Utility and Relativism

Miscellaneous General
1

I 've come to the conclusion that there are no defenses against immorality, that does not lead to an argument of utility.

In short, I’m asking if there is any argument for morality that does not deduce to utility?

Relatively speaking, there is nothing moral or immoral about murder. If I murder I have my reasons:

a) Ended my hatred of this person, I feel releaved

b) I gain more amount of oxygen by his death

c) Not resisted my will

d) gained his things

Everyone one of these reasons leads to my utility. A) less stress B) my abundance of oxygen for my body C) less stress and anxiety D) less labor but more goods

If I decide not to kill, I have my reasons:

a) I let him live his life, he may come to help me later in life directly or indirectly

b) I feel it is unnatural to murder

c) His kin or friends may kill me

d) I am contributing to the wiping out of the human race

Everyone of these is based on utility: A) benefits for me by friendship or exchange B) It will cause me guilt if I do C) I am able to live / 2 men will be killed D) I preserve my species for the future

Is not everyone of these a basis of utility for the individual or majority?

Can someone find a different reason why murder is immoral that is not based on utility?

2

Murder is immoral because it violates someone’s rights. Respect towards others is a constitutive part of one’s eudaimonia. What constitutes respect towards others leads us to a rational investigation of human nature. This investigation shows that the right to liberty is essential to one’s eudaimonia. From the right to liberty, one can establish the right to life (one’s own life, that is) and the NAP, as violating the NAP leaves a person unable to act towards their own flourishing. One respects others because one respects one’s self.

3

But why should one respect one’s self?

4

Because self-respect is in one’s rational self-interest. Having virtue and possessing goods such as self-respect/self-esteem, honor, health, friendship and knowledge (among others, of course) is intrisically valuable, because they are the virtues and goods that make a human life (the life of a rational, political, and social animal) more human.

5

What you mean is that ultimately ethics will appeal to self-interest. Perhaps, but why should this be utility in the utilitarian sense, which is fitting even for a pig? Why should it not differ for a being capable of thoughtful reflection?

-Jon

6

I’m not sure I follow? The OP was looking for a reason why murder is wrong that is not based in utility.

7

I don’t see how that follows ? What about all the cops, soldiers, politicians and other predators ? They routinely kill people and at the same time think they are virtuous and have lots of self-esteem…

What about people who are not that interested in say health, friendship, honor (?!?), or knowledge, but don’t violate the NAP ? Are they sub-humans ?

8

In the first place, those individuals are in error - they hold beliefs about themselves that are factually devoid of justification. As regards the constituent components of flourishing, these will differ from individual to individual, and especially which particular emphasis will be put on which virtues, but the ones he mentioned, it is pretty easy to assume, are integral to the happiness of most humans.

Wombatron, the only ethical systems which can achieve that are transcendental ethical systems which are purely deontological. My point was that a lot of ethical systems to appeal to self-interest, but it need not be so narrowly conceived as in the utilitarian models.

-Jon

9

I don’t see how. Soldiers are nominally human and they enjoy killing people - not only that, they think it’s very honorable to do so. Cops think that beating people is fun as long as they don’t get caught - cops also are nominally human. These humans like to torture their fellows - where is the ‘error’ ?

I don’t think that answers my question. What about people who are not interested in what you consider ‘integral’ to happiness ?

10

Their error lies in the fact that these actions have about as much to do with honour as 1 + 1 = 5 has to do with being a correct statement. Otherwise, please do tell what honour means exactly, for I had no idea it is intimately related to the notion of sadism. It amuses me how people lose their ability to use words properly when it comes to philosophical discussions.

Oh I think it answers it just perfectly. Why would they be “subhuman” (my, what a cute little epithet)? More importantly, why should it matter? Yes, a life that fails to live up to an examined, rational life is one that has failed in reaching its potential. The agent is still, of course, human, it is their choices that are bad. Which virtues an agent will consider more important to cultivate, are a matter for themselves to decide. In the unlikely case of a human that is utterly asocial, fine, to that individual friendship would not be a virtue, or more correctly, would be one to which that virtue did not matter. Is this difficult to comprehend? I’ve asked before if you’ve read a single book, even, on Aristotelian ethics, and got no answer. No wonder. The only people who I have a problem with are those who intentionally violate the pursuit by others of happiness via aggressive force.

-Jon

11 
Well, you should ask the military, not me. I don't think there's such a virtue as honor, but they do. And you talk about honor too, just like they do. So, who's right ?

Examined by whom ? What potential are you talking about ?

Bad ? According to what standard ? Yours ? The community’s ? Aristotle’s ? or ?

I read Nicomachean Ethics some time ago. Of course I didn’t like it. But what’s the point ? Now let me ask : can you read classical Greek ? If you can’t, are you sure you know what Aristotle is talking about ?

Fine - that has nothing to do with Aristotle, right ? That’s the ‘modern’ doctrine of natural rights - it has nothing to do with classical antiquity either ?

12

Ah. I see now. Thanks. I agree that self-interest is broader than conceived in some systems. I am also somewhat uncertain on the question of virtue ethics being based in self-interest. Meta-ethics can get confusing… [:S]

13

No, I will ask you. Is someone who can barely read three words “educated”? Would you take them seriously if they said so? Likewise, should one take the military seriously when it says it’s honorable? Unless you’re some sort of extreme relativist, I think the answer is clear.

Examined by the individual in question (i.e. reflectively adopting courses of actions), and the potential to actually live this examined life. So hard to get, right?

Yes, bad. Drinking yourself stupid to avoid the consequences of your actions is what I’d call “bad”, and most definitely not a human that has attained flourishing, in the same way that I can call a plant that has been infested by a disease on a bad course. To preempt any further questions on this, no, this would not mandate coercive interference - only violations of the rights of others mandate force in equal measure.

Gee, what a pointless question. Yes, I can actually read ancient Greek. Didn’t expect that, eh? But why should it matter, when brilliant modern translations exist? Even if they failed to convey what Aristotle thought, if I thought they were more correct than what he actually thought, I’d still stick with them, albeit no longer refer to them as Aristotelian. Yet there is no reason to do so. Plus, I rely on modern works based on Aristotelianism, so see below.

Nope, as natural law (per the Thomist tradition, which is, incidentally, Aristotelian) and natural rights in the sense I speak of them are grounded in Aristotle’s eudaemonist ethics. I was referring, in particular, to works by Roderick Long, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl.

-Jon

14

I’m certainly not a relativist. I’m trying to point out that there’s no clear definition for the word virtue. Of course it’s much easier to realize, and ‘objectively agree’, that 1+1 is not five, but the same is not true for ‘virtue’ or ‘honor’.

But let’s say some people don’t understand the ‘objective’ meaning of virtue. At the same time, they are happy aggressing against their neighbors. Is that aggression the outcome of their lack of intellectual understanding ? Or is it something else ?

Fine. On the other hand the person drinking maybe thinks that drinking is okay. Maybe drinkers won’t say that drinking is a virtue, but they can argue that drinking suits ‘their nature’. Your judgment here is perhaps irrelevant ? A lot of people take a lot of different drugs. Is that ‘bad’ ?

I didn’t think you were advocating coercive interference.

I didn’t. Good for you =]

Is that the same natural law that modern libertarians talk about ? And is that the same Aquinas who advocated the death penalty for ‘heretics’ ?

15

It is still stupid to associate the word with things it has little to do with, and the fact that it isn’t as clear-cut as 1 + 1 =/= 5 is irrelevant. If they do not understand the meaning of virtue, and have never reflected on whether it is permissible to aggress against their fellowmen, they have failed in the exercise of their rational faculty, so it is, pretty much.

Nope, not irrelevant at all. If one drinks to the point where they damage themselves, yet they profess and want to remain in good health, yet are too weak to overcome the temptation, the more base preference that is, it most certainly does not suit it. And yeah, it can be bad, depending on context.

Yeah, it is. Also, is this the same sort of objection as “Aristotle advocated slavery”? Because it is perhaps the most shallow, puerile objection I can think of when it comes to a theory. to pounce upon errors of the theorist and treat them as indictments of the theory.

-Jon

16

What I think is irrelevant is your analogy. Arithmetic has nothing to do with moral philosophy.

Wait a second. You’re talking about beings that, according to your philosophy, are defined as ‘rational’ animals. However, it turns out that despite the fact that their very nature is to be rational…they are not acting rationally. So, what’s going on ?

Some people want to take drugs - whether they want to remain in good health or not I don’t know and I don’t care. And it’s beside the point. There’s no accounting for taste - your ‘objective’ system fails here ?

Really ? I think you’re rather confused.

Indeed it is. (Btw, did he advocate slavery or not ?)

The fact is, slavery and the burning of heretics seem to be ‘integral’ parts of the theory - calling my objection ‘shallow’ or ‘puerile’ is pointless. I suggest you better deal with the facts - your ‘theorists’ had some very flawed ideas. I’d also add that Mr. Aquinas was a high ranking official in one of the most brutal states ever, the so called catholic church.

17

My second example, of the adjective “educated”, does.

What’s going on? What is going on is that I am debating someone with a scant understanding of natural-end ethics. Yeah, humans are rational animals, with the ability to choose between various courses of action. They can choose to not fulfill their potentiality.

But it isn’t besides the point. Is someone who is suicidal living a “good life”? Based on what? Is someone taking drugs to escape the realities of their life, as opposed to dealing with them, one who has moral strength? This is not a matter of “taste” so don’t think you’re going to succeed in just brushing this off. It is a matter of using concepts appropriately.

That has not been demonstrated.

He did. Relevance?

No, I suggest you deal with the fact that you’re clueless on this matter and excel in setting up strawmen and throwing in red herrings. How are they integral parts? Glorified ad hominem attacks will not suffice.

-Jon

18

Spoken in obvious ignorance.

19

Very enlightening remark.

20

Your second example is also irrelevant. You are confusing moral qualities with ‘knowledge’.

Yet another irrelevant remark which almost sounds like a personal attack. I suggest you explain the basic contradiction of your system instead ?

That’s obvious - humans can choose. What you need to explain is how and/or why a ‘rational’ being acts in irrational ways.

You haven’t got the slightest idea why people take drugs. Even If it was true that some people prefer to take drugs instead of ‘facing reality’, what’s wrong with that ?

Actually you’re trying to brush off the problem. You can’t say whether taking drugs is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ without invoking an arbitrary ‘moral’ system, which you claim is objective - but it is not. Even with regard to people who commit suicide, using whatever means, you should remain silent - you don’t know the ultimate ends of each individual.

Relevance ? You are talking about a system of ‘natural’ rights and ‘natural’ ends that starts with somebody advocating slavery and you claim that the current libertarian system is related to it (or even identical?). I find that rather odd.