*Author

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg446284#msg446284
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2012, 05:40:16 pm »
I think the argument is that If eveyone lied in the same situation. everyone would expect people to lie and thus would not be deceived by the lying. The general concept seems to be to imagine that everyone does it, what would be the result.

Im not sure I agree with this argument. especially when it comes to deception. Some one who expects deception can still be deceived, depending on the skill of the deceiver and whether they know that the person being deceived knows the deceiver is trying to deceive them (run your mind over that twisted thought :) )

You also have the problem posed by Benjamin Constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquiring_murderer) who said that if deception was never permissible. It would be morally wrong to lie to a murderer asking on the whereabouts of his target. You must tell them the true location of the person they wish to murder.

Considering the universality of deception among not only humans, but all living organism. i find it unlikely that telling the truth in all circumstances would be a moral imperative.
Close summary. Here is the more nuanced version.
The only sure way to avoid deception is to not listen. If people are expected to try to deceive in a circumstance then their targets can be expected to ignore them. The deception is impossible since deception requires the target's attention.

I also am unsure if I agree with this particular argument. However I do find the form of the argument to be an appealing attempt at deriving moral truth.

My response to Benjamin is:
Since moral permissibly of lying results in all lies being ignored, if it were permissible to lie to the murderer then the murderer would ignore your lie. Thus lying results in saying nothing of notice. So our options are: truth, nothing or ignored lie. Ignored lie can be eliminated because it results in saying nothing. So we can chose between saying nothing or telling the truth. There is no perfect duty against saying nothing. Therefore one can say nothing and avoid lying.

Can one draw likelihood across the Is -> Ought barrier?
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

Offline Cheesy111

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1517
  • Reputation Power: 19
  • Cheesy111 is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.Cheesy111 is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.Cheesy111 is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.
  • New to Elements
  • Awards: Battle League 2/2014 1st PlaceWeekly Tournament WinnerWeekly Tournament WinnerSlice of Elements 4th Birthday CakeBattle League 3/2012 2nd PlaceWeekly Tournament WinnerBeginners League 2/2012 2nd Place
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg446337#msg446337
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2012, 08:41:56 pm »
I think the argument is that If eveyone lied in the same situation. everyone would expect people to lie and thus would not be deceived by the lying. The general concept seems to be to imagine that everyone does it, what would be the result.

Im not sure I agree with this argument. especially when it comes to deception. Some one who expects deception can still be deceived, depending on the skill of the deceiver and whether they know that the person being deceived knows the deceiver is trying to deceive them (run your mind over that twisted thought :) )

You also have the problem posed by Benjamin Constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquiring_murderer) who said that if deception was never permissible. It would be morally wrong to lie to a murderer asking on the whereabouts of his target. You must tell them the true location of the person they wish to murder.

Considering the universality of deception among not only humans, but all living organism. i find it unlikely that telling the truth in all circumstances would be a moral imperative.
Close summary. Here is the more nuanced version.
The only sure way to avoid deception is to not listen. If people are expected to try to deceive in a circumstance then their targets can be expected to ignore them. The deception is impossible since deception requires the target's attention.

I also am unsure if I agree with this particular argument. However I do find the form of the argument to be an appealing attempt at deriving moral truth.

My response to Benjamin is:
Since moral permissibly of lying results in all lies being ignored, if it were permissible to lie to the murderer then the murderer would ignore your lie. Thus lying results in saying nothing of notice. So our options are: truth, nothing or ignored lie. Ignored lie can be eliminated because it results in saying nothing. So we can chose between saying nothing or telling the truth. There is no perfect duty against saying nothing. Therefore one can say nothing and avoid lying.

Can one draw likelihood across the Is -> Ought barrier?
The part I disagree with from this is that it assumes both people have complete and accurate knowledge about the situation they're in and the relative likelihood of someone to deceive them, when this is almost never the case.  Usually one is deceived when one thinks that one is in a situation where there would be none or minimal reasons for someone to lie to you.  For example, an undercover agent infiltrates an enemy base and disguises himself as someone else.  While most people given this information would expect the agent to lie about their identity, the people in the enemy base have no reason to assume that the agent is an enemy trying to deceive them.  Hence, deception is carried out.

In the case of the murderer, it's possible that they sincerely believe that you would help them find their target, either because they think that they have convinced you that the target should be killed, or that you wouldn't lie if the murderer threatened to kill or hurt you too, etc.  In other words, deception is certainly possible through lying when one does not have omniscient information about the person lying.

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg446344#msg446344
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2012, 09:03:30 pm »
I think the argument is that If eveyone lied in the same situation. everyone would expect people to lie and thus would not be deceived by the lying. The general concept seems to be to imagine that everyone does it, what would be the result.

Im not sure I agree with this argument. especially when it comes to deception. Some one who expects deception can still be deceived, depending on the skill of the deceiver and whether they know that the person being deceived knows the deceiver is trying to deceive them (run your mind over that twisted thought :) )

You also have the problem posed by Benjamin Constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquiring_murderer) who said that if deception was never permissible. It would be morally wrong to lie to a murderer asking on the whereabouts of his target. You must tell them the true location of the person they wish to murder.

Considering the universality of deception among not only humans, but all living organism. i find it unlikely that telling the truth in all circumstances would be a moral imperative.
Close summary. Here is the more nuanced version.
The only sure way to avoid deception is to not listen. If people are expected to try to deceive in a circumstance then their targets can be expected to ignore them. The deception is impossible since deception requires the target's attention.

I also am unsure if I agree with this particular argument. However I do find the form of the argument to be an appealing attempt at deriving moral truth.

My response to Benjamin is:
Since moral permissibly of lying results in all lies being ignored, if it were permissible to lie to the murderer then the murderer would ignore your lie. Thus lying results in saying nothing of notice. So our options are: truth, nothing or ignored lie. Ignored lie can be eliminated because it results in saying nothing. So we can chose between saying nothing or telling the truth. There is no perfect duty against saying nothing. Therefore one can say nothing and avoid lying.

Can one draw likelihood across the Is -> Ought barrier?
The part I disagree with from this is that it assumes both people have complete and accurate knowledge about the situation they're in and the relative likelihood of someone to deceive them, when this is almost never the case.  Usually one is deceived when one thinks that one is in a situation where there would be none or minimal reasons for someone to lie to you.  For example, an undercover agent infiltrates an enemy base and disguises himself as someone else.  While most people given this information would expect the agent to lie about their identity, the people in the enemy base have no reason to assume that the agent is an enemy trying to deceive them.  Hence, deception is carried out.

In the case of the murderer, it's possible that they sincerely believe that you would help them find their target, either because they think that they have convinced you that the target should be killed, or that you wouldn't lie if the murderer threatened to kill or hurt you too, etc.  In other words, deception is certainly possible through lying when one does not have omniscient information about the person lying.
You might want to read Kant yourself. It is a difficult read and difficult to accurately summarize.
The only knowledge assumed is that everyone adopted the maxim. The relative likelihood of someone to deceive them is not needed since even if it were infinitesimally unlikely there would be no way to tell the difference between the true claim of the honest person and the false claim of the dishonest person. Thus both are ignored rendering dishonesty useless and dishonestly for deceit irrational.

Lets examine Kant's example:
We start with a maxim "I borrow money without intent to pay it back to obtain money."
If it were morally permissible for you then it is morally permissible for everyone.
Imagine a world where everyone had this maxim.
In such a world no one would be willing to lend money because no one would pay it back.
Everyone having the maxim has resulted in it being impossible to do.
This is what is meant by Kant as a contradiction in conception.

Now lets look at your case with the undercover agent.
We start with a maxim "I will lie about my identity to impersonate someone else."
If it were morally permissible for anyone then it is morally permissible for everyone.
Imagine a world where everyone had this maxim.
In such a world no one would trust people's claims about who they were.
Instead they would rely on other forms of security.
The willingness to lie to impersonate lead to impersonating someone requiring more than lies.
Everyone having the maxim has resulted in it being impossible to do.
This is what is meant by Kant as a contradiction in conception.
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

Offline Cheesy111

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1517
  • Reputation Power: 19
  • Cheesy111 is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.Cheesy111 is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.Cheesy111 is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.
  • New to Elements
  • Awards: Battle League 2/2014 1st PlaceWeekly Tournament WinnerWeekly Tournament WinnerSlice of Elements 4th Birthday CakeBattle League 3/2012 2nd PlaceWeekly Tournament WinnerBeginners League 2/2012 2nd Place
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg446531#msg446531
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2012, 05:15:54 am »
You might want to read Kant yourself. It is a difficult read and difficult to accurately summarize.
The only knowledge assumed is that everyone adopted the maxim. The relative likelihood of someone to deceive them is not needed since even if it were infinitesimally unlikely there would be no way to tell the difference between the true claim of the honest person and the false claim of the dishonest person. Thus both are ignored rendering dishonesty useless and dishonestly for deceit irrational.

Lets examine Kant's example:
We start with a maxim "I borrow money without intent to pay it back to obtain money."
If it were morally permissible for you then it is morally permissible for everyone.
Imagine a world where everyone had this maxim.
In such a world no one would be willing to lend money because no one would pay it back.
Everyone having the maxim has resulted in it being impossible to do.
This is what is meant by Kant as a contradiction in conception.

Now lets look at your case with the undercover agent.
We start with a maxim "I will lie about my identity to impersonate someone else."
If it were morally permissible for anyone then it is morally permissible for everyone.
Imagine a world where everyone had this maxim.
In such a world no one would trust people's claims about who they were.
Instead they would rely on other forms of security.
The willingness to lie to impersonate lead to impersonating someone requiring more than lies.
Everyone having the maxim has resulted in it being impossible to do.
This is what is meant by Kant as a contradiction in conception.
Thank you very much, that was a very helpful extrapolation - I admit that I've never read Kant, only read/heard a light overview of his views.  Hopefully you won't mind me asking another question - how does a contradiction in conception lead to the judgement that an act is immoral? 

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg446536#msg446536
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2012, 05:54:45 am »
You might want to read Kant yourself. It is a difficult read and difficult to accurately summarize.
The only knowledge assumed is that everyone adopted the maxim. The relative likelihood of someone to deceive them is not needed since even if it were infinitesimally unlikely there would be no way to tell the difference between the true claim of the honest person and the false claim of the dishonest person. Thus both are ignored rendering dishonesty useless and dishonestly for deceit irrational.
-snip-
Thank you very much, that was a very helpful extrapolation - I admit that I've never read Kant, only read/heard a light overview of his views.  Hopefully you won't mind me asking another question - how does a contradiction in conception lead to the judgement that an act is immoral?
I am less clear about what Kant meant here. I think it was something like the following.

Maxims are usually phrased as
"I will do action A with the goal of outcome B"
If action A does not lead to outcome B then,
one cannot achieve outcome B through action A then,
one ought not attempt to achieve outcome B through action A.
The orange is the immoral choice. It is immoral because reason decrees it is incorrect.
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

Offline destruct

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Reputation Power: 1
  • destruct is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg1055091#msg1055091
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2013, 01:56:42 am »

If you kill one person to save the life of someone else. Is that action good or evil?

Bad because the object of what you are doing is bad.  Killing someone is always bad, no matter what.  The consequences DO NOT JUSTIFY the means.

Offline northcity4

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Reputation Power: 5
  • northcity4 is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg1059318#msg1059318
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2013, 10:27:28 pm »
Correct, and for your support: Kant's ethics of permissibility.
My sport is your sport's punishment.

Offline kimham8a

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
  • Country: ca
  • Reputation Power: 16
  • kimham8a is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.kimham8a is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.kimham8a is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.
  • God of this world
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg1059372#msg1059372
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2013, 01:51:19 am »
Killing someone is always bad? So you shouldn't kill someone one second before she dies from cancer in order to save millions from horrible painful deaths?

Might be an extreme case, but I am unsure as to whether you believe there is a boundary to the "always bad" statement.
Hey there

Offline northcity4

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Reputation Power: 5
  • northcity4 is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg1059402#msg1059402
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2013, 04:01:20 am »
Unless she gives you permission you shouldn't.

And, I am going to take a firm stance that even if she is unconscious, it would still be wrong. Great intentions, but still immoral.

It's like in abortion if we should kill the baby in order to save the mom who can help millions at war. Society will deem that permissible, but from a moral sense (which Kant argues) it is still immoral (assuming it is human, and yes, let's not debate on abortion here  :))

 
My sport is your sport's punishment.

Offline cometbah

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Reputation Power: 1
  • cometbah is a Spark waiting for a buff.
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg1059729#msg1059729
« Reply #45 on: April 14, 2013, 04:26:21 am »
Suppose you (and only you) hold absolute power over the fate of two subjects.

You must choose to condemn at least one to death (not necessarily by direct killing).

You know nothing about the two subjects (other than that they both desire to live).

If you do not choose, both subjects will necessarily die.

What is the moral course of action? (Is there one?)

Offline northcity4

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Reputation Power: 5
  • northcity4 is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg1059734#msg1059734
« Reply #46 on: April 14, 2013, 04:45:18 am »
Simples: Pick one before you run out of time.

This is permissible in Kants view because it matches Kant's 3rd party diagram.

Other evidence: You have the opportunity to save 1 than save none. See how this works backwards? Most people will then say: why not kill someone to harvest their organs to save other peoples lives? You are not in a situation where you get to make the call over someones life.

In you scenario, you are in a situation where you can either be responsible for 1 death or 2 deaths and responsibility is the key here. So, choose to kill the least in this sense.

Also see positive/negative rights.
My sport is your sport's punishment.

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: good or evil: the same for everyone? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=34890.msg1059797#msg1059797
« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2013, 12:51:47 pm »
@cometbah
What happens if you do nothing? The situation kills 2 people.
What happens if you decide? You choose someone to die.

Doing nothing is a case of letting 2 people die. Deciding is a case of either killing 1 person or letting 1 person die depending on how you interpret it. Killing in this case is immoral (normal case of murder) unless both of the subjects know the situation and are willing to risk a 50% chance at death over a guaranteeing death. Letting people die is permissible but not ideal. So if choosing is killing then you must not choose. If choosing is letting die then you must choose. If both subjects are willing to gamble then choosing is no longer immoral despite possibly being killing. In that case choosing is ideal.

So
If subjects are willing to gamble then choose
Else if choosing is killing then don't choose
Else choose.


 
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

 

anything
blarg: