Deotological Ethics vs. Teleology [Archive]

Lardlad95

18th February 2004, 02:21

For the sake of arguementation lets simplify the two theories..mainly because Kant was so damn boring to read I don't want to have to sift through Kant's three different formulations on the categorical imperative.

Moving on...

Teleology: What you achieve by your action determines moral status of action.

Types of Teleology*

Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the moral agent performing the action.

Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the moral agent.

Ethical Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.

Deontology: What you do in your action, the nature of the action itself, determines its moral status

Types*

Divine Command: one of the most common forms of deontological moral theories are those which derive their set of moral obligations from a deity. An action is morally correct whenever it is in agreement with the rules and duties established by God.

Duty Theories: an action is morally right if it is in accord with some list of duties and obligations.

Rights Theories: an action is morally right if it adequately respects the rights which all humans (or at least all members of society) have. This is also sometimes referred to as Libertarianism, the political philosophy that people should be legally free to do whatever they wish so long as their actions do not impinge upon the rights of others.

Contractarianism: an action is morally right if it is in accordance with the rules that rational moral agents would agree to observe upon entering into a social relationship (contract) for mutual benefit. This is also sometimes referred to as Contractualism.

Monistic Deontology: an action is morally right if it agrees with some single deontological principle which guides all other subsidiary principles.

So now that we have these damn definitions out of the way. Lets get down to the debate. Now I"m aware that most people here would go with Teleology but consider this. Regardless of the God thing, or the libertarian thing. Are their some duties which are right even if the consequences may not be good. Communism for example. look at teh soviet union, the consequences weren't great, but it was trying to progress the cause of communism.

Also if you'd like, go ahead and attack the types of teleology and deontology if you wish.

*: definitions taken from athiest.about.com Why you ask? Because I'm a lazy SOB, and though I disagree with athiests on issues about Religion and spirituality you guys are damn good at philosophy.

Trissy

18th February 2004, 14:38

In answer to your question on duty then all followers of any absolute deontological theory would say that there can be good actions with bad consequences because consequences don't matter (an act is either right or wrong and that is always the case). A much rarer (although not necessarily impossible) person who believed in some kind of relative deontology would also say that actions can be right with seemingly bad consequences although an action that may be right for me could be wrong for you (e.g. a soldier can shoot someone but I cannot).

Well all moral theories have their flaws but I'll just put forward what I see as the main ones in the deontoligical cateogry as these are the ones I disagree with the most.

Divine Command: one of the most common forms of deontological moral theories are those which derive their set of moral obligations from a deity. An action is morally correct whenever it is in agreement with the rules and duties established by God.

Ignoring all arguments both for and against God's existence this theory has problems if we consider the Euthyphro dilemma rasied by Plato. Is something good because God wills it to be good (i.e. Divine command theory) , or does God will it because it is good (i.e. there is some seperate moral standard which even God must follow)? If we choose the first one then God is arbitrary and therefore unworthy of worship (because he could to will murder to be good which wouldn't please a theist). If we choose the second option then God is contingent as he has to follow something else and therefore He isn't God (God meaning the omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God of the monotheistic religions).

Duty Theories: an action is morally right if it is in accord with some list of duties and obligations

How do we establish what these duties are? They cannot be based in reason as Kant says because my reasoning may differ from yours. If they are not based on reason then what are they based on?

Rights Theories: an action is morally right if it adequately respects the rights which all humans (or at least all members of society) have. This is also sometimes referred to as Libertarianism, the political philosophy that people should be legally free to do whatever they wish so long as their actions do not impinge upon the rights of others.

Contractarianism: an action is morally right if it is in accordance with the rules that rational moral agents would agree to observe upon entering into a social relationship (contract) for mutual benefit. This is also sometimes referred to as Contractualism.

How do we establish what rights are? My thread about Human rights talks about similar things to both of these. Are they natural and if so where do they come from? Can they be grounded in reason? If we think that things should be based on an unspoken social contract then who does my contract apply to? For example do I have a different contract with the queen and to my friends? Do I have a contract with people I've never met before such as people in countries I've never been to? Do I have a contract with the State?

As you can see morality can get very messy if we try and unscramble it all...

Lardlad95

19th February 2004, 03:43

In answer to your question on duty then all followers of any absolute deontological theory would say that there can be good actions with bad consequences because consequences don't matter (an act is either right or wrong and that is always the case). A much rarer (although not necessarily impossible) person who believed in some kind of relative deontology would also say that actions can be right with seemingly bad consequences although an action that may be right for me could be wrong for you (e.g. a soldier can shoot someone but I cannot).

OK well here is an example I'd like to use to question you about the theory.

Lets say that there has been a string of murders/rapes in an oldwest town. No one knows who actualley did these things, but there is a suspect and since he's been taken into custody everyone in the town has come to the conclusion he did it despite the fact that there is no concrete evidence proving he did it.

The people want him hanged, and they are on the verge of a riot. You as the sherriff know this man diidn't do it, but you also don't kno who did do it. You also realize that if you don't have this man hanged the towns people will erupt in a riot which will turn brother against brother and ultimately destroy the town.

So what do you do?

Teleology would tell you that the consequences of the action over ride the action it's self. So in order to save thousands from being slaughtered in a riot you must hang the man.

Deontology would tell you that you must do the right thing and let teh man go, risking the destruction of thousands of lives and the town.

Which do you choose? Also I'm aware i simplified both theories, but to take into account all the types and forms of each theory would have taken to long..and once again I"m a lazy SOB

Ignoring all arguments both for and against God's existence this theory has problems if we consider the Euthyphro dilemma rasied by Plato. Is something good because God wills it to be good (i.e. Divine command theory) , or does God will it because it is good (i.e. there is some seperate moral standard which even God must follow)? If we choose the first one then God is arbitrary and therefore unworthy of worship (because he could to will murder to be good which wouldn't please a theist). If we choose the second option then God is contingent as he has to follow something else and therefore He isn't God (God meaning the omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God of the monotheistic religions).

I rather like that contention. Very good show my friend. You did a wonderful job of pointing out the two possible contradictions.

How do we establish what these duties are? They cannot be based in reason as Kant says because my reasoning may differ from yours. If they are not based on reason then what are they based on?

very true

How do we establish what rights are? My thread about Human rights talks about similar things to both of these. Are they natural and if so where do they come from? Can they be grounded in reason? If we think that things should be based on an unspoken social contract then who does my contract apply to? For example do I have a different contract with the queen and to my friends? Do I have a contract with people I've never met before such as people in countries I've never been to? Do I have a contract with the State?

Not to stray from the subject, because you did a good job of explaining thesituation, but my Social Contract thread dealt with the same thing and it go deleted...

From what your saying I woul assume that you would take teleology over deontology. Care to explain why?

Trissy

19th February 2004, 11:56

Teleology would tell you that the consequences of the action over ride the action it's self. So in order to save thousands from being slaughtered in a riot you must hang the man.

Deontology would tell you that you must do the right thing and let teh man go, risking the destruction of thousands of lives and the town.

Which do you choose?

Assuming that this is an either/or decision and that no other way out is possible then I'd have to let the man go and face the consequences. I know this will probably surprise you considering I put forward numerous arguments against deontology but I am not choosing this option for deontological reasons rather I'm actually choosing it for teleological reasons...

Allow me to explain if you will. This man didn't do it and this you know. Even though the possible consequences of releasing this man are bad and traditional systems of teleology (e.g. the Act Utilitarianism of Bentham) may support a small sacrafice for the greater good I don't think this would be the right action. I'd release him because the consequences of hanging an innocent man are wrong (because he's innocent and he and his loved ones will suffer) and not because the act of releasing him is right in itself (hence I'd release him for teleological reasons). If we had hanged him them we can assume that the crimes will continue as the criminal is still at large, and so the situation will arise once more. What do we do then? Hang someone else to pacify the crowd? It's my humble opinion that it is better to release then man, face the potential for riots (which would be wrong if the consequences of them were bad [e.g. deaths]) and try to catch the criminal then to hang him and face the possibility of having to hang more people.

From what your saying I woul assume that you would take teleology over deontology. Care to explain why?

I think it is fair to say I value teleology over deontology even if I don't subscribe to a particular teleological theory. I value teleology over deontology because teleology is very often more relative then deontology (which is nearly always an absolute theory like Kant's Categorical Imperative or Natural Law). Deontology never takes into account the consequences of an action and I cannot see how this is helpful at all. If someone killed someone in self-defence, by accident or on purpose then a deontologist would be inclined to say they were all guilty of killing someone despite the fact that the cases may have had very different circumstances and the people very different intentions. I prefer to take each an every moral dilemma as its own unique situation with its own circumstances and so hence teleology is more preferable (although not necessarily perfect as your example points out).

Lardlad95

19th February 2004, 22:54

Allow me to explain if you will. This man didn't do it and this you know. Even though the possible consequences of releasing this man are bad and traditional systems of teleology (e.g. the Act Utilitarianism of Bentham) may support a small sacrafice for the greater good I don't think this would be the right action. I'd release him because the consequences of hanging an innocent man are wrong (because he's innocent and he and his loved ones will suffer) and not because the act of releasing him is right in itself (hence I'd release him for teleological reasons). If we had hanged him them we can assume that the crimes will continue as the criminal is still at large, and so the situation will arise once more. What do we do then? Hang someone else to pacify the crowd? It's my humble opinion that it is better to release then man, face the potential for riots (which would be wrong if the consequences of them were bad [e.g. deaths]) and try to catch the criminal then to hang him and face the possibility of having to hang more people.

That was incredibly brilliant. I didn't even consider the possibility that a deontological answer could be rearranged to fit teleology. Let me pose another one of these dilemmas

INhospitable Hospitle: Imagine a doctor in a very remote town who has six patients in his care one day. Five of these people are about to die (within a few hours), and one of them is perfectly healthy. The only way that teh doctor can save any of these sick patients is to take organs from the healthy patient and perform transplants. In fact the doctor can save all five sick patients by using organs from the one healthy patient., who would, unfortunately die because of the missing organs. Furthermore he is positive that is he performs teh transplants no one will find out what has been done...what does he do?

Also yes, this is one of the type of hypotheticals that is an either deontological or teleoglogical

Also i only picked this one because itwas particularly gruesome.

I think it is fair to say I value teleology over deontology even if I don't subscribe to a particular teleological theory. I value teleology over deontology because teleology is very often more relative then deontology (which is nearly always an absolute theory like Kant's Categorical Imperative or Natural Law). Deontology never takes into account the consequences of an action and I cannot see how this is helpful at all. If someone killed someone in self-defence, by accident or on purpose then a deontologist would be inclined to say they were all guilty of killing someone despite the fact that the cases may have had very different circumstances and the people very different intentions. I prefer to take each an every moral dilemma as its own unique situation with its own circumstances and so hence teleology is more preferable (although not necessarily perfect as your example points out).

I see...

My only question is, why does the situation matter? If I kill someone I'm still killing them even if it's in self defense. I can't be against killing, but then kill someone in self defense, I'm a hypocrite.

So please, explain why the situation matters

Trissy

20th February 2004, 09:31

In fact the doctor can save all five sick patients by using organs from the one healthy patient., who would, unfortunately die because of the missing organs. Furthermore he is positive that is he performs teh transplants no one will find out what has been done...what does he do?

Well for teleological reasons I'd have to let the five sick patients die because the consequences of taking an innocent life are in my opinion worse then allowing five sick patients to die. The doctor may well be able to get away with it but if this were a real situation then the doctor couldn't guarantee that they would accept the organs, that they'd not contract some other disease or infection in this remote village, or that he'd not be caught. The consequences of performing this act may very well be the feeling of guilt at taking an innocent life and taking this man's organs which the doctor and the patients may well have to cope with for the remainder of there lives. Also even if this man has no family and friends to speak of it is likely that he'd still be missed in some ways. If we compare these consequences to the other possible scenario where the doctor and the well man have to take care of five dying patients then I think the consequences are better despite the loss of five lives to the one. Such dilemma's are always lose-lose situations and so it is for the person to decide which is the lesser of the two nightmare events.

I see...

My only question is, why does the situation matter? If I kill someone I'm still killing them even if it's in self defense. I can't be against killing, but then kill someone in self defense, I'm a hypocrite.

So please, explain why the situation matters

Well I'm an atheist/agnostic and so I don't believe in any absolute moral laws given from God, and even if I did then the Euthyphro dilemma poses us a tricky problem to overcome. Nor do I believe in any absolute moral standards based upon human reason such as Kant's CI or Natural Law. I do not believe that any man can ever say that someone can NEVER do something based on his reasoning alone. Morality if it is not God-given must be practical and any absolute system of ethic I believe to be far to rigid to be practical. If you do not consider consequences or intent then you run the risk of becoming a mere automaton or slave blindly carrying out your duty. My views about absolute moral standards are probably best summed up by this aporism in 'Beyond Good and Evil'

‘108. There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena…’
This leaves me to either believe that there are no moral actions at all (and hence all is allowable) or to somehow create a fairly flexible moral code to live by. For practical reasons I believe we need some system of morality or law in order for mankind to live a life free from chaos and fear and if this is the case then I think we can only turn to the situation for our answers.

I could use some teleological system such as Utilitarianism or Situation Ethics I know but these have there own problems such as how do we measure pleasure/love, how do we predict the future consequences, and whether or not we do what is best for the majority. Instead I'd rather come to some sort of compromise between using reason and considering the intent and consequences involved in each action. I know my reason may differ from others, but I'm not trying to say this is an abosolute system of ethics. What I am trying to do is use a method in which we can all express our thoughts, consider the possible outcomes and then chose a path. It kind of ties in with my existential beliefs in that I believe we are completely free to make choices in our lives, and hence whatever we choose will have good and bad consequences. Whatever we choose will leave us with some regrets, all I try to do is find the most practical outcome.

redstar2000

21st February 2004, 00:31

Trissy

22nd February 2004, 11:24

I've often had occasion to mention that I never thought Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et.al. were "evil" guys...they all were sincere "communists" who believed they were "doing the right thing" even when it was wrong. Difficult as it is to conceive, the same was probably true even of Pol Pot

True, but this begs the question 'doing the right thing for whom?'. If Stalin had someone disappear was he doing in on behalf of the country or on behalf of his own political career? In either sense it can be seen (perhaps counterintuitively) as a lack of will of power...

But there's this: what difference do the individual's "convictions" make if, in the light of subsequent knowledge, the deeds themselves turned out to be "evil"?

Since we can't predict the outcomes of our actions, every time we act we risk "doing evil" no matter how much we are determined to refrain from that.

Well I'd suggest we look at the intent of the individual as well as the consequences if we are to make a fair judgement. If there is no absolute moral code then there is no evil beyond our subjective thoughts and feelings. A man running over a cat may appear to be evil, but if the intent was to avoid hitting a pregnant mother with her young children then we may wish to reconsider our opinion of him.

Thus, is there any reason to concern ourselves with abstract determinations in advance? If we do whatever we think necessary to accomplish our ends -- and subsequent consequences turn out to be "good" -- then would the "moral content" of the deeds at the time been a relevant consideration?
Well one could argue that what made them crimes was the intent involved. Stalin's rewriting of history may not have been for the good of the cause but rather a desire to advance his own need's above those of the nation. As such they are not necessarily just crimes as such, rather they're also crimes against communism (rather ironic if you consider that this is what he accused them of many a time). As a general rule of thumb I tend to mistrust anyone who claims they've seen the glorious end towards which the world must travel whether their name is Jesus, Marx, Hegel or Fukuyama...

Perhaps it can be argued that no "good" can result from an "evil" deed. But it seems to me to be difficult to make that argument plausible; what of the assassination of a tyrant, for example?
Indeed. I've always been troubled by the definition of murder (namely 'The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice'). This simply causes us to beg the questions as 'what counts as lawful?' and 'how do we classify malice?'. To avoid this we could suggest that all killing is wrong, but then we leave ourselves open to attack from people unwilling to follow such a principle (i.e. in the event of an enemy attack how could we defend ourselves unless we can justify killing in certain circumstances?).

Lardlad95

22nd February 2004, 17:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:31 AM

Well for teleological reasons I'd have to let the five sick patients die because the consequences of taking an innocent life are in my opinion worse then allowing five sick patients to die. The doctor may well be able to get away with it but if this were a real situation then the doctor couldn't guarantee that they would accept the organs, that they'd not contract some other disease or infection in this remote village, or that he'd not be caught. The consequences of performing this act may very well be the feeling of guilt at taking an innocent life and taking this man's organs which the doctor and the patients may well have to cope with for the remainder of there lives. Also even if this man has no family and friends to speak of it is likely that he'd still be missed in some ways. If we compare these consequences to the other possible scenario where the doctor and the well man have to take care of five dying patients then I think the consequences are better despite the loss of five lives to the one. Such dilemma's are always lose-lose situations and so it is for the person to decide which is the lesser of the two nightmare events.

Do you really think it wise to argue that the effects of the healthy patients death will be bad because someone will miss him? Multiply that by five and you get more suffering from teh five dead patients. I like your other points, but you need to drop this contention.

Well I'm an atheist/agnostic and so I don't believe in any absolute moral laws given from God, and even if I did then the Euthyphro dilemma poses us a tricky problem to overcome. Nor do I believe in any absolute moral standards based upon human reason such as Kant's CI or Natural Law. I do not believe that any man can ever say that someone can NEVER do something based on his reasoning alone. Morality if it is not God-given must be practical and any absolute system of ethic I believe to be far to rigid to be practical. If you do not consider consequences or intent then you run the risk of becoming a mere automaton or slave blindly carrying out your duty. My views about absolute moral standards are probably best summed up by this aporism in 'Beyond Good and Evil'

OK SO I"M SEEING TRACE AMOUNTS OF MORAL RELATIVISM CORRECT? (damn caps lock..I'm not retyping it). Now let me ask you this. If the situation plays a role then does that mean that something simigly immoral can become moral?

Could there be justification for murder that isn't in self defense. If I went back in time and kileld Hitler when he was a abbay would that be immoral or moral? Looking at the situation and the consequences which outwieghs the other, or do they both play a factor. In the future hitler will have killed 6million+ jews, on the other hand he is a baby who hasn't done anthing wrong yet. What is teh right course of action?

This leaves me to either believe that there are no moral actions at all (and hence all is allowable) or to somehow create a fairly flexible moral code to live by. For practical reasons I believe we need some system of morality or law in order for mankind to live a life free from chaos and fear and if this is the case then I think we can only turn to the situation for our answers.'

But if there is no such thing as definet morality, hen wy create a flexible moral code. I don't believe that the general morality that governs the world is true, so why should I abide by it?

Who decides what is moral and what isn't?

I could use some teleological system such as Utilitarianism or Situation Ethics I know but these have there own problems such as how do we measure pleasure/love, how do we predict the future consequences, and whether or not we do what is best for the majority. Instead I'd rather come to some sort of compromise between using reason and considering the intent and consequences involved in each action. I know my reason may differ from others, but I'm not trying to say this is an abosolute system of ethics. What I am trying to do is use a method in which we can all express our thoughts, consider the possible outcomes and then chose a path. It kind of ties in with my existential beliefs in that I believe we are completely free to make choices in our lives, and hence whatever we choose will have good and bad consequences. Whatever we choose will leave us with some regrets, all I try to do is find the most practical outcome.

That makes it sound like bush was justified for going to war because he tried to make a practical decision. We all must be held responsible, so how can we just say that we had the best intentions in mind

Lardlad95

22nd February 2004, 17:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:31 AM
I've often had occasion to mention that I never thought Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et.al. were "evil" guys...they all were sincere "communists" who believed they were "doing the right thing" even when it was wrong. Difficult as it is to conceive, the same was probably true even of Pol Pot.

But there's this: what difference do the individual's "convictions" make if, in the light of subsequent knowledge, the deeds themselves turned out to be "evil"?

Since we can't predict the outcomes of our actions, every time we act we risk "doing evil" no matter how much we are determined to refrain from that.

Thus, is there any reason to concern ourselves with abstract determinations in advance? If we do whatever we think necessary to accomplish our ends -- and subsequent consequences turn out to be "good" -- then would the "moral content" of the deeds at the time been a relevant consideration?

In other words, what makes the deeds of Stalin or Mao into "crimes" is the fact the Russia and China returned to capitalism instead of progressing to communism. Had those two countries really progressed to communism, then those same deeds might have been regarded as "deplorable necessities" or even "regrettable excesses"...but not "crimes".

Perhaps it can be argued that no "good" can result from an "evil" deed. But it seems to me to be difficult to make that argument plausible; what of the assassination of a tyrant, for example?

Murder is wrong...except when the intended victim really has it coming.

There are certain actions that I would oppose as contrary to communist principles -- because I think they have been demonstrated in practice to undermine the purposes of the communist project.

But that's not really an "ethical" objection; it's a pragmatic one.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
Ah redstar ever teh faithful communist.

Well to your whole post I ask this one question.

Are you using communism as a moral code? Is something moral if it benefits the progression of communism? Is it immoral if it stops tteh progression of communism?

oh wait that was three questions...oh well.

as brother malcolm said, "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."-Malcolm X

So were Stalin's and Mao's actions evil univerally or just evil because they regressed into capitalism?

*Note: If I misread your points( i have a feeling you were pondering rather than asserting) please excuse me, I'm watching my nephew and I didn't read it as throughly as I could have

Trissy

22nd February 2004, 20:37

Do you really think it wise to argue that the effects of the healthy patients death will be bad because someone will miss him? Multiply that by five and you get more suffering from teh five dead patients. I like your other points, but you need to drop this contention
I stand by my origininal statement because if the death of someone wasn't bad enough, the news of the two respective possible deaths are a little different. I'd much prefer to hear that someone I loved died but the doctor's did all they possibley could (excluding murder of course) to save them, rather then they'd been sacrificed in order to save five peoples' lives. The news that someone had been killed to save my loved one would also be quite hard to live with.

Now let me ask you this. If the situation plays a role then does that mean that something simigly immoral can become moral?
Something that seems moral could easily become moral and visa versa but this does not matter in the slightest because at the end of the day they are only ever appearances. I'm not creating a rule book by which everone should live there lives and so it doesn't matter what the outcomes of your reasoning are because at the end of the day they are only thoughts and feelings. All I'm trying to do is consider a method in which we can consider intent and consequences and come to some kind of decision as to which is the more practical outcome.

Could there be justification for murder that isn't in self defense. If I went back in time and kileld Hitler when he was a abbay would that be immoral or moral? Looking at the situation and the consequences which outwieghs the other, or do they both play a factor. In the future hitler will have killed 6million+ jews, on the other hand he is a baby who hasn't done anthing wrong yet. What is teh right course of action?

It is not for me to say what is right or wrong but I'll attempt to answer none the less. The act of killing Hitler as a child would not bother me as such although it would be filled with problems. Killing a young Hitler does not necessarily prevent the holocaust nor does it prevent the second world war, as if you altered one aspect of the past it is not possible to predict that the future would follow the same or a similar course. Your intentions would also play a part in the act as well as there is a difference between killing Hitler to prevent the Holocaust and killing Hitler just because you want to kill someone. The whole killing him as an innocent baby holds no problem for me because if you did have a time machine and this did play on your conscience then you could just travel back to a later date (say world war 1 when he was a soldier) and kill him then instead.

But if there is no such thing as definet morality, hen wy create a flexible moral code. I don't believe that the general morality that governs the world is true, so why should I abide by it?

Who decides what is moral and what isn't?
Well a flexible moral code is of pratical use to us all if we ever want to achieve more in our lives then mere procreation like the animals. I want to be able to stand at a bus stop without the fear of being stabbed in the neck by a random person, and I'm sure that many people also want the same right. Just because a moral code is created by man doesn't stop it being useful. As to who should decide what is right and what is wrong then I'm personally all for us having a say politically. The vast majority of us have the capability to think and discuss and so I'm confident that a social contract can be produced that is flexible and changeable. At the end of the day it would be for a court to decide anyway (considering intent & consequences).

That makes it sound like bush was justified for going to war because he tried to make a practical decision.
I never stated whether Bush was justified or not. But on that note we can still use intent and consequences to come to some kind of decision. Saddam is killing his own people either directly through his orders, or indirectly through his refusal to cooperate with the international community, and so something needs to be done. But what?

Well to invade purely for oil wouldn't be a just act in my view but then again neither would just leaving Saddam where he was be justified due to his crimes and the fact that he's not elected by his people. If both of the actions aren't apparently right then why couldn't we have come up with some kind of alternative option? Why couldn't the international community have worked with Bush (you'll have to ignore any hatred towards him for a brief second or two whilst I explain) so that at least the world would have a say with what to do in a post war Iraq. At the moment the US is deciding what is happening in Iraq and so we're just left on the sidelines. The French-German plans of sending inspectors in would have been useless because they'd have found nothing and Saddam would still be there. If the US had just had the balls to say they wanted to remove Saddam for being a b*****d, and not kept up the whole WMD argument then maybe we'd not be in this current mess...

We all must be held responsible, so how can we just say that we had the best intentions in mind
We must all be held responsible for our own actions only, and it is possible to say whether we had the best intentions in mind but only if we're honest about our thoughts and feelings. We had to decide whether we wanted Saddam in power or not in power then we had to decide what to do next (following on from our previous decision). I know that I've put forward the notion that absolute evil does not exist but I'll use this Benjamin Franklin quote anyway as I think it still works on existential level ...

"All that it takes for evil to succeed, is for a few good men to do nothing."

redstar2000

22nd February 2004, 21:40

Are you using communism as a moral code? Is something moral if it benefits the progression of communism? Is it immoral if it stops the progression of communism?

Indeed I am. From the subjective viewpoint of the slave, any action that results in escape from slavery or, better still, the abolition of slavery (no possibility of ever being returned to slavery) is "morally good". Conversely, any action that strengthens the chains on one's person or strengthens slavery as an institution is "morally evil".

As a "wage-slave" throughout most of my life, I have the same "moral priority".

Of course, the slave-master or the capitalist would reverse my moral verdicts...and, indeed, the great bulk of humanity might be (temporarily) in agreement with them.

The Christian "Bible" has no problem at all with slavery...only with disobedient slaves.

But I don't care what they think about the matter. As far as I'm concerned, my emancipation is the "ultimate moral good" and any action that strengthens me and weakens them is "morally good".

Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. --Malcolm X

That really doesn't tell me anything because of the unspoken assumption that we both know what "wrong" is and why.

And, since we know historically of Malcolm's religious background, we know that he had a "moral code" that came "from the sky" and was not based on real human needs.

So were Stalin's and Mao's actions evil universally or just evil because they regressed into capitalism?

Just "evil" because Russia and China went back to capitalism. As I said earlier, had Russia and China gone on to successfully achieve communism, then the "evil deeds" would have been "transformed" in the light of their consequences -- perhaps not into "pure good", but likely would be considered "mistakes", "regrettable excesses", "unnecessary misunderstandings", blah, blah, blah.

Sort of the way that some imperialist scholars speak of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- they were not really "necessary to win the war against Japan" -- but the important thing is that "we won" and everything else kind of fades into the background.

I think Trissy's idea of a "flexible social contract" -- we all agree that murder is generally wrong but we may make exceptions to that under certain circumstances -- is a sound approach.

But until we can negotiate the terms of that contract as real equals, I have to fall back on my own self-interest...getting rid of wage-slavery for once and for all.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

27th February 2004, 04:44

Sorry to Trissy and Redstar I haven't had a chance to reply yet, but I will. Soon

Lardlad95

28th February 2004, 02:43

I stand by my origininal statement because if the death of someone wasn't bad enough, the news of the two respective possible deaths are a little different. I'd much prefer to hear that someone I loved died but the doctor's did all they possibley could (excluding murder of course) to save them, rather then they'd been sacrificed in order to save five peoples' lives. The news that someone had been killed to save my loved one would also be quite hard to live with.

But you are taking a subjective point of view. Aren't we supposed to be objective in this situation? Assume that it is't a loved one, then what do you do.

It is not for me to say what is right or wrong but I'll attempt to answer none the less. The act of killing Hitler as a child would not bother me as such although it would be filled with problems. Killing a young Hitler does not necessarily prevent the holocaust nor does it prevent the second world war, as if you altered one aspect of the past it is not possible to predict that the future would follow the same or a similar course. Your intentions would also play a part in the act as well as there is a difference between killing Hitler to prevent the Holocaust and killing Hitler just because you want to kill someone. The whole killing him as an innocent baby holds no problem for me because if you did have a time machine and this did play on your conscience then you could just travel back to a later date (say world war 1 when he was a soldier) and kill him then instead.

Very good catch, most people don't reaize that I could kill him just as easily when he is younger.

The problem is however that I"d have to kill him at some point before he did anything that was harmful to society.

However as far as predicting the future, I could theoretically go bck and stop my self should tthe new future be worse...or if hitler's death prevents a time machine from being built, nothin would have ever changed. For all we know this reality that we live in may not be the real one...

Well a flexible moral code is of pratical use to us all if we ever want to achieve more in our lives then mere procreation like the animals. I want to be able to stand at a bus stop without the fear of being stabbed in the neck by a random person, and I'm sure that many people also want the same right. Just because a moral code is created by man doesn't stop it being useful. As to who should decide what is right and what is wrong then I'm personally all for us having a say politically. The vast majority of us have the capability to think and discuss and so I'm confident that a social contract can be produced that is flexible and changeable. At the end of the day it would be for a court to decide anyway (considering intent & consequences).

But what happens to the minority, who don't vote for that particular social contract? Assuming of coruse they can't leave the nation for whatever reason.

Well to invade purely for oil wouldn't be a just act in my view but then again neither would just leaving Saddam where he was be justified due to his crimes and the fact that he's not elected by his people. If both of the actions aren't apparently right then why couldn't we have come up with some kind of alternative option? Why couldn't the international community have worked with Bush (you'll have to ignore any hatred towards him for a brief second or two whilst I explain) so that at least the world would have a say with what to do in a post war Iraq. At the moment the US is deciding what is happening in Iraq and so we're just left on the sidelines. The French-German plans of sending inspectors in would have been useless because they'd have found nothing and Saddam would still be there. If the US had just had the balls to say they wanted to remove Saddam for being a b*****d, and not kept up the whole WMD argument then maybe we'd not be in this current mess...

very nice. Though I'm not sure which word you bleeped out.

We must all be held responsible for our own actions only, and it is possible to say whether we had the best intentions in mind but only if we're honest about our thoughts and feelings. We had to decide whether we wanted Saddam in power or not in power then we had to decide what to do next (following on from our previous decision). I know that I've put forward the notion that absolute evil does not exist but I'll use this Benjamin Franklin quote anyway as I think it still works on existential level ...

"All that it takes for evil to succeed, is for a few good men to do nothing."

So honesty juustifies actions? But what if I honestly want to murder someone? I thought and felt that it was the right thing to do.

Lardlad95

28th February 2004, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:40 PM

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Indeed I am. From the subjective viewpoint of the slave, any action that results in escape from slavery or, better still, the abolition of slavery (no possibility of ever being returned to slavery) is "morally good". Conversely, any action that strengthens the chains on one's person or strengthens slavery as an institution is "morally evil".

First you'd have to explain wh slavery is morally bad. Not saying that it isn't, but I"m trying o be objective. So explain, why is slavery morally bad

As a "wage-slave" throughout most of my life, I have the same "moral priority".

Of course, the slave-master or the capitalist would reverse my moral verdicts...and, indeed, the great bulk of humanity might be (temporarily) in agreement with them.

The Christian "Bible" has no problem at all with slavery...only with disobedient slaves.

But I don't care what they think about the matter. As far as I'm concerned, my emancipation is the "ultimate moral good" and any action that strengthens me and weakens them is "morally good".

The bible says why it's position on slavery is how it is. It may be a weak arguement but they still present a theological, if not philosophical reason. You must exlain why your emancipation overrides your captivity.

That really doesn't tell me anything because of the unspoken assumption that we both know what "wrong" is and why.

And, since we know historically of Malcolm's religious background, we know that he had a "moral code" that came "from the sky" and was not based on real human needs.

First of all are you honestly saying the quote has no relevance outside of religion?

Second, if we can not assume what is right, then why must everyman obide by the social contract that rules his or her society?

Just "evil" because Russia and China went back to capitalism. As I said earlier, had Russia and China gone on to successfully achieve communism, then the "evil deeds" would have been "transformed" in the light of their consequences -- perhaps not into "pure good", but likely would be considered "mistakes", "regrettable excesses", "unnecessary misunderstandings", blah, blah, blah.

Sort of the way that some imperialist scholars speak of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- they were not really "necessary to win the war against Japan" -- but the important thing is that "we won" and everything else kind of fades into the background.

So then the consequences of those deeds are not independent of the other actions? Why is this so? Can't the action of purges be taken individually, not connected with Russia's current stage?

I think Trissy's idea of a "flexible social contract" -- we all agree that murder is generally wrong but we may make exceptions to that under certain circumstances -- is a sound approach.

But until we can negotiate the terms of that contract as real equals, I have to fall back on my own self-interest...getting rid of wage-slavery for once and for all.

Just how flexible? It can not be too vague, other wise we get wrapped up in endless debate. Unless you can think of some way to make it vague but still work efficiently.

redstar2000

28th February 2004, 11:00

...why is slavery morally bad?

Perhaps the "moral evil" of slavery has a biological origin.

All of the primates and even the higher reptiles will initially try to escape any restraint upon their autonomy.

I'm told that the easiest way to make an infant cry is to hold its hands in such a way that it cannot move them freely.

There is something very deep in our evolutionary history that "insists" that being compelled to do the will of others rather than our own will is "wrong" and "evil".

Being rational, we can accept certain limited restraints on our will "for the common good"...but even that doesn't stop us from cursing the light that turns red as we approach the intersection.

First of all, are you honestly saying the [Malcolm X] quote has no relevance outside of religion?

It may have had some relevance to him...but it doesn't mean anything to me.

Since he was a devout Muslim (as far as is known), there are many things he would think that were "right" or "wrong" that would strike me as morally neutral or irrelevant.

The way a woman dresses in public, for example.

Second, if we can not assume what is right, then why must every man abide by the social contract that rules his or her society?

He need not...and, in fact, I don't.

I would not even think of stealing from people in my class (or those even poorer than I am). But on those rare occasions that I had the opportunity to "steal from the rich" without getting caught, I cheerfully took advantage.

(Unfortunately, the opportunities were rare and the sums were trivial...I never "worked" at being a thief. Had I taken it seriously, I could have become the CEO of a major corporation and stolen a billion or two!)

Can't the action of purges be taken individually, not connected with Russia's current stage?

Sure they can and were at the time...plenty of people from all over the political spectrum said Stalin was "mad", "criminal", "psychotic", a "red fascist", etc., etc., etc.

My point is that, as time passes and the long range consequences emerge, we get a "clearer" picture of what really happened and how much moral "weight" to give the deeds of the past.

Of course, that implies that future generations will have an even "clearer" picture than we do.

For example, some historian of 2200 might conclude that Stalin's crimes dug the grave for Leninism and thus allowed real communism to emerge in the late 21st century...making what he did "a good thing" in the long run.

It can not be too vague, otherwise we get wrapped up in endless debate.

I sort of expect communist society to be one of "endless debate"...that really doesn't "bother" me.

The "right balance" between individual autonomy and social obligation may not exist, or may exist only temporarily and have to be constantly renegotiated.

Certainly that would be superior to a "rigid code of conduct" that would run aground on the first occasion that it met an unanticipated situation.

Or so it seems to me.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

28th February 2004, 16:36

Being rational, we can accept certain limited restraints on our will "for the common good"...but even that doesn't stop us from cursing the light that turns red as we approach the intersection.

So are you saying that something deep within our beings is a seed of anarchy? And slavery is bad because it goes against our most basic biological nature?

Yeah I can buy that...I suppose....but what about S&M freaks? They like to be restrained...answer that smart man....

Since he was a devout Muslim (as far as is known), there are many things he would think that were "right" or "wrong" that would strike me as morally neutral or irrelevant.

Social equality is morally nuetral to you? Granted the man was religious, but what he was fighting for transcended religious barriers. Even if it was the back bone of his beliefs.

He need not...and, in fact, I don't.

Should/could this philosophy be applied in a communist society and be thought of as legitamate?

I would not even think of stealing from people in my class (or those even poorer than I am). But on those rare occasions that I had the opportunity to "steal from the rich" without getting caught, I cheerfully took advantage.

Sure thing robin of loxley :D Also are you saying that you would be justified in stealing form any rich person?

My point is that, as time passes and the long range consequences emerge, we get a "clearer" picture of what really happened and how much moral "weight" to give the deeds of the past.

But then we can't judge any situation because we haven't seen the FINAL FINAL FINAL result.

Hell we could be wrong about Capitalism because we haven't seen teh final reslt, hell it may turn out okay.

Of course, that implies that future generations will have an even "clearer" picture than we do.

So then we can only give justifications based on the information we have right now...So then how can we be sure we are right about anything? Or how can you denounce something when you only have limited information?

For example, some historian of 2200 might conclude that Stalin's crimes dug the grave for Leninism and thus allowed real communism to emerge in the late 21st century...making what he did "a good thing" in the long run.

but then what about the 2286 historian who concludes that because 21st century communism emerged 1 out of every 5 men has been castrated?

I sort of expect communist society to be one of "endless debate"...that really doesn't "bother" me.

1. If there is endless debate nothing gets done.

2. Of course you wont worry about it...you'll be dead and in hell. ANd i"ll be damn close to dying, if not dead too and riencarnated as the Greatest Filmstar of the 22nd century.

by the way I'm advertising for you...on okaplayer your website is on my signature..below che-lives, the marxist internet archive, the socialist party, nader's site, and walter browns site.

But it's there

also every time I AIM someone I always start off by pushing your website.

redstar2000

28th February 2004, 22:15

Thank you for the publicity. :D

...but what about S&M freaks? They like to be restrained...answer that smart man....

Well, the range of human behavior is wide and people become erotically aroused by some of the oddest things.

According to the media, Washington D.C. prostitutes say that a surprising number of "men of power" become aroused by being tied up, whipped, verbally humiliated, ridden like ponies, etc.

If Bill Clinton can get a blow job in the Oval Office, who can say what Mistress Rice and George W. get up to? :lol:

One theory has it that these "men of power" know that they don't really "deserve" their exalted status; thus volunteering for "punishment" will somehow avert the "wrath of fate" against their "unjustified" pretensions.

But this kind of stuff is "not really my field", so...

Social equality is morally neutral to you?

How did we get to that from Malcolm X's quote? He made a general statement, remember. "Wrong is wrong no matter who does it".

And my response was and remains: he assumes that we know and agree in all cases what "wrong" is.

That's not a valid assumption.

Should/could this philosophy be applied in a communist society and be thought of as legitimate?

I'm not sure. But remember that there are many fewer reasons to have to "look out for No. 1" in a communist society. No one is trying to use you, exploit you, enslave you, etc. (Well, there may be a few assholes who try, but they won't get very far with it.)

In any class society, the "social contract" is rigged in favor of the ruling class and against the exploited class.

Therefore, it may be and often is entirely moral to "break" that contract.

In real revolutions, the social contract is "torn up" and we start fresh.

Also are you saying that you would be justified in stealing from any rich person?

Oh, absolutely! But remember the 11th Commandment and keep it wholly: Thou shalt not get caught!

But then we can't judge any situation because we haven't seen the FINAL FINAL FINAL result.

I quite agree. Early in this thread, I suggested that we simply pursue our goals in the most rational fashion we can and not "worry" about "morality"...because we have no way of really knowing how it's all "going to turn out".

The reason not to act like Lenin, Stalin, etc. is not because they were immoral bastards who deliberately chose to do evil...it's because their methods do not advance the cause of communism.

In fact, the "lesson of history" seems to be that almost regardless of your aims, extremely harsh and brutal tactics are counter-productive. They may "work" for a little while...but they arouse such furious resentment that eventually you lose all that you "gained" by them...and go on to lose everything.

So then we can only give justifications based on the information we have right now...So then how can we be sure we are right about anything?

We can't...be "absolutely sure", that is. If we make a "moral judgment" (or any kind of judgment) on a proposed course of action right now, the "quality" of that judgment is always subject to revision as the consequences become clearer with the passage of time.

If there is endless debate nothing gets done.

That's not really true, you know. Even in the very weak "left" of the present era, there is both endless debate and things do "get done".

Some people fantasize that if the "left" would just agree to follow a particular strategy and quit arguing so much, then a "lot more" would get done.

That might be true...but it might be the wrong thing that got done!

That "endless debate" serves a purpose: it keeps us from uniting around a common error.

I think that's a "good thing" and actually vital if communist society is not to stagnate.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

28th February 2004, 23:51

Thank you for the publicity. :D

You are very welcome

One theory has it that these "men of power" know that they don't really "deserve" their exalted status; thus volunteering for "punishment" will somehow avert the "wrath of fate" against their "unjustified" pretensions.

I wonder how aroused they'll be when teh workers drag them from thier 5,000 dollar beds and beat the tar out of them.

If Bill Clinton can get a blow job in the Oval Office, who can say what Mistress Rice and George W. get up to? :lol:

*shudders*

How did we get to that from Malcolm X's quote? He made a general statement, remember. "Wrong is wrong no matter who does it".

And my response was and remains: he assumes that we know and agree in all cases what "wrong" is.

That's not a valid assumption.

you said that some of the things he felt would be morally right, are nuetral to you. I was mentioning one thing he found to be morally right, social equality.

I'm not sure. But remember that there are many fewer reasons to have to "look out for No. 1" in a communist society. No one is trying to use you, exploit you, enslave you, etc. (Well, there may be a few assholes who try, but they won't get very far with it.)

pfftt. THe black market will never cease to exist...atleast not for a while How will you stop this black market exploitation?

In any class society, the "social contract" is rigged in favor of the ruling class and against the exploited class.

Therefore, it may be and often is entirely moral to "break" that contract.

In real revolutions, the social contract is "torn up" and we start fresh.

The working class would opress the capitalist's..so is it morally right for them to break them contract?

Oh, absolutely! But remember the 11th Commandment and keep it wholly: Thou shalt not get caught!

2 things

1. What has opera ever done to you?

2. the 11th comandment is "I am the lord thy god, bring me a sandwich, and no Crusts...*****!!!" the 12th commandment is "thou shalt not get caught".

I quite agree. Early in this thread, I suggested that we simply pursue our goals in the most rational fashion we can and not "worry" about "morality"...because we have no way of really knowing how it's all "going to turn out".

The reason not to act like Lenin, Stalin, etc. is not because they were immoral bastards who deliberately chose to do evil...it's because their methods do not advance the cause of communism.

In fact, the "lesson of history" seems to be that almost regardless of your aims, extremely harsh and brutal tactics are counter-productive. They may "work" for a little while...but they arouse such furious resentment that eventually you lose all that you "gained" by them...and go on to lose everything.

Ok but that justify me doing whatever I want, on the off chance that it may turn out good? I mean what other rationality can we use other than the consequences of our actions? But since we can't see the absolute consequences what do we use to judge our actions?

I agree about the brutal tactics

That's not really true, you know. Even in the very weak "left" of the present era, there is both endless debate and things do "get done".

Some people fantasize that if the "left" would just agree to follow a particular strategy and quit arguing so much, then a "lot more" would get done.

That might be true...but it might be the wrong thing that got done!

That "endless debate" serves a purpose: it keeps us from uniting around a common error.

I think that's a "good thing" and actually vital if communist society is not to stagnate.

I agree about that one big ideological ideas. But we bicker about EVERYTHING. I honestly think that if we were to ever have a revolution we'd be so busy bickering about what kind of fatigues to wear that we'd all be captured.

We must unite in some things, even if we disagree on the issues that need to be deabted. i have no problem supporting a communist organization even though I'm nto a communist, because I figure that all teh ideological squabbles can be solved after the left wins. but some of us wont even do that much.

Trissy

29th February 2004, 15:25

Sorry for the late reply. Must put more effort in to keeping track of these things...

But you are taking a subjective point of view. Aren't we supposed to be objective in this situation?
But I've already said why I don't believe there is any objective moral standard for us to turn to. Knowledge is grounded in experience and so objectivity always remains little more then a distant dream. Objectivity is grounded in the subjective.

Assume that it is't a loved one, then what do you do.
I'd still allow the well man to live. I'd rather let nature run it's course and try my best to save the people then to intervene by killing one person for their benifit. Ultimately this is a subjective and existential decision but it is my decision none the less.

For all we know this reality that we live in may not be the real one...
True but I'd still prefer to live this reality as if it is the real one. Better the devil you know as the saying goes...

But what happens to the minority, who don't vote for that particular social contract?
Then it is for the minority to present a series of rational reasons to the majority in order for a debate to occur on the issues. Just look at what the gay rights movement has achieved over the years. That said they still have a lot of work to do.

So honesty juustifies actions?
I don't recall saying that. Honesty merely enables us to get to grips with the issues at hand easier. Pretending rarely helps make things better.

But what if I honestly want to murder someone? I thought and felt that it was the right thing to do.
Well if the flexible moral code allows it then you could. If it did not however then you'd have to face the consequences of your actions.

Lardlad95

3rd March 2004, 22:20

Sorry for the late reply. Must put more effort in to keeping track of these things...

Same here

But I've already said why I don't believe there is any objective moral standard for us to turn to. Knowledge is grounded in experience and so objectivity always remains little more then a distant dream. Objectivity is grounded in the subjective.

...I simply meant in relation to the scenario

I'd still allow the well man to live. I'd rather let nature run it's course and try my best to save the people then to intervene by killing one person for their benifit. Ultimately this is a subjective and existential decision but it is my decision none the less.
I can live with that decision

Then it is for the minority to present a series of rational reasons to the majority in order for a debate to occur on the issues. Just look at what the gay rights movement has achieved over the years. That said they still have a lot of work to do.

*applauss* the exact reason I"m a democratic socialist and not a communist

Well if the flexible moral code allows it then you could. If it did not however then you'd have to face the consequences of your actions.

They'll have to catch me first.