We have to go back to the premise that, for any biological organism, the ability to survive, thrive, and reproduce is good. That which impairs that ability is harmful. For most animals, a broken leg is a fatal injury, impairing their ability to feed themselves, and making them easy prey for their predators. This is an objective harm because it exists even if the animal is unconscious. The valuation of "harm" is assigned by us, as objective observers of the animal's condition.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 8:41 amThe issue isn't whether it "exists in physical reality." There is only physical reality. Mental phenomena are physical. They're our brains functioning in particular ways. But yes, a broken leg, the fact that a bone is in a particular state, is not a mental phenomenon.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 7:57 am 1. The broken leg is objective because it exists in physical reality.
So again, the issue isn't whether we're talking about "physical reality." The issue is whether "Can no longer walk," which is definitely not just a mental phenomenon, counts as a harm outside of mental phenomena. "Harm" is a judgment term. It has a negative connotation. We wouldn't call a change or difference in something that we think is neutral or positive a "harm." For example, when we grow so that we can "no longer fit in a child's car seat in physical reality" we don't call that a "harm," because it doesn't (at least not typically) have a negative connotation. So as a term with a value connotation, as a judgment term, we'd need to explain how that could occur as something other than a mental phenomenon. What other than a mind (that is, what other than a brain functioning in a particular way) assigns a valuation to a fact such as "can no longer walk"?
2. The harm is objective because the person can no longer walk in physical reality.
Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
Which isn't at all the case. You can't do philosophy starting with a premise that's incorrect.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 10:10 am We have to go back to the premise that, for any biological organism, the ability to survive, thrive, and reproduce is good.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
Then please provide what you believe is the correct premise for discussing morality.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 11:18 amWhich isn't at all the case. You can't do philosophy starting with a premise that's incorrect.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 10:10 am We have to go back to the premise that, for any biological organism, the ability to survive, thrive, and reproduce is good.
- HillBilleh
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: November 27th, 2020, 7:37 am
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
I'd love to assume we have the consensus that morality is not a byproduct of sociobiological evolution, but a standard that comes from God.
1. Your entire argument of moral dilemma is built on the foundation of the notion " Best Good and Least Harm for everyone".
2. You gave a good example with lying (which is morally wrong) to save the Jews from being killed ( which is also morally wrong).
From human experience, we tend to avoid things that will potentially do more harm than good. On the same token, We also make judgement on benefits versus risk, in which an action is more rational if the benefits outweigh the risk. Yes, i believe we can sum this up with your proposition " we should analyze benefits over harms" and therefore " Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" is the ideal, if not the right way.
But Where did the idea of " we should analyze benefits over harms" come from? Where did you get the underlying assumption that "Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" is Objective, and therefore the right thing in which all actions shall be gauged upon? Why is "Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" the thing right to which any deviation from that proposition is wrong? Why "Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" instead of Best Good and Least Harm for me? Why should "one side should not benefit at the expanse of another"? All these statements reveal your underlying presupposition that "If everyone benefits from a moral dilemma, then the action stems from one particular moral is more correct than the action that does not benefit as much or at all, therefore, the action that will harm rather than benefit is OBJECTIVELY wrong?
On a ontological sense, you don't have grounds as to justifying your presupposition. At junctures, you are resorting to circular reasoning. "Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" is good because "we should analyze benefits over harm" and " we should "analyze benefits over harm" because it is for the "best good and least harm" for everyone. It is a tautology. Therefore, faulty reasoning.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
When we ask what morality is based on, we should be talking about what makes people arrive to propositions of the type "X is right" or "X is wrong", being X any state of affairs of the world, as altered by human actions, not as how it is, but as how they think it ought to be. The reflection should be some kind of science of morality. That's different from the philosophical reflection known as moral philosophy, axiology, or ethics, that ends in a prescription of what makes X right or wrong.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2020, 10:18 pm 1: Arguments used to compare the morality of two competing rules or courses of action are ultimately based upon the benefits and harms of one versus the benefits and harms of the other.
What do we mean by "ultimately"? We mean that moral arguments often begin by applying familiar social rules, like "lying is bad, so one ought not lie", as axiomatic assumptions. But then we run into exceptions where our instincts tell us that "We really ought to lie to the Nazis about the Jews in the attic, or they will kill them".
What justifies this exception? A consideration of the benefits and harms of telling the truth. Tell the truth in this situation and people will die. So we lie.
Telling the truth is better in most situations, but in this situation it is morally wrong. Why is it morally wrong? Because of the objective harm. Why "objective"? Because it is not a matter where someone's feelings will be hurt. It is a matter of people being killed in a gas chamber.
2: When asked to justify any existing rule, like "do not lie", we ultimately end up justifying it in terms of benefits and harms, because other justifications fail. Justifications based upon God's will, or Nature's will, fail unless you can get God or Nature to show up and speak for themselves. Justifications based upon human authority will fail because human authorities have a long history of errors. Any form of justification will itself require justification for its use.
But justification in terms of benefits and harms give us something that we can test and demonstrate. So, this is the measure by which all other justifications will ultimately be judged. When God or Nature or human authority tells us to do something that unnecessarily harms someone, we would judge that instruction to be morally wrong. In the end we all resort to considering the benefits and harms.
Therefore, the ultimate criteria of moral judgement is by an analysis of benefits and harms.
3: In most cases, objective benefits and harms would be better than subjective benefits and harms. For example, a restaurant owner places a "Whites Only" sign in his window because he or his customers are offended by the presence of negro customers. They experience feelings of disgust when a black person sits down beside them. But the only thing being hurt is their feelings. They suffer a subjective harm, but not an objective harm. The black person, on the other hand, is forced to find another restaurant. For example, when people working in the same factory take their lunch break, the whites walk across the street to the "Whites Only" restaurant, but the black person must find another restaurant. In a town that is predominantly white, there will be fewer, if any, convenient places to eat. That is an objective harm to the black person.
4: Why everyone? Ideally, if the benefits and harms for specific individuals and groups can be objectively measured, then both involved parties can assure that one side does not benefit at the expense of the other. The selected solution (the rule or course of action) should meet the real needs of all stakeholders without inflicting any unnecessary harms on anyone, including those not directly affected.
As each solution to a specific problem is resolved in this fashion, either benefits will go up or harms will go down for the involved parties. These add up to an overall increase in benefits and an overall decrease in harms for everyone.
And because everyone benefits overall, everyone can find these solutions agreeable, at least until someone comes up with a better rule or course of action. And moral disputes can actually be resolved instead of debated interminably.
In this post you seem to take the prescriptive stance of moral philosophy and it points at Utilitarianism. Any talk about morality in terms of gains and losses is basically utilitarian. I have my concerns against utilitarian ethics, because I don't see how one can objectively measure the values of benefit or harm, especially since in utilitarian ethics, it depends on the number of agents affected, which becomes always relative to the point of view of the judge.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
How they think it ought to be begins with seeing a problem with how it is (description). Then they propose a different way of doing things (prescription) which would produce a better state of things (description). In systems analysis we begin with documenting the current system. Then we look for areas of improvement. Then we document how the new system would work.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 12:39 pmWhen we ask what morality is based on, we should be talking about what makes people arrive to propositions of the type "X is right" or "X is wrong", being X any state of affairs of the world, as altered by human actions, not as how it is, but as how they think it ought to be. The reflection should be some kind of science of morality. That's different from the philosophical reflection known as moral philosophy, axiology, or ethics, that ends in a prescription of what makes X right or wrong.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2020, 10:18 pm 1: Arguments used to compare the morality of two competing rules or courses of action are ultimately based upon the benefits and harms of one versus the benefits and harms of the other.
What do we mean by "ultimately"? We mean that moral arguments often begin by applying familiar social rules, like "lying is bad, so one ought not lie", as axiomatic assumptions. But then we run into exceptions where our instincts tell us that "We really ought to lie to the Nazis about the Jews in the attic, or they will kill them".
What justifies this exception? A consideration of the benefits and harms of telling the truth. Tell the truth in this situation and people will die. So we lie.
Telling the truth is better in most situations, but in this situation it is morally wrong. Why is it morally wrong? Because of the objective harm. Why "objective"? Because it is not a matter where someone's feelings will be hurt. It is a matter of people being killed in a gas chamber.
2: When asked to justify any existing rule, like "do not lie", we ultimately end up justifying it in terms of benefits and harms, because other justifications fail. Justifications based upon God's will, or Nature's will, fail unless you can get God or Nature to show up and speak for themselves. Justifications based upon human authority will fail because human authorities have a long history of errors. Any form of justification will itself require justification for its use.
But justification in terms of benefits and harms give us something that we can test and demonstrate. So, this is the measure by which all other justifications will ultimately be judged. When God or Nature or human authority tells us to do something that unnecessarily harms someone, we would judge that instruction to be morally wrong. In the end we all resort to considering the benefits and harms.
Therefore, the ultimate criteria of moral judgement is by an analysis of benefits and harms.
3: In most cases, objective benefits and harms would be better than subjective benefits and harms. For example, a restaurant owner places a "Whites Only" sign in his window because he or his customers are offended by the presence of negro customers. They experience feelings of disgust when a black person sits down beside them. But the only thing being hurt is their feelings. They suffer a subjective harm, but not an objective harm. The black person, on the other hand, is forced to find another restaurant. For example, when people working in the same factory take their lunch break, the whites walk across the street to the "Whites Only" restaurant, but the black person must find another restaurant. In a town that is predominantly white, there will be fewer, if any, convenient places to eat. That is an objective harm to the black person.
4: Why everyone? Ideally, if the benefits and harms for specific individuals and groups can be objectively measured, then both involved parties can assure that one side does not benefit at the expense of the other. The selected solution (the rule or course of action) should meet the real needs of all stakeholders without inflicting any unnecessary harms on anyone, including those not directly affected.
As each solution to a specific problem is resolved in this fashion, either benefits will go up or harms will go down for the involved parties. These add up to an overall increase in benefits and an overall decrease in harms for everyone.
And because everyone benefits overall, everyone can find these solutions agreeable, at least until someone comes up with a better rule or course of action. And moral disputes can actually be resolved instead of debated interminably.
In this post you seem to take the prescriptive stance of moral philosophy and it points at Utilitarianism. Any talk about morality in terms of gains and losses is basically utilitarian. I have my concerns against utilitarian ethics, because I don't see how one can objectively measure the values of benefit or harm, especially since in utilitarian ethics, it depends on the number of agents affected, which becomes always relative to the point of view of the judge.
I have a major problem with Utilitarianism, because it states that the utility of ethics is to increase pleasure and reduce pain. But those are subjective experiences. Opioids reduce pain (a good thing), but they are also highly addictive (a bad thing). Vaccinations are painful but they are objectively good for us. Childbirth is painful but it too is objectively good for us. Heroin feels very good, but it is objectively bad for us. The problem with Utilitarianism is not in the notion of "utility", but rather in the notion that pleasure and pain are sufficient guides to moral behavior.
Morality has utility. But what is it actually used for? I think morality is used to increase good and decrease harm for everyone. That is the utility of morality.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
That may work in specific environments where systemic thinking is required for the practical purpose of solving problems, but in everyday life this does not appear to be the setting that people must deal with. The moral stance simply requires a right or wrong judgement, which evidently involves the participation of the subject's rationality, but also other subjective and objective factors. The moral stance is a conclusive state where the subject arrives to some belief about what ought to be, preceded by a pre-judgement stage comprised of the subject's past experience, in which a worldview has been developed.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 1:21 pmHow they think it ought to be begins with seeing a problem with how it is (description). Then they propose a different way of doing things (prescription) which would produce a better state of things (description). In systems analysis we begin with documenting the current system. Then we look for areas of improvement. Then we document how the new system would work.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 12:39 pm
When we ask what morality is based on, we should be talking about what makes people arrive to propositions of the type "X is right" or "X is wrong", being X any state of affairs of the world, as altered by human actions, not as how it is, but as how they think it ought to be. The reflection should be some kind of science of morality. That's different from the philosophical reflection known as moral philosophy, axiology, or ethics, that ends in a prescription of what makes X right or wrong.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 1:21 pm I have a major problem with Utilitarianism, because it states that the utility of ethics is to increase pleasure and reduce pain. But those are subjective experiences. Opioids reduce pain (a good thing), but they are also highly addictive (a bad thing). Vaccinations are painful but they are objectively good for us. Childbirth is painful but it too is objectively good for us. Heroin feels very good, but it is objectively bad for us. The problem with Utilitarianism is not in the notion of "utility", but rather in the notion that pleasure and pain are sufficient guides to moral behavior.
Some utilitarians talk about pleasure and pain, but others talk about benefit or happiness. I don't think any of this is less subjective.
This seems redundant. Good and harm are just some other words to describe benefit, utility (or lack of), so ultimately it's all being defined in utilitarian terms: "the utility of morality is to increase utility".Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 1:21 pm Morality has utility. But what is it actually used for? I think morality is used to increase good and decrease harm for everyone. That is the utility of morality.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
I think I agree with most of what you just said. But I disagree with your definition of "utility". The moral implications of utility are unknown or neutral until we specify "used for what ends". A machine gun is very useful for killing people. That is its utility. It is "good for" mass murder. But mass murder is not a good thing to do. An atomic bomb is even better for mass murder. But this makes it morally worse, not morally better.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 3:52 pmThat may work in specific environments where systemic thinking is required for the practical purpose of solving problems, but in everyday life this does not appear to be the setting that people must deal with. The moral stance simply requires a right or wrong judgement, which evidently involves the participation of the subject's rationality, but also other subjective and objective factors. The moral stance is a conclusive state where the subject arrives to some belief about what ought to be, preceded by a pre-judgement stage comprised of the subject's past experience, in which a worldview has been developed.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 1:21 pm
How they think it ought to be begins with seeing a problem with how it is (description). Then they propose a different way of doing things (prescription) which would produce a better state of things (description). In systems analysis we begin with documenting the current system. Then we look for areas of improvement. Then we document how the new system would work.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 1:21 pm I have a major problem with Utilitarianism, because it states that the utility of ethics is to increase pleasure and reduce pain. But those are subjective experiences. Opioids reduce pain (a good thing), but they are also highly addictive (a bad thing). Vaccinations are painful but they are objectively good for us. Childbirth is painful but it too is objectively good for us. Heroin feels very good, but it is objectively bad for us. The problem with Utilitarianism is not in the notion of "utility", but rather in the notion that pleasure and pain are sufficient guides to moral behavior.
Some utilitarians talk about pleasure and pain, but others talk about benefit or happiness. I don't think any of this is less subjective.This seems redundant. Good and harm are just some other words to describe benefit, utility (or lack of), so ultimately it's all being defined in utilitarian terms: "the utility of morality is to increase utility".Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 1:21 pm Morality has utility. But what is it actually used for? I think morality is used to increase good and decrease harm for everyone. That is the utility of morality.
So, we shouldn't confuse utility with morality. The big question is "What is morality good for?" or "What is the utility of morality?"
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
Utility is a term of practical life, the "good for" here means its usefulness. I guess it is a valid question to ask, from the practical perspective, what is the benefit, the utility of morality for the human species. Evolutionary scientists will diverge.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 6:08 pm I think I agree with most of what you just said. But I disagree with your definition of "utility". The moral implications of utility are unknown or neutral until we specify "used for what ends". A machine gun is very useful for killing people. That is its utility. It is "good for" mass murder. But mass murder is not a good thing to do. An atomic bomb is even better for mass murder. But this makes it morally worse, not morally better.
So, we shouldn't confuse utility with morality. The big question is "What is morality good for?" or "What is the utility of morality?"
The utilitarian approach to ethics might be confusing because it defines its ethics in practical terms, but indeed being practical and being moral are two different things.
Although I share your moral stance on weapons and mass murder, I still don't find in your argument anything that would suggest that this can be related to a universal principle or any foundational feature of morality.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
Lying is ethically wrong. But under specific circumstances (like protecting the innocent from being slaughtered) lying is morally right.HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am Ima have to hard press you for it.
I'd love to assume we have the consensus that morality is not a byproduct of sociobiological evolution, but a standard that comes from God.
1. Your entire argument of moral dilemma is built on the foundation of the notion " Best Good and Least Harm for everyone".
2. You gave a good example with lying (which is morally wrong) to save the Jews from being killed ( which is also morally wrong).
The ethical person follows the rules. The moral person attempts to achieve the best good and least harm for everyone.
Risk is the probability of harm. It is not in itself harm. It plays a role when estimating whether harm is sure to occur, or most likely to occur but not necessarily, or may or may not occur, or is possible but unlikely to occur. I haven't addressed risk, but it is good to bring it up.HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am From human experience, we tend to avoid things that will potentially do more harm than good. On the same token, We also make judgement on benefits versus risk, in which an action is more rational if the benefits outweigh the risk. Yes, i believe we can sum this up with your proposition " we should analyze benefits over harms" and therefore " Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" is the ideal, if not the right way.
There are objective benefits, like having food to eat, and objective harms, like a broken leg.HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am But Where did the idea of " we should analyze benefits over harms" come from? Where did you get the underlying assumption that "Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" is Objective, and therefore the right thing in which all actions shall be gauged upon?
There are subjective benefits, like feeling appreciated, and subjective harms, like a racist feeling offended when asked to sit beside a black person.
Generally, objective benefits and harms should take precedence over subjective ones.
We cannot say that "any deviation from the best good and least harm for everyone is wrong" because the best good and least harm for everyone is an ideal state that we will never reach.HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am Why is "Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" the thing right to which any deviation from that proposition is wrong?
What we can say is that a law that abolishes slavery is objectively better than a law that requires runaway slaves be returned to their owners.
We can all agree to the goal of achieving the best good and least harm for everyone. However, we are unlikely to agree to the goal of achieving the best good and least harm for you at the expense of everyone else. But, if you think you can make a case for your goal, proceed.HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am Why "Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" instead of Best Good and Least Harm for me?
Because of the unnecessary harm to others. How would you gain everyone's agreement to that principle?HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am Why should "one side should not benefit at the expanse of another"?
My underlying assumption is that if we all seek the best good and the least harm for everyone, then everyone will benefit and unnecessary harms will be reduced. In other words, we're more likely to achieve the goal if it is explicitly stated, rather than everyone wandering off in different directions.HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am All these statements reveal your underlying presupposition that "If everyone benefits from a moral dilemma, then the action stems from one particular moral is more correct than the action that does not benefit as much or at all, therefore, the action that will harm rather than benefit is OBJECTIVELY wrong?
HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am On a ontological sense, you don't have grounds as to justifying your presupposition.
First, I have no idea what you mean by "an ontological sense". It seems unnecessary to your assertion.
Second, I've laid out the grounds in the article. You should read it.
We should seek the best good and least harm for everyone because it produces better results than other goal formulations. But if you have an alternative goal statement, then put it on the table and we can discuss it. But if you claim it is a tautology, then you are asserting that everyone already agrees with it.HillBilleh wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 9:06 am At junctures, you are resorting to circular reasoning. "Best Good and Least Harm for everyone" is good because "we should analyze benefits over harm" and " we should "analyze benefits over harm" because it is for the "best good and least harm" for everyone. It is a tautology. Therefore, faulty reasoning.
If you see a specific circularity, then point it out. You seem to be making a claim by misstating my argument in some jumbled fashion. So, stop doing that. If you see a circle, describe it in detail.
-
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023