to include in a moral code than believing. I was trying
to get back to the particulars of the moral code I was proposing.
>
>
> <brett> [snip]... But the brighter more abstract thinkers that are
> likely to rise to positions of power are more likely to be better
> abstract thinkers and reasoners. (They may also be better rationalizers
> on occassion but a rationalization is a deceit one practices on
> oneself). Your rationalisation won't convince me and vice versa. You or
> I can have a moral discussion and seek to change each others views using
> reason and a common language but if either of us held that we were
> absolutely right to believe what we believe then there would be little
> possibility of communication and cooperation between us.
>
> <me> first; I would say that abstract thinkers do not have a
> tendency to rise to positions of power anymore than anyone
> else;
In corporations and governments etc. They do. The ability to
manage people is the most complex managerial task. If someone
can manage people at a high level in one organisation that are
often able to manage people at a high level in another. At the
lower levels of management it knowledge of the product or
service and the means of producing these matters more. At
the higher this has been delegated. I don't know how to prove
this to you (I don't know what you know about management
and organisational behavior) but I am confident that this is so.
> second; I would say it depends on whether or not the agent
> "thinking that they were absolutely right" thought that naturally
> implied that the search for disproof was pointless or not...
> for instance, if you asked me to hold a conversation on
> whether or not 2+2 = 4 in decimal arithmetic as its currently
> defined, I would probably not choose to engage in such a
> conversation;
> if you asked me if 2+2 = 4 in all cases, I would,
> because their you *may* be talking about some unifying
> principle irrespective of any particular algebra (ergo 2+2
> may not be equal to 4 > in all cases is a true (and absolutely
> correct) statement,
One could play word games with what symbols mean to
different cultures but the conversation would be short. The
core point I'd be interested in is the referents not the words.
> but you may be discussing a particular aspect of it that
> may be at a higher level than the statement itself).
Unless you've gone Godelian on me, I've missed your
point.
<snip>
> > <brett>Clearly it is absurb to argue that a cancer cell or a multiples
>
> > of them are of moral weight with a person dying of cancer. Yet this is
>
> > not much of an exaggeration beyond the proposition that say all
> > embryos are a form of human life when by human life what is obviously
> > meant is personhood.
>
> <me> ... I understand the distinction between women as life
> support for a fetus and a fetus as collection of foreign cells
> in a parasitic arrangement with its hosts :)
But your not a congressman :-)
> suffice it to say that in certain cases, a cancer cell may actually be
> more valuable than the host it is living on... but that follows from my
> (reasonable) assumption that we're all going to die anyway :)
Hang on maybe I spoke to soon you aren't on the President's Bioethics
Committee are you ;-)
<snip>
> >
> > <brett>
> > Before laws can be set that codify legally what may and
> > may not be done it is prudent to have a moral disucssion where the
> > words we use do not obfuscate the reals issues at hand. Issues such as
>
> > how does a civil society weight the rights or potential persons
> > (embryos, fetus etc at different stages). When we do not decide or
> > address these questions public policy continues to be made on
> > the basis of outdated moral and legal codes. And persons
> > suffer needlessly.
>
> <me> I would agree :) ergo my suggestion for a clear, unambivalent
> test,
> tending towards reserving the right for any person to make their own
> moral decisions rather than a state. If it lives, its a human being...
> if it dies, it is not. If god wanted it to be considered a human being,
> he would have helped it live :)
You don't live in Salem do you ;-)
> <brett> Yes. And if we consider that each of us is a person
> we get to "to thine ownself be true".
>
> <me> well we agree on that part :)
Then perhaps to move this along why don't you recap based on
my recap what we don't in your view agree on.
> <brett> Agreed. Interestingly though legal systems do seem to put a
> higher or more
> formal emphasis on reasoning and the processes by which conclusions are
> reached.
>
> <me> thats incidental; legal systems generally attempt to be
> accountable; that requires consistency,
> and consistency can only come from particular formal systems (past
> draconion kill everyone statements) :)
>
> <brett> Juries work to beyond "reasonable" doubt standards not to mere
> "belief".
>
> <me> but fundamentally juries decision of reasonable doubt or not is a
> belief on their parts..
Certain Knowlege Probably Improbably No idea.
100% >50% <50% 0%
The above is a scale that can have more precision added with utility.
The word belief can mean anything from this is what the priest told
me and I trust him to I've checked this and its statistically significant to
9 decimal places but I'm still not sure. If an audience is hearing two
people describe their views and the above two both use the description
I believe the second person has forfeit a huge advantage in pursuading
the audience to the vastly more probable truth.
Belief is too crude a word. To blunt an instrument.
> <brett> Its been argued that all academic disciplines are
> descendants of philosophy. I am interested in philosophy not
> because it it esoteric though it can be but because it can suggest
> solutions to problems.
>
> <me> historically speaking, likely :) theoretically speaking, math is
> more important than
> philosophy (IMHO, but only because I would like to be accurate) :)
Where do you put Pythagorus, Archimedes, Euclid?
> <me> .... I would rather talk to a person who has rederived
> the philosophers works independantly, rather than someone who
> has adopted them based on extensive reading of said philosophers
> (and ergo, has not really contributed to them).
Personally I'm looking for ideas that work.
<snip>
> <brett> On the specific point I would say that my code
> would say that self delusion is immoral. Thats what I'd
> endeavor to teach children but I'd also point out that its
> natural and in some circumstances moral judgements
> that take in the fuller context and detail than any moral
> code (that is codified) are going to be refinements.
>
> <me> I would endeavor to teach children above all else,
> make sure its functional; always search for an objective
> measure to test for ur situation, and always attempt
> to find optimal solutions that do not unnecesarily inflict
> needless suffering for others, nor impose needless
> limitations on urself. And have fun :)
So the kid asks you: what do you mean functional in terms
of rights and wrong? Why should I search for an objective
method? What is an objective method anyway? Is it needless
if my sister is being a real pest?
<snip>
> > <brett> Now thats the moral code. The reason for the moral code is
> > that usually judgements will be required in real life which one cannot
> > anticipate and the better, the more sophisticated your moral code the
> > better, (the more enlightened) your judgement of your own best
> > interests will be.
> >
> > <me> again I balk at the requirement for a sophisticated moral code;
> > you can have an incredibly simple moral code; but apply it through the
>
> > use of a sophisticated world view (ergo ur judgement).
>
> A person who is reasoning at level 1 on Kohlburgs scale (the
> simplest) may not do something that is good for society in general but
> for far more basic reasons, than a person who is reasoning at level 5.
>
> But the higher up in the levels one goes the more levels or abstraction
> and nuance are likely to influence your code. I would think that a
> person would have a hard time having a complex moral code without having
> the ability to use language for instance.
>
> Our leaders must make judgements that will have impacts
> on lives other than their own. The more of us that are reasoners and
> critical thinkers and the fewer of us that are mere believers the better
> (the healthier) we will be as a society in my opinion.
>
<snip>
> > <brett> In the vast majority of cases self-delusion *is* going to be
> > harmful. In those circumstances where it is not harmful to anyone
> > including the person who is self-deluded then I'd agree it not
> > immoral.
> >
> > <me> ok well then we've settled that line of logic :)
<snip>
> > > > [Brett]
> > > > This is where I think it becomes important
> > > > to acknowledge to oneself that one can be rational and that one is
> > > > by nature social. If one does not acknowledge that one is social
> > > > one is not (by my reckoning) being true to oneself and one does
> > > > not have the sort of maturity that will enable one to be on good
> > > > terms with oneself and to form real compacts that have a chance of
> > > > being honored with others.
-----------------END-----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 11 2003 - 12:27:24 MDT