The Individual VS The Masses

[ape]

[Homicidal Pacifist]

[Alun]

HP, once again, welcome back. I think there's a big distinction between consequentialism in theory and consequentialism in practice. In practice, we virtually never have reason to believe that, for example, raping and murdering babies will have good consequences on the whole. Even if, for example, some maniac claims he is going to detonate nuclear warheads in Beijing and New York unless you rape and murder 10 new-born babies, the consequentialist approach would not likely tell you to do so.

For one, it is likely that raping and murdering the babies wouldn't influence the maniac's decision. But for another, raping and murdering the babies is not just bad for those babies--it is bad for humanity on the whole. You'd need to be damn sure about the maniac's behavior to take such drastic action. And in fact if you were in that situation personally, you'd really have to go with the 'conservative' response and abide by what is usually the best set of principles, because you really wouldn't have enough evidence that you ought to override those responses: Don't rape. Don't murder. Don't negotiate with terrorists. Etc.

That is, consequentialism says your principles are not just lines in the sand. You've got good reasons for those principles, because any time the will of an individual is violated, it has huge, probably unmeasurable consequences for every individual--not to mention the individual who is directly effected.

Further, while it is theoretically possible that there could be a situation in which the best choice is to rape and murder babies, such a situation is not at all one that is easy to imagine, much less intuit a moral decision about; rape and murder always have horrible, general consequences by definition. This makes these philosophical, extreme examples deceptive. In these examples, we really do know everything about the situation, whereas in real life you never could, so you'd really go with principles instead of being able to make a definitive calculation.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

[David Drum Bum]

Alun,

I take consequentialism seriously (not in a utilitarian context, but that's another story); if you're going to use an example seriously, you can't inject outside circumstances like thought and belief states--this is most often in political situations, if you know X to be the case, then enact X to be the case.

Assume the baby raping and pillaging were to be true, then yes, grim as it may be, do it. The posterity of future individuals demands it.

HP:

The act in itself is not wrong, again, only the states of affairs that it brings. There's no 'right and wrong,' as I adopt, but rather only good and bad, and we have a preference and the ability to alleviate such. In a seemingly post-naturalistic and mechanical world of chaos, a choice theory is better to me than a weird metaphysical ascription of goodness to actions themselves.

As a short aside, I do recognize the beauty of the human being. That being autonomous action and innate dignity: a psychological, biological, cultural, and spiritual culmination of an agent, all of which compose a human being. But we often forfeit or sacrifice elements of these for desires, pleasures, or betterment of others or ourselves in some way or another--these tradeoffs, again utilitarian as they may sound, are pragmatic, insofar as one acknowledges that these tradeoffs are inevitable.

[Homicidal Pacifist]

[Alun]

[wanabe]

A real democracy where the individual votes on everything, does not exist on a large scale; so you can't shoot down utilitarianism just yet (I a agree on its flaws, however nothing is perfect so it might as well be “perfect” for the most people possible, and the most accurate way to do so is to have total democracy)

People are not equal, they are comparable(at best)! there is no one way of doing things that will make everyone happy.

The only way to get what you want (realistically) Homicidal pacifist, is for there to be more countries; with their own ways of living. Even then you have the problem of other countries taking over another.
_________________
The Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So. Fear is weakness leaving the mind.

[setelement]

HP, I do agree that there are many flaws within the social construct that we find ourselves tied to. Such as the exceptence of certain stereo types that exist, but we do need to realize that it is not just the theory that caused this. We and those that came before us are to blame. For they were the original people to allow this to happen, and we are allowing it to perpetuate itself even further than before. All we need do is turn on the T.V. and find the first reality show (this will not be all that hard). These shows perpetuate the misconceptions of: You must look a certain way, act a certain way, and live a certain way. In doing this we will lead happy and succesful lives (PURE B.S.). I like Sartre's explanation of how we should act in Existentialism is Humanism:

This is a paraphrased

[athena]

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Athena-

Isn't your doctor part of society? His life is affected by your decision. But I get what you're saying.

You said that democracy is rule by reason, not rule by the majority.

Is it unreasonable to extend the same rights to homosexuals? If not, then why don't they have the same rights?

"Laws of Nature" is a fuzzy term. Do you mean gravity, etc.? Or do you mean equal human rights? If you mean equal human rights, I would pose this...

Slavery existed for 200 years because the majority was in favor of it because they were selfish, apathetic assholes. It was only extinguished because the majority finally changed their minds and opposing forces became a minimum. If I am incorrect I apologize; I am an ethicist, not an historian. If that example was unfit, apply it to women's right to vote.
_________________
"If Ignorance Is Bliss, Then Knock The Smile Off My Face!"

- Rage Against The Machine

[Alun]

I agree with athena, but I would clarify it as; Democracy is not rule by the majority for the majority, it is rule by the majority to approximate reason, and so it should only be undertaken with sufficient protection of individuals, such that reason, rather than just the interests of a temporary majority, win out in the end. The reason that the majority eventually granted women rights was not just happenstance; it's that Democracy is a growth process, by which people seem to eventually become more reasonable. It works better when individuals are granted equal and just freedoms.

This final fact is what gives HP firepower--along with the simple fact that the majority is almost never right about everything--because if at any point we're willing to sacrifice individual rights for the majority, we threaten our ability to find the right answers. It just may be, for example, that we're wrong; killing the one to save the many may not be the right answer. How can we be sure enough of ourselves to sacrifice the one?

My answer is that we just have to act in uncertain conditions. While we have to take into account reasonable chances that we may be wrong into how far we will go, we generally have to do something, because doing nothing is the worst choice.

(I capitalize "Democracy" here not to refer to the US political party, but what is officially a "democratic republic" model of government.)
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Alun said, "...we generally have to do something, because doing nothing is the worst choice."


And what is it to do nothing?

Is it "nothing" to:

Stand up for your moral convictions even in the heat of the moment or when dire stakes are at hand?

Refuse to comply with the terrorist's demands that you murder innocent people even as he threatens you and others?

Stand up for the rights to fairness and safety of the individual?
_________________
"If Ignorance Is Bliss, Then Knock The Smile Off My Face!"

- Rage Against The Machine

[Belinda]

I'd say no to the first and yes to the second.

No to the first because moral convictions may have to take second place to a more practical choice. Moral convictions are no use when everyone is dead.

Yes to the third, if standing up for fairness does not involve loss of life or similar.I'm not a martyr even while I admire those who are braver than I. Perhaps in the event I might be braver.If I regularly prayed I would pray that when my moral trial comes I will do what I should do.
_________________
Socialist

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Better to all be dead having been loyal to each other rather than a select group living as betrayers.
_________________
"If Ignorance Is Bliss, Then Knock The Smile Off My Face!"

- Rage Against The Machine

[zcnmashleu]

i agree the part about where democracy is ruled by the majority instead of reason. As seen by the slaves part.

However, if the minority had the same rights as the majority, then there is no point in voting. this is like appeasing everybody which is like impossible. If the minority feels that they are truly in the right and that the majority was in the wrong, then they have to convince the masses. If the minority can't convince the masses to head for the right direction, then it will be tragic.

Maybe the solution is to have a wise and upright dictator, which the masses most likely won't like.
About the sarcrifice babies part, raping babies to save millions, i personally view that when the time comes to choose, either choice will not be totally wrong or right.

I agree with homocidal pacifist about his quote, the few really are worthless, but if they are going to be value equal to the masses, then have a majority or a minority will be pointless. this is just my view only.