Irreligious Discussion Thread: Welcome to the Nonery!

[36 Camera Perspective]

Beneficial does not always mean "what is favorable to the greatest number of people". Benefit can mean "beneficial to one's interest alone", which is why defining morally good as beneficial is ambigous and useless. Beneficial to who? Whose interests matter, and to what extent? Contrary to what you think, this is not an infinite loop of definitions. This is figuring what you mean to say in the first place so that we can have some semblance of a useful ethical theory.

Go back to the trolley problem. If I all I know is that "morally good=beneficial", then despite your assertion that the meaning of "beneficial" should be obvious to everybody, your theory wouldn't help me with the trolley problem at all. I wouldn't know whose benefit I'm supposed to be looking out for.

The correct response to the trolley problem is to acknowledge the absurdity of the situation and work in spite of it towards your own arbitrary goal.

A very existentialist answer.

[Jormengand]

I mean I could have, but then you would probably have aksed me to define "Happiness"

We call this philosophy.

Flippant answers aside, perhaps it will help if I explain why I said "Benefit and freedom from harm" rather than "Happiness and freedom from suffering".

In general, when I'm reading a nice book, or scared out of my wits on a rollercoaster but still having a good time, or nonchalantly enjoying a good glass of wine, I am not happy. Not in standard English. I don't sit there with a beam* on my face while reading A Devil's Chaplain - it's not happiness, it's interest. I'm not happy but terrified (in a good way) when I'm on the rollercoaster. I'm not really experiencing any great emotion when I enjoy the wine, only a particular sensation on my tongue which I enjoy.

Similarly, I have a backache right now and my mouth is dry. I'm a little bored and tired. I wouldn't say I was suffering. That's a bit melodramatic and not standard English.

But everyone - with the exception of our two special guests tonight - instantly groks that enjoying a good book is beneficial. They instantly realise that even if I'm not necessarily happy on the rollercoaster I'm having a good time and that's good, that's a benefit, and they realise that backache harms me very slightly even if I'm not suffering and anguished.

I like using words that non-philosophers understand when I can. Sure, when talking Kant, you can't avoid words like "Universable" which aren't common, but crucially, when you look up "Universable" you get "relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases." If you look up "Happiness", you get "the state of being happy." Uh, okay**, but if you use a proper dictionary you get ideas like "delighted, pleased, or glad". Few people are delighted by Dawkins or pleased to be on a rollercoaster but they are enjoying themselves and benefitting on that basis and we intrinsically understand that enjoying oneself is beneficial. Similarly, someone might actually be quite angry about something which makes them "Happy" in the Millite (Millian? Mill-based?) sense. Someone unfamiliar with utilitarianism might quite easily be confused by this point. But it's much easier to see how someone could be angry at something even though it benefits them than angry at something that they're happy about.

That's why I get antsy when pressed for definitions: my words don't need to be defined because they already possess definitions. I'm not making up any new concepts. I'm not saying "Happiness, where happiness means the benefit". I'm saying benefit, but benefit already means benefit so I don't need to tell you what the definition is: the word is shaped like itself and moves with its own organs. Devoid of context, benefit means benefit in general (because "In general" and "Devoid of context" pretty much mean the same thing) so if I provide no context, when I say "I want to benefit people" I mean "I want to benefit people in general". Sometimes this means that individuals lose, particularly if they happen to be very fat and very near a speeding trolley. But that's already a meaning implied in the context.

Put simply, I don't need to give words definitions. They already have those. And for people who aren't as well-versed in philosophy as us, irrespective of whether you're quite done torching my school, it's a lot easier on the eyes to use words to mean what they mean rather than saying "Well if we define this thing to mean something it doesn't mean, then..."

*If you ask me to explain whether I mean a smile or a steel bar I will be very unhappy.
**Freaking Google dictionary.

[Darussalam]

I already have.

Incorrect. What you have done is defining what is good and bad according to your own preferences. You have not demonstrated why the axioms by themselves are true, why you are more right and others more wrong in preferring other things - altruism, for example, or pursuing harm for others. Why is one man's answer for the trolley problem has more objective validity than another? This smells fishily like the circular logic many religious people use in justifying their scriptures...

I don't pursue semantics, by the way, you have made it clear that morality is independent of value judgement.

[Jormengand]

Incorrect. What you have done is defining what is good and bad according to your own preferences. You have not demonstrated why the axioms by themselves are true, why you are more right and others more wrong in preferring other things - altruism, for example, or pursuing harm for others. Why is one man's answer for the trolley problem has more objective validity than another? This smells fishily like the circular logic many religious people use in justifying their scriptures...

I don't pursue semantics, by the way, you have made it clear that morality is independent of value judgement.

The very fact of what harm means contains within itself a good enough reason not to do it. This is the same point I made in the post literally straight above you - because I'm using words to mean what they mean, I don't have to explain why harm is bad because that's already something that's just true of harm. Mill has to explain why happiness is benefit because he's not using happiness to mean what happiness means, but I am using words the way that they're already used. Altruism is good when it benefits people and bad when it harms them. Pursuing harm for others is bad because... I mean, am I going to have to explain to you why trying to do bad things is bad?

You're getting circular answers because you're asking circular questions. You're asking me to prove that doing bad is bad, and being surprised when I tell you that it's because bad is bad and that's how words and tautologies work.

[Darussalam]

The very fact of what harm means contains within itself a good enough reason not to do it. This is the same point I made in the post literally straight above you - because I'm using words to mean what they mean, I don't have to explain why harm is bad because that's already something that's just true of harm. Mill has to explain why happiness is benefit because he's not using happiness to mean what happiness means, but I am using words the way that they're already used. Altruism is good when it benefits people and bad when it harms them. Pursuing harm for others is bad because... I mean, am I going to have to explain to you why trying to do bad things is bad?

You're getting circular answers because you're asking circular questions. You're asking me to prove that doing bad is bad, and being surprised when I tell you that it's because bad is bad and that's how words and tautologies work.

I repeat: you are repeatedly confusing descriptive and normative claim, and thinking that one is another. They're not. Descriptive and normative claim are not synonymous. Your perception that harm ought to be avoided is based on your value judgement and personal preferences. You have not demonstrated why harm is an objectively bad thing - because you can't - and stop telling they're the same because is and ought is not the same thing, which is the point. I'm asking you to bridge them. I'm not asking you why doing bad things are bad, I'm asking you why harm is [objectively] [independent of subjective valuation] bad things and ought to be avoided, why harming others is [objectively] [independent of subjective valuation] bad things because they're not self-defining. If a person perceives harm as desirable, then how do you demonstrate that they're wrong and you're right?

[Jormengand]

The very fact of what harm means contains within itself a good enough reason not to do it. This is the same point I made in the post literally straight above you - because I'm using words to mean what they mean, I don't have to explain why harm is bad because that's already something that's just true of harm. Mill has to explain why happiness is benefit because he's not using happiness to mean what happiness means, but I am using words the way that they're already used. Altruism is good when it benefits people and bad when it harms them. Pursuing harm for others is bad because... I mean, am I going to have to explain to you why trying to do bad things is bad?

You're getting circular answers because you're asking circular questions. You're asking me to prove that doing bad is bad, and being surprised when I tell you that it's because bad is bad and that's how words and tautologies work.

I repeat: you are repeatedly confusing descriptive and normative claim, and thinking that one is another. They're not. Descriptive and normative claim are not synonymous. Your perception that harm ought to be avoided is based on your value judgement and personal preferences. You have not demonstrated why harm is an objectively bad thing - because you can't - and stop telling they're the same because is and ought is not the same thing, which is the point. I'm asking you to bridge them. I'm not asking you why doing bad things are bad, I'm asking you why harm is [objectively] [independent of subjective valuation] bad things and ought to be avoided, why harming others is [objectively] [independent of subjective valuation] bad things because they're not self-defining. If a person perceives harm as desirable, then how do you demonstrate that they're wrong and you're right?

If someone advocates harm as desirable then they are simply incorrect just as much as if they had advocated blue as red or llamas as butterflies or light as dark or up as down. Harm is objectively and independent of subjective valuation bad because that's just what harm means, just like speed is independently and objectively scalar velocity. The reason why doing bad things ought to be avoided if your goal is a moral one, ie if your goal is to do good, is self-evident. You're trying to make me prove tautologies without reference to the fact that they're tautological.

[36 Camera Perspective]

I repeat: you are repeatedly confusing descriptive and normative claim, and thinking that one is another. They're not. Descriptive and normative claim are not synonymous. Your perception that harm ought to be avoided is based on your value judgement and personal preferences. You have not demonstrated why harm is an objectively bad thing - because you can't - and stop telling they're the same because is and ought is not the same thing, which is the point. I'm asking you to bridge them. I'm not asking you why doing bad things are bad, I'm asking you why harm is [objectively] [independent of subjective valuation] bad things and ought to be avoided, why harming others is [objectively] [independent of subjective valuation] bad things because they're not self-defining. If a person perceives harm as desirable, then how do you demonstrate that they're wrong and you're right?

If someone advocates harm as desirable then they are simply incorrect just as much as if they had advocated blue as red or llamas as butterflies or light as dark or up as down. Harm is objectively and independent of subjective valuation bad because that's just what harm means, just like speed is independently and objectively scalar velocity. The reason why doing bad things ought to be avoided if your goal is a moral one, ie if your goal is to do good, is self-evident. You're trying to make me prove tautologies without reference to the fact that they're tautological.

Here are some appropriate answers you could consider: harm is bad when it violates the innate dignity of human beings as rational agents. Harm is bad when it prevents us from obtaining the great amount of happiness possible for the greatest number of people.

Here is not an appropriate answer: harm is wrong by definition. No. Harm is just harm. Again, when I force my child to get a vaccine, this is some form of harm, but this clearly isn't morally wrong. Again, harm is just harm. There are good forms of harm, and bad forms of harm. Your ethical theory can't distinguish between the two because you refuse to provide any kind of criterea for what counts as morally wrong "harm".

Since you refuse to tell us what "harm" means, and instead insist that it should be obvious (it's not), your ethical theory becomes useless. We all agree that bad things are bad. We all agree that good things are good. The question is: what makes something good and bad? What makes harm morally wrong? A Kantian could tell us that violating people's humanity makes (some kinds of) harm wrong. A utilitarian could tell us that the moral obligation to maximize happiness for people makes harm wrong. You, on the other hand, can't tell us what makes harm wrong. You just insist that it's the meaning of the word, when it's actually not.

You keep insisting that it's impossible for you to tell us what makes harm wrong, because that's just what the word harm means. Well, the utilitarians could tell us what might make harm wrong. The Kantians could tell us. The contractitarians could tell us. I could tell you. Why can't you tell us? Why is that everybody else in ethical theory can tell us what makes something wrong, but you're the only one who needs to play a semantic game?

Some forms of harm are desirable. A prisoner who needs to be punished needs to be harmed. A disobedient child who needs a vaccine is harmed when you force them to get one. My body is physically harmed whenever I work out. Carl Jung thought that sometimes, a degree of psychological suffering was necessary for a person on their path to wholeness and fulfillment. If you say that "harm = bad" is your moral barometer, then there is a plethora of ethical dilemmas you will have no ability to navigate, unless you are some kind of extreme pacifist.

The analogy to speed is terrible. Speed is defined by scientific convention, not written in the sky. No objective morality can be founded on human convention.

The whole point of ethical theory is to explain what grounds our beliefs that an action is right or wrong, and then to apply this standard to ethical situations in order to resolve them. Your 'ethical theory' does neither. It does not tell us what makes harm wrong, and it is so vague that it cannot be applied to any ethical situation usefully.

You already said that you're a utilitarian. You should stop saying that "harm" is objectively wrong. You should just start saying that whatever doesn't serve to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people is wrong. That would be an actual ethical theory. That would give us some basis for navigating all these ethical problems. But simply stating that harm is objectively wrong, and that's the definition of harm (it isn't), is completely useless.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

My personal ethical philosophy is based on optimistic nihilism. In short, it means "There's no point in life so you might as well make yourself and others as happy as possible".

[Methodological Individualism]

"... so you might as well make yourself and others as happy as possible".

What's the point?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

"... so you might as well make yourself and others as happy as possible".

What's the point?

It's not total nihilism, it just says that otherwise there's no real point of existing.

[The Alma Mater]

"... so you might as well make yourself and others as happy as possible".

What's the point?

*Insert the xkcd squirrel comic here*