Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 8:50 am by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 12:50 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 11:14 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑Yesterday, 2:18 am
by Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 2:18 am
I'm not trying to do anything complicated here. What I've laid out is not "prescriptive", but simply descriptive.

But morality is prescriptive. It says what one should or ought to do. What it is right or wrong to do.

We can agree that if you want x you should do y. But is it right to want to do x? That is likely a complicated question and wanting to do x may be countermanded by other desires. So your moral outlook, among other things, matters here.

I thought you were proposing an objective foundation – an objective way of answering that question. If not, what is this thread about?

My response (not mine alone) has been that there is not an objective answer. It depends what you are proposing to do to whom and how you and others feel about the proposal. They may well feel differently. So they may not, in fact, seek the best good and least harm for everyone. People do not value all equally. If people valued other children as much as their own then the response to the numbers currently starving, dying of thirst, war, hunger and disease, and the response concerning those that have been forcibly separated from their mothers at the US border for political reasons, would be somewhat more than the sad tut tutting it seems to provoke (if that) among so many. You can refer to how morality evolved, and I agree that it is very much tied to social and cultural evolution. We are agreed there. But if you ignore the underpinning psychology (and biology) of this you have not fully understood the foundations of morality (I say). And you yourself made reference to a morality rooted in biology and survival and which was species specific. Understand that I too am describing what people have done and are doing. But I am saying the foundation or axiom (I thought) you were proposing is not one that many find self-evident, and not one they are often likely to agree with or act upon.
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 5:11 pm Not in those words, perhaps. But think of your position on something recent, like Trump's attempt to overthrow the election. Is his behavior something good or something bad? How would you defend your moral stance on that issue?
I don't see this as a moral issue. That's not to suggest that no one else would, but it's not in my view. Aside from the comedy of it, it's more in the vein of an etiquette issue in my view. Remember that I'd say that morality is dispositions about interpersonal behavior that one considers more significant than (mere) etiquette. I see this more along the lines of etiquette.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, good/harm are subjective in the first place, not everyone thinks the same things are goods or harms, so that's one of many reasons I'd not base any moral assessment on the metric you're suggesting.
Terrapin Station wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 12:59 pm And often I arrive at moral stances purely by reacting to behavior or the idea of some behavior, so that no rationality is involved at all.
Sure. There are some responses that are habitual or reflexes. Depending on the nature of your reaction, there may be some rationality involved later, when someone asks you to explain what you just did.
[/quote]
There might be, but I think it's important to understand that ultimately moral stances arise from biological facts--simply how our individual brain is structured and how it happens to function--and it's important to not promote the myth that there are "reasons" behind everything ("reason" in the sense of rationality, and in the sense of something supporting sentential motivator, etc., including the reasons behind the reasons, and the reasons behind the reasons behind the reasons, and so on . . . )
User avatar
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

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Wossname wrote: November 24th, 2020, 10:12 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 8:50 am by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 12:50 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 11:14 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑Yesterday, 2:18 am
by Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 2:18 am
I'm not trying to do anything complicated here. What I've laid out is not "prescriptive", but simply descriptive.
But morality is prescriptive. It says what one should or ought to do. What it is right or wrong to do.

We can agree that if you want x you should do y. But is it right to want to do x? That is likely a complicated question and wanting to do x may be countermanded by other desires. So your moral outlook, among other things, matters here.

I thought you were proposing an objective foundation – an objective way of answering that question. If not, what is this thread about?
A consideration of the benefits and harms of a given course of action, compared to a different action, or no action at all, is how moral judgement works. To the degree that benefits and harms can be objectively known, that judgement is objective.
Wossname wrote: November 24th, 2020, 10:12 am My response (not mine alone) has been that there is not an objective answer. It depends what you are proposing to do to whom and how you and others feel about the proposal. They may well feel differently. So they may not, in fact, seek the best good and least harm for everyone.
Then why would their moral argument convince you? If they propose something that causes more harm for everyone, you would, as a moral person, reject it.
Wossname wrote: November 24th, 2020, 10:12 am People do not value all equally. If people valued other children as much as their own then the response to the numbers currently starving, dying of thirst, war, hunger and disease, and the response concerning those that have been forcibly separated from their mothers at the US border for political reasons, would be somewhat more than the sad tut tutting it seems to provoke (if that) among so many.
Take any one of those issues, and attempt to make a moral argument in favor or against that response. Then look at your argument and note where you make an appeal to benefits or an objection to harms.
Wossname wrote: November 24th, 2020, 10:12 am You can refer to how morality evolved, and I agree that it is very much tied to social and cultural evolution. We are agreed there. But if you ignore the underpinning psychology (and biology) of this you have not fully understood the foundations of morality (I say). And you yourself made reference to a morality rooted in biology and survival and which was species specific. Understand that I too am describing what people have done and are doing. But I am saying the foundation or axiom (I thought) you were proposing is not one that many find self-evident, and not one they are often likely to agree with or act upon.
The psychological underpinnings are our positive response to benefits and our negative response to harms. A moral argument enlightens others about the benefits and the harms of one course of action versus another course of action. To the degree that the benefits and harms are objective, they are more likely to be believed, and will carry more weight in the argument.
User avatar
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

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: November 24th, 2020, 10:37 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 5:11 pm Not in those words, perhaps. But think of your position on something recent, like Trump's attempt to overthrow the election. Is his behavior something good or something bad? How would you defend your moral stance on that issue?
I don't see this as a moral issue.
Every issue presents us with a decision. A good decision produces good results. A bad decision produces bad results. Good and bad are moral concerns.
Terrapin Station wrote: November 24th, 2020, 10:37 am That's not to suggest that no one else would, but it's not in my view. Aside from the comedy of it, it's more in the vein of an etiquette issue in my view. Remember that I'd say that morality is dispositions about interpersonal behavior that one considers more significant than (mere) etiquette. I see this more along the lines of etiquette.
There is a continuum of rule systems: customs, etiquette, ethics, laws. The goal of any rule system is to make things better, if only by settling expectations.
Terrapin Station wrote: November 24th, 2020, 10:37 am As I mentioned in an earlier post, good/harm are subjective in the first place, not everyone thinks the same things are goods or harms, so that's one of many reasons I'd not base any moral assessment on the metric you're suggesting.
A broken leg is an objective harm. The pain one experiences is a subjective harm. Having enough food to eat is an objective good. Having caviar and wine to eat is a subjective good.
Terrapin Station wrote: November 24th, 2020, 10:37 am ... I think it's important to understand that ultimately moral stances arise from biological facts--simply how our individual brain is structured and how it happens to function--and it's important to not promote the myth that there are "reasons" behind everything ("reason" in the sense of rationality, and in the sense of something supporting sentential motivator, etc., including the reasons behind the reasons, and the reasons behind the reasons behind the reasons, and so on . . . )
Every college student who crams overnight for an exam in the morning deliberately reinforces connections between pieces of information so that the question on the test will reliably trigger a recall of the needed fact.

Reasons are used to make decisions. Our decisions determine what we do next. What we do next determines what happens next. So reasons are causes of actions.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 4:29 pm by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 8:29 pm

I fear we have come full circle Marvin. And again you decline to engage with the argument.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 4:29 pm by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 8:29 pm

A consideration of the benefits and harms of a given course of action, compared to a different action, or no action at all, is how moral judgement works. To the degree that benefits and harms can be objectively known, that judgement is objective.

Yes but consideration of the benefits or harms to whom, that was my point. All are not given equal consideration in the way you seem to propose. You present these things as some abstract calculation devoid of ties of love or loyalty, or hate for that matter. That is not how it works. You keep dodging this point and I suspect it is because you have no good answer to it.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 4:29 pm by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 8:29 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 2:12 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑Today, 12:50 pm

Then why would their moral argument convince you? If they propose something that causes more harm for everyone, you would, as a moral person, reject it.

This, once again, presupposes what is in question, i.e. what it means to be a moral person. My point was I may consider myself such but choose a different course of action to you or someone else. And I was not suggesting harming everyone, just that I might, for example, consider it a moral duty to harm others in support of my own.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 4:29 pm by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 8:29 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 2:12 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑Today, 12:50 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 2:12 pm
People do not value all equally. If people valued other children as much as their own then the response to the numbers currently starving, dying of thirst, war, hunger and disease, and the response concerning those that have been forcibly separated from their mothers at the US border for political reasons, would be somewhat more than the sad tut tutting it seems to provoke (if that) among so many.
Take any one of those issues, and attempt to make a moral argument in favor or against that response. Then look at your argument and note where you make an appeal to benefits or an objection to harms.

This was a description of events. Clearly people are willing to tolerate the harming of others when doing otherwise might conflict, or be seen to conflict, with their own interests or the interests of those that they care about. No objective or egalitarian moral foundation there of the kind you suppose.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 4:29 pm by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 8:29 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 2:12 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑Today, 12:50 pm

The psychological underpinnings are our positive response to benefits and our negative response to harms. A moral argument enlightens others about the benefits and the harms of one course of action versus another course of action. To the degree that the benefits and harms are objective, they are more likely to be believed, and will carry more weight in the argument.

Again let us not slide back into arguments about how harms are quantified or assessed. You keep doing this and it just muddies the argument. If you will, for clarity, let’s stick with arguing the merits of the axiom you propose.
User avatar
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

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Wossname wrote: November 24th, 2020, 5:52 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 4:29 pm A consideration of the benefits and harms of a given course of action, compared to a different action, or no action at all, is how moral judgement works. To the degree that benefits and harms can be objectively known, that judgement is objective.
Yes but consideration of the benefits or harms to whom, that was my point. All are not given equal consideration in the way you seem to propose. You present these things as some abstract calculation devoid of ties of love or loyalty, or hate for that matter.
Yes. Objective requires that our judgement is devoid of "ties of love and loyalty, or hate". We don't want someone like Trump placing loyalty above truth. We don't want judgements based on superstition and prejudice and QAnon conspiracy theories. We all want our judgements based on objective evidence of actual benefits and harms. This is what moral people do.
Wossname wrote: November 24th, 2020, 5:52 pm My point was I may consider myself such but choose a different course of action to you or someone else. And I was not suggesting harming everyone, just that I might, for example, consider it a moral duty to harm others in support of my own.
Of course. Two persons of good will may honestly disagree about the likely consequences of two rules or courses of action, even after all of the objective evidence is presented. And the matter then must be settled by a democratic vote. The vote establishes a working rule for the immediate future. After some experience with the new rule, the consequences, intended or not, will become apparent, and the rule may be changed, deleted, or replaced as needed.

Wossname wrote: November 24th, 2020, 5:52 pm Clearly people are willing to tolerate the harming of others when doing otherwise might conflict, or be seen to conflict, with their own interests or the interests of those that they care about. No objective or egalitarian moral foundation there of the kind you suppose.
Do these same people claim to be moral? If so, then they may become more willing to do the right thing when it is pointed out to them in front of others. Otherwise, they are open to charges of sociopathic hypocrisy.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 6:51 pm by Marvin_Edwards » 59 minutes ago
We don't want someone

Well the preaching is clear.

You need a different audience for this.

Good luck.
User avatar
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

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Wossname wrote: November 24th, 2020, 7:53 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 6:51 pm by Marvin_Edwards » 59 minutes ago
We don't want someone

Well the preaching is clear.

You need a different audience for this.

Good luck.
Perhaps you're right. But that's disappointing.
HJCarden
Posts: 137
Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am

Re: Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

Post by HJCarden »

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.
I find issue with this. Consider the classic trolley example. Many would agree that if we can pull the lever to divert the trolley to a track that only has 1 person tied to it, versus 5, we have made a difficult, yet correct moral decision. However, take then the example of the Very Fat Man. We have this intuition that it would be wrong to push this man off of a bridge into the path of the trolley to save the 5 people tied to the tracks. Statistically, thats how most people sway when surveyed about the trolley problem. Therefore, this is shows that we might not actually be interested in the benefits and harms of actions. Same net loss of life, but two very different ways we feel about the problem.

However, I believe you could counter and say that doing what we feel to be morally right creates the most benefit and prevents the most harm in the long term. The benefits of not pushing the fat man could be setting a good example, teaching others to discover morality by their own good actions, and so on and so forth...however I do not agree with this line of thinking. I believe that full stop, not pushing the fat man is the morally correct choice because (and admittedly this is very Kantian) by pushing him, we would violate some law of morality, something to the tune of "not pulling people into harmful situations that they were not involved in" (the exact moral law here is unimportant). My ultimate point is that we have intuitions that tend towards moral laws without consideration for broad net utility, rather that these moral laws are correct on their own accord.

To further illustrate this point, take into consideration self defense. Say that you are a lone pilot streaking through space when a star destroyer jumps out of hyperspace and begins firing upon you. You take the necessary action to defend yourself, and you destroy the bridge of the star destroyer, crippling the ship, and eventually leading to the demise of all but a lucky few who escape in pods. The calculus of this is so extreme, and if you killed this many people in any other situation you would be a genocidal maniac, but because you were defending yourself, many would say you are in the right. This I believe refutes your first idea, unless you are willing to state that the person defending themselves is creating more overall good by wiping out the entire opposing force.
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 4:45 pm A broken leg is an objective harm. The pain one experiences is a subjective harm. Having enough food to eat is an objective good. Having caviar and wine to eat is a subjective good.
Holy crap how are we still going over this?

In order for something to be an objective harm or an objective good, it has to be a harm or good that obtains independently of persons, independently of their assessments.

Do you believe that a broken leg as a harm is something that obtains independently of persons and their assessments?
User avatar
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

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

HJCarden wrote: November 25th, 2020, 2:09 pm
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.
I find issue with this. Consider the classic trolley example. Many would agree that if we can pull the lever to divert the trolley to a track that only has 1 person tied to it, versus 5, we have made a difficult, yet correct moral decision. However, take then the example of the Very Fat Man. We have this intuition that it would be wrong to push this man off of a bridge into the path of the trolley to save the 5 people tied to the tracks. Statistically, thats how most people sway when surveyed about the trolley problem. Therefore, this is shows that we might not actually be interested in the benefits and harms of actions. Same net loss of life, but two very different ways we feel about the problem.

However, I believe you could counter and say that doing what we feel to be morally right creates the most benefit and prevents the most harm in the long term. The benefits of not pushing the fat man could be setting a good example, teaching others to discover morality by their own good actions, and so on and so forth...however I do not agree with this line of thinking. I believe that full stop, not pushing the fat man is the morally correct choice because (and admittedly this is very Kantian) by pushing him, we would violate some law of morality, something to the tune of "not pulling people into harmful situations that they were not involved in" (the exact moral law here is unimportant). My ultimate point is that we have intuitions that tend towards moral laws without consideration for broad net utility, rather that these moral laws are correct on their own accord.

To further illustrate this point, take into consideration self defense. Say that you are a lone pilot streaking through space when a star destroyer jumps out of hyperspace and begins firing upon you. You take the necessary action to defend yourself, and you destroy the bridge of the star destroyer, crippling the ship, and eventually leading to the demise of all but a lucky few who escape in pods. The calculus of this is so extreme, and if you killed this many people in any other situation you would be a genocidal maniac, but because you were defending yourself, many would say you are in the right. This I believe refutes your first idea, unless you are willing to state that the person defending themselves is creating more overall good by wiping out the entire opposing force.
The answer to all three should be in the long term consequences. The means, the "how we go about things", imply rules that last beyond the current scenario. Means become ends.

A real-life version of the first trolley problem would be the triage stage of a mass casualty event. Those who will live without assistance or will die even with assistance are passed over in favor of those needing assistance to survive. The most critical of those who can survive with assistance are usually attended to first. We accept that some people will die, and that some will die solely because we lack the resources to save everyone who might be saved.

The first trolley problem involves throwing a switch to save a net of four lives. The second trolley problem involves killing an innocent fat man. In the first trolley problem the single individual tied to the tracks may also be an innocent fat man. But we are not killing him. The person who tied him to the tracks is killing him. In the second trolley problem we are definitely responsible for killing the innocent fat man, because we pushed him onto the tracks.
HJCarden wrote:"Therefore, this is shows that we might not actually be interested in the benefits and harms of actions. Same net loss of life, but two very different ways we feel about the problem."
In both trolley problems, we apply existing rules of conduct. One rule says that it is better to save the life of 5 people than to save the life of 1 person. The other rule says that we must not murder any innocent person. In these two emergency scenarios, we don't have time to create any new rules, we only have time to decide which rule to apply.

But both of the existing rules will have a history in which the real-life consequences of each rule will have been previously considered in the formation of the rule. In the first trolley problem, it's just cold math. In the second trolley problem, the rule was created because no one wants to be murdered. The rule against murder as a big objective benefit and big reduction in objective harm. (Assuming we create a society that enforces that rule and that makes people less likely to feel that they need to murder someone).
HJCarden wrote: "I believe that full stop, not pushing the fat man is the morally correct choice because (and admittedly this is very Kantian) by pushing him, we would violate some law of morality, something to the tune of "not pulling people into harmful situations that they were not involved in" (the exact moral law here is unimportant)."
When I was a child, my mother told me that God loved us and that He created laws that were good for us. That seems consistent with the notion of benefits and harms. There is a reason behind each rule. And the reason is to prevent us from doing harm or being harmed.
HJCarden wrote:"My ultimate point is that we have intuitions that tend towards moral laws without consideration for broad net utility, rather that these moral laws are correct on their own accord."
I believe our intuitions evolved to produce good results and to avoid bad results.
HJCarden wrote:"Say that you are a lone pilot streaking through space when a star destroyer jumps out of hyperspace and begins firing upon you. You take the necessary action to defend yourself, and you destroy the bridge of the star destroyer, crippling the ship, and eventually leading to the demise of all but a lucky few who escape in pods."
Self-defense is another case of the means becoming ends. In order to reduce the amount of murdering going on, we allow the person who is about to be murdered to kill her attacker. Ideally, this reduces the number of attempted murders, benefitting us all.
User avatar
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

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: November 25th, 2020, 6:37 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 24th, 2020, 4:45 pm A broken leg is an objective harm. The pain one experiences is a subjective harm. Having enough food to eat is an objective good. Having caviar and wine to eat is a subjective good.
...
In order for something to be an objective harm or an objective good, it has to be a harm or good that obtains independently of persons, independently of their assessments.

Do you believe that a broken leg as a harm is something that obtains independently of persons and their assessments?
Nothing that is relevant to persons "obtains independently of persons, independently of their assessments." So, I'm not sure why you would suggest it applies here.

The doctor is a person. The doctor says, "Sorry, but you've got a broken leg". That's an objective harm that exists in the real world, and which will take some time to heal. And the doctor says, "Here's a prescription for some pain medicine", that reduces the subjective harm caused by the pain.
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 25th, 2020, 6:49 pm Nothing that is relevant to persons "obtains independently of persons, independently of their assessments." So, I'm not sure why you would suggest it applies here.
That's what the term "objective" refers to.

Mental phenomena are subjective. Objective things are things that exist outside of mental phenomena. So if we say that something is an objective harm, we're saying that it has the status of being a harm where that status isn't a mental assessment/judgment of that thing. We're saying that the status as a harm is somehow the case independently of mental phenomena.
User avatar
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

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: November 26th, 2020, 7:41 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 25th, 2020, 6:49 pm Nothing that is relevant to persons "obtains independently of persons, independently of their assessments." So, I'm not sure why you would suggest it applies here.
That's what the term "objective" refers to.

Mental phenomena are subjective. Objective things are things that exist outside of mental phenomena. So if we say that something is an objective harm, we're saying that it has the status of being a harm where that status isn't a mental assessment/judgment of that thing. We're saying that the status as a harm is somehow the case independently of mental phenomena.
1. The broken leg is objective because it exists in physical reality.
2. The harm is objective because the person can no longer walk in physical reality.
3. The pain is subjective because it exists solely within the person.
4. The pain is a subjective harm because it causes suffering within the person.
User avatar
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

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 26th, 2020, 7:57 am 1. The broken leg is objective because it exists in physical reality.
The 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.

2. The harm is objective because the person can no longer walk 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"?
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021