Morality & ethics.

[psy0nyd3]

I started a new thread for this discussion as I think it could be a lengthy one and we should not completely derail the 'justification of war' thread more than we already have.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  Sometimes the greatest plans can be derailed by a single word. One of my earliest articles was entitled “Proving Libertarian Morality,” which was my attempt to provide a rational and universal justification for a theory of ethics, and which has proved thoroughly confusing for a great number of people, all because of one single word.

The reason I wrote this article in the first place was that it always struck me as odd that we libertarians are fascinated by right and wrong, and pour prodigious effort into arguing that society or people should do this or that, and yet our opinions rarely rest on a universal foundation of ethical reasoning. You hear statements like “the greatest good for the greatest number,” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or that economic inefficiencies are bad, taxation is evil, government power corrupts and so on.

This is all well and good, but it strikes me as “preaching at the mirror,” since it does little to convince those who do not already agree. The great challenge in ethical debating is possessing the leverage to radically extend people’s opinions about core moral issues. This is easier than it sounds, since a good philosopher does not change people’s minds, but rather just logically extends the principles they already accept. Who have you ever met who argued that murder is the highest moral good, or that rape is a man's best course of action, or that the Golden Rule is: steal everything you can get your hands on, all the time? No one, of course. However, as morality gets more abstract, it is harder for people to maintain their consistency. I can’t even count the number of times people have agreed with me that “theft is wrong,” but who then instantly become baffled when I reply “therefore taxation is wrong.” It’s the same with the military. No one has any trouble with the equation: Man + murder = evil. Throw in one little inconsequential variable and most people get very confused. Man + murder + green costume = ?zzttz¿¡[short circuit] National Hero!

I disagree that all taxation is theft. If not for the bureaucratic nature of government here in the United States, We might see our tax dollars working for us.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  The real challenge for libertarians is to extend the moral principles everyone already accepts – thus a libertarian who lacks a solid argument for the universality of those moral principles is really spinning his wheels, and our lack of a compelling argument for this universality principles is, I believe, one reason we have made so little progress over the last century or so. If moral rules are accepted (i.e. murder = evil), but consistency is optional, we have no real leverage to change people’s thinking.

Here he's already making assumptions. He's assuming that there is 'evil' among us. Murder = 'evil' is NOT empirical. Considering 'evil' is a term used to cast doubt on people who's actions we do not understand. Using this term implies that you will not investigate deeper, it is quite nihilistic.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  For quite some time, I sweated my brain dry working on this problem. The argument that I came up with was, in essence:

Morality is defined as Universally Preferred Behavior (i.e. a moral theory is that which proposes which behaviors should be preferred – or proscribed – for all peoples in all places at all times.)
For a proposition to be defined as moral, it must advocate a logically consistent set of Universally Preferred Behavior, such as “don’t steal.”
Anyone who argues against Universally Preferred Behavior must do so using clear language, arguments, logic and evidence – all based on the principle that truth is better than falsehood.
Clear language, argument, logic and evidence – and a universal preference for truth over falsehood – are all examples of Universally Preferred Behavior. Anyone who argues is acting on the premise that clear language is universally preferred to gibberish, logic to illogic, and truth to falsehood.
Since Universally Preferred Behavior cannot be opposed without accepting the premise of Universally Preferred Behavior, Universally Preferred Behavior must stand as a valid concept.

I've read the whole article, and I understand the use of preferable, but the FACT is that if morality is preferable, it suggests in the instance of necessity, you must step outside of your morals. I.E. what I said before, what if your choice is: Steal to feed your family, or die? Of course you would 'prefer' to obey property rights, but if you do, your children go hungry. The necessity to feed your children FAR outweighs your preferable moral standards.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  The argument follows the same general lines as arguments for logic itself. Logic as a methodology for validating arguments is irrefutable, since logic can only be dismissed either on a whim, which is invalid, or using logic, which relies on the validity of logic in the first place.

Arguing against Universally Preferred Behavior is like shouting into somebody’s ear that sound does not exist, or phoning someone to tell him that phones are a fantasy. The argument self-destructs on deployment.

A sample argument runs thus:

People should not steal.
There is no such thing as morality, since no objective standards exist in the world.
So I should not believe that theft is wrong, because no objective standards exist?
That’s right.
Is it merely your opinion that no objective standards exist, or is it objectively true that no standards exist?
It is objectively true that no standards exist.
And is it merely your opinion that I should not believe in morality because no objective standards exist, or is objectively true that no objective standards exist?
It is objectively true you should not believe in morality, because no objective standards exist.
And what criteria have you used to separate mere opinion from objective truth?
Reason.
So reason, then, is the objective standard by which you have determined that no objective standards exist?
[minor forehead detonation]

It is easy to defeat yourself in a manufactured argument. Reason is no objective standard.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  Of course “morality” does not exist in the real world, but so what? The scientific method doesn’t exist in the real world either; neither do logic or numbers – does that mean that science and math are totally subjective, and that any old opinion goes? It is exactly the same with morality. Moral theories or propositions must pass the first test of logical consistency, just as in science or mathematics. If you submit a mathematical paper, and on the first page you assume that 2+2=5, rare would be the individual who would read any further! Any sane reviewer would simply circle that error, hand it back and tell you to start over.

The same is true for moral propositions. No one has to engage in moral theorizing – just as people are free to read chicken entrails rather than use science – but the moment that somebody corrects you on anything, they accept that people are bound by some standard of truth or behavior beyond mere whim – and so accept Universally Preferred Behavior. If someone tells you, say, that truth is better than falsehood, then he is telling you that it is universally better to believe things that are true than to believe things that are false. The moment that somebody invokes a universal preference, they are instantly bound by the requirements of logical consistency and evidence.

If I tell you that it is better to believe things that are false, my argument self-destructs, because either (a) I am lying, which means you should believe me, but that my argument is the opposite of truth, or (b) I am telling the truth, in which case I am immediately contradicting my stated principle that it is better to believe false things.

The same principle occurs if I argue against the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership. If I open my mouth and use my larynx and tongue to put forward an argument against self-ownership, my argument immediately self-destructs, since I am exercising self-ownership to argue that self-ownership is invalid, impossible, or immoral.

In my view, it is essential that libertarians work to develop and communicate ironclad arguments for the universality and consistency of morality itself. If we take a rational and scientific approach to the challenges of moral theories, we shall start to get real traction in the world of ideas, and elevate ourselves about the yammering hordes of debaters who pound tables and bellow that their opinions are just somehow more correct than everyone else’s.

The disservice that I have done to this idea is using the word “preferred” rather than “preferable.” I would like to now officially change my definition of morality from Universally Preferred Behavior to Universally Preferable Behavior. My use of the latter word has confused a large number of people, who think that I am defining morality as “behaviors that are universally preferred by all people at all times,” and thus using a descriptive and not prescriptive definition. I was rather surprised by this misunderstanding (though I can see how it could be derived linguistically), since it is quite obvious that many people have many different opinions about what is moral – not to mention that if everyone in the whole world had the same opinion about what was right, we would scarcely need a science of morality! So to all of those who have written to me to tell me that people do not have the same opinions about what is good, I can only say that people’s existing moral preferences are irrelevant to the science of morality, just as people’s existing beliefs that the world was flat was irrelevant to the physical sciences.

Just a minor criticism here, this fool actually assumes people used to think the world was flat? I understand that most teachers and mainstream text books propagate this flat earth theory, but VERY few people, and even less intellectuals ever realistically thought that. I'm paraphrasing here, from James Loewen's 'The Lies My Teacher Told Me.' Many ancient cultures knew the world was round, including europeans. When a ship sails out to sea, first the body of the ship sinks below the horizon, then the sail disappears. The Earth casts a round shadow on the Moon. Even Wikipedia knows that nobody in classical europe believed the earth was flat.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  To further develop the science of ethics, I propose that any moral theory must surmount three basic hurdles. The first hurdle is, of course, logical consistency. I have spoken about this at length before, so I will just touch on it here. By “logical consistency,” I mean that any theory proposing Universally Preferable Behavior must not be self-contradictory. If a moral theory says that “everyone must steal,” it immediately self-destructs, since stealing is only of value if a thief gets to keep the proceeds of his theft. No man would steal a wallet if he knew that it would be stolen from him immediately afterwards – and the spectacle of a world full of people constantly stealing from each other would be rather ludicrous to contemplate. Thus a thief only steals – or violates property rights – because he wishes to exercise his property rights over the stolen item. Implicit in the action of stealing is a simultaneous rejection and affirmation of property rights, which is how we know that theft as a moral rule is both logically and morally wrong.

Also here I can see that this guy, has no perspective of reality. A thief steals 'to exercise his property rights???' No. A thief steals because of necessity. That is unless they're a cleptomaniac, which is a different case where there is a psychological problem, and is exempt from the morality rule according to your man here.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  Logical consistency also requires categorical uniformity. A physicist who argues that all objects which are heavier than air fall towards the ground neatly deals with both rocks and helium balloons – but he cannot say that one rock falls down, but another rock that is heaver than air falls up. In other words, opposite actions require opposing properties – in this case, that all rocks are heavier than air, and so fall down – while helium balloons are lighter than air, and thus float up. The opposing property is: lighter than air versus heavier than air.

In the same manner, a moral theory which proposes that murder is wrong, but that it is morally right for soldiers to murder, immediately fails the test of logical consistency. Putting a green costume on does not change a man's moral nature, any more than painting a rock makes it lighter than air. (The same, of course, goes for all manner of statist occupations, such as policeman, politician, prison guard etc.)

On the other hand, where objective physical differences do exist, such as mental retardation or childhood, moral theories are perfectly right in assigning diminished responsibility to such individuals.

Again, where does he talk about the real world with this concept??? Morality is flexible. Murder is wrong. But, murder in self defense is not.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  The second generalized hurdle for any moral theory can be described as “the coma test.” It defies common sense to propose that a man in a coma can be immoral. Thus any moral theory which puts forward positively prescribed actions, such as “you must serve your country” or “you must help the poor” immediately fail the coma test. A moral theory which prescribes a positive good must immediately condemn its opposite as immoral. If “helping the poor” is a positive moral obligation, then refraining from helping the poor must be morally wrong. Since a man in a coma cannot by definition be out helping the poor, he must be immoral, which is quite ridiculous. (Let's not even get into the evil we would all be engaging in every time we took a nap!) Of course, you could “adjust” the moral rule to say “you must help the poor to the best of your ability,” which would bypass the coma test, but then plows straight into rank subjectivism – what on earth does “to the best of your ability” really mean?

Mmmkay... I can tell this guy LIVES behind a computer.

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  The third generalized test is evidence. Any decent moral theory must explain some of the well-known and consistently observed facts of history, such as the grinding poverty of the Middle Ages, the murderous actions of dictatorships, the violent nature of theocracies, the fact that governments always grow, the slow economic suicide of socialism (or the rather more rapid self-immolation of communism) and so on. Any moral theory which predicts that communism would be a smashing success, and that capitalism would result in poverty for all, obviously fails the basic test of empiricism and historical evidence.

Also, as per his earlier arguments, anyone who says, "Stealing is wrong." Later encounters hardship, and steals to sustain himself is immediately an immoral person with no objective standards or ethics?

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  I truly believe that we libertarians must resist the short-term tactics of arguing about politics and economics, and instead spend our energies hacking through the challenges of defining an objective and universal morality. If we can come to a rigorous, well-defined and well-understood theory of morality, then we will gain immense traction, and can finally begin to achieve the success that constantly eludes us. Without a doubt, my suggestions are far more strategic and tactical, but I think that it is very clear by now that our prior tactics have not worked. If we train ourselves in moral reasoning, and learn how to refute those who oppose universal ethics, rather than, say, merely arguing against the minimum wage, then we can really truly turn the tide of history and save not just libertarianism, but the world.

I find it funny how this author does not actually use real world examples, aside from a thief who believes in property rights contradicts his belief by stealing. I can tell from his concrete A or B, no exceptions ideology that, like I said before, this man probably lives inside a computer and has never faced true hardship or dire necessity.


Noobd, please let me know who the author of this article is.

[Fuzzly Bear]

(01-14-2010 05:21 AM)noobd Wrote:  

(01-13-2010 07:45 PM)HamishFTW Wrote:  Please don't answer his question with another completely unrelated question.

Stay out of the thread if it bothers you? It's related.

It's not related. Your question assumes that the father killing/stealing to provide for his child brought the child into the world being unable to care for it and does not take into the fact that the father's situation could have changed. Should the father have killed his son or sent him on a long and dangerous voyage to another country when the famine/war/inflation struck? In your universal morality what should be done?

Would you rather watch your child starve to death? Would your father rather watch you starve to death?

Article is by Stefan Molyneux I believe. It's not really worth reading.


behind all logic, too, and its apparent tyranny ... there are value judgements.

Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has
been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of
involuntary and unconscious memoir.

[Crookshank]

Morals were created by humans, therefore in the grand scheme of things they mean nothing. Just because we've always used morals and ideologies to make our life decisions doesn't mean we should continue to do so.

[psy0nyd3]

I am in no way advocating the disregard of morals. I am simply inferring that Morality is not a concrete thing. Personally, I have rather conservative morals and ethics. I will not steal, it goes against my personal beliefs. However, I have stolen before, in situations where I had to. Does that mean I am immoral? I have strong work ethics, I will not commit to something without finishing it. I will not lie. I will not murder, however if a person invades my home, I will NOT hesitate to take their life. I would not shoot to disable, I would shoot to kill. Preservation of my life and my families lives is MUCH more important than sympathy for a stranger whom I do not know.

There is not a set of rules that must be followed in order to be an ethical human being. Some things will evolve you as a person, some things will preserve you.

[Crookshank]

(01-15-2010 09:51 PM)psy0nyd3 Wrote:  I am in no way advocating the disregard of morals. I am simply inferring that Morality is not a concrete thing. Personally, I have rather conservative morals and ethics. I will not steal, it goes against my personal beliefs. However, I have stolen before, in situations where I had to. Does that mean I am immoral? I have strong work ethics, I will not commit to something without finishing it. I will not lie. I will not murder, however if a person invades my home, I will NOT hesitate to take their life. I would not shoot to disable, I would shoot to kill. Preservation of my life and my families lives is MUCH more important than sympathy for a stranger whom I do not know.

There is not a set of rules that must be followed in order to be an ethical human being. Some things will evolve you as a person, some things will preserve you.

And the idea of an ethical human being is a fabrication too.

[psy0nyd3]

(01-15-2010 10:01 PM)Crookshank Wrote:  And the idea of an ethical human being is a fabrication too.

The human language is a fabrication too. Are you telling me you don't have ANY morals? You'd take food from your own child for sustenance?

[Crookshank]

Yes I have morals. Never said I didn't.

[psy0nyd3]

You said we shouldn't continue to use morals though.

I just feel they are flexible, because we do not live in Utopia.

[Fuzzly Bear]

Morals are simply values. Everybody has values. Each individual has individual values.

You cannot avoid being moral.

"what is not possible is not to choose ... even if I don't choose, that is still a choice"