Why is coercion bad?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
101

AJ, your reply honestly baffles me. You and I are basically in agreement, it’s only semantics that separates us.

I’m only aware of variants of the following “definition” of the word “should”:

What I think you, if I’ve understood you correctly, are referring to is not the “definition” of “should”, but rather what it is that human beings “should” do. And yes, there are innumerable opinions on this (certainly more than 20!). That is indeed the point of moral philosophy.

My point had nothing to do with “defining” should. Rather, what I was saying was, arguing that you shouldn’t torture animals because it will make you feel guilty and diminish your happiness presupposes that the person who tortures animals is convinced it is wrong to torture animals, otherwise no feelings of guilt will follow and the person will proceed unhampered in the enjoyment of his life.

Again, saying that human beings should pursue pleasure amounts to saying nothing, because pleasure is not a goal in itself, but rather a state of affairs in which man’s goals are achieved. What determines “pleasure” other than what the acting agent regards as pleasurable? The point is to be able to say that human beings ought to find X pleasurable, and if they don’t, take steps to do more of X so that becomes pleasurable. (X might be diet & exercise, for example.)

That depends on what your conception of ethics is. I share with Aristotle the belief that ethics is the study of practical wisdom that will help man achieve the art of living well. That is, ethics is indeed life advice. It shouldn’t be confined to the ivory tower.

102

Birthday Pony,

I bolded “long-term” for a reason. But besides that, this is pretty out of context. I was talking about ethics as if it was something different from morality because Tunk seemed to be defining it that way, and I was working with his definition.

103

That just means you get more pleasure out of it than pain, so it’s pursuing pleasure. In fact I can scarcely think of any way of pursuing pleasure that is not similarly roundabout.

Touche. But now we’re just muddying the lines between pleasure and pain.

104

Of course, that is always the case in philosophy, and this is why I harp on definitions.

Should: Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions: “he should have been careful”. 2. Indicating a desirable or expected state: “by now students should be able to read”.

That’s already five definitions, plus the guilt one and the long-term happiness one makes seven, and then all the definitions that encompass two or more of those seven. 7C2 + 7C3 + 7C4 … = a whole lot of definitions. Not to belabor the point.

The above math should make it clear that the issue is not so much innumerable opinions, but innumerable definitions. Though to make matters more confusing, some definitions define “should” as a matter of opinion, and in that subset there are indeed innumerable opinions (but that’s not a problem per se, if the definition is specified).

This is simply clarifying which definition you are communicating with. In this case, “A shouldn’t do X” = “A would feel guilty if he did X.”

It is indeed entirely subjective.

That is exactly why I don’t use the word “should” in philosophical or other rigorous contexts, but only in everyday talk. That humans pursue pleasure is obvious. Or, to reword it, that human beings have goals is obvious. The only reason to ever point out the obvious is if something is entertaining an idea that does not make sense, i.e., forgetting the obvious. Then they may reply that I am not saying anything (other than the obvious), which is indeed the case, but if someone is missing the obvious then the statement was not in vain.

I’m not sure why you say “conception” instead of “definition,” but I completely agree with the sentiment. Also, “the art of living well” is to me more clearly put as “maximizing your long-term pleasure” or, if you prefer this wording, “maximizing your long-term goal achievement.” (Remembering that “pleasure” and “goal” are to be taken in the broadest possible sense, not the usual more narrow sense.) And I do think that if you hold to this definition or conception, it would be less confusing to avoid calling it ethics.

To reiterate, I do think we agree, but that is unremarkable. The point is to sort out the phrasings to reveal the agreement, which also can clarify the matter in each discussant’s mind.

105

No it’s not. They’re all variants of one definition, “that which ought to be”.

It’s kind of funny how you keep repeating this. You cannot answer the question, “How can I maximize my pursuit of pleasure”, until you answer the question, “What ought I to regard as pleasurable?” The one precedes the other. It is the latter question that is the important one, with which I’m concerned. The former question reveals nothing of interest, is true by definition as you wrote yourself, and furthermore would be positively monstrous to regard as a starting point for ethics. We don’t want to inform a Nazi as to how to maximize his pursuit of pleasure.

106

Actually it’s clarifying that the lines between pain and pleasure in this example are time-based:

Pain-pain-pain-PLEASURE-pain-pain-PLEASURE-pain-pain-pain-pain-pain-pain-PLEASURE-PLEASURE-…

At any one instant we may only experience one or the other, but we find that for a worthwhile but grueling activity the net pleasure over time outweighs the net pain. The length of the time interval one considers is called one’s “time preference.”

107

Uh…

That’s an interesting question in its own right, but the same could be said of questions like, “What should I invest in?” It’s simply one of a long list of useful self-help-related questions that one needs to answer in order to know how to act in a way that maximizes long-term pleasure. Your question here is, in practical terms, “What types of self-modification to my emotional response are most effective at maximizing my long-term pleasure?”

Again, an important and interesting question, but I doubt everyone else is referring to the same question when they talk of morality, ethics, etc. Though I’m not saying they shouldn’t adopt your definition. In any case, we finally have definitional clarity, do we not?

108

It seems to me, unless you define ethics otherwise, that ethics would be about how to maximize long-term pleasure (and minimize long-term pain).

I think economics calls it time preference. Either way statements like “might makes right”, “pain -pleasure”, utility/ consequentialism - are statements designed to get rid of causality, regress, and sloppy language. If nothing else they show the absurdity of not just ethical language, but ethical thinking as well. By their nature they are phrases that can’t be contradicted - the fact that they get dumped into ethics is kind of weird. This ought to manifest itself even more obviously the second these radical “subjectivist” social scientists get taken more seriously than their English counterparts

I think it is a con by moralists to obfuscate language as much as possible to keep their insignificant subsidized hobby horse on life support - or just another con to backdoor the humanities to a higher place in academic prestige.

109

Well put. This is true in many fields: economics, philosophy, sociology, physics, and perhaps even all of the ones I’m not familiar with.

110

i always kind of wonderd how much physics and math were BS. I can’t really comment on them, and I’ll take whatever the mainstream tells me, as it just isn’t my game - but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a lot of mystic BS going on at some level.

111

Definitely. What I’ve found is that almost all the parts of science that don’t face any kind of direct “market test” (like being used in engineering) devolve into total spookiness pretty quickly. You don’t have to know anything about physics to know that “curved nothingness (space)” is an incoherent notion or that a wave isn’t what something is, but rather what something does. Physics is absolutely fraught with communication/semantics issues that have completely deadlocked the field to the point where they’re claiming that the end of physics is coming. Physics and economics probably suffer worst because they are both “kingmaker” or celebrity fields (Keynes, Krugman, Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, etc.) and of course states have a direct interest in economics.

112

Last time on this, because it is a bit off topic -

Do you have any layman links to “end of physics” stuff?

thanks in advance if you do

113

Not sure which side you’re looking for, but this is a nice layman article that hints at the problems in physics. (PM me for more.)

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics

114

http://mises.org/daily/2197/The-Death-Wish-of-the-AnarchoCommunists

Replace “economics” with “math”, “physics”, etc.

115

Replace “economics” with “philosophy” and see how that sounds. Besides, as much as I appreciate Rothbard’s quote, it is not even strictly true of economics. Even a layman can tell that Keynesians equivocate, reify, etc. But that is less “loud and vociferous” than quiet and limited, yet still fatal.

Anyway, I wasn’t saying that a layman should have a loud and vociferous “opinion.” By all means, do the research before you take on the established theories.

“Just let the semantic oddities pique your interest,” is my point.

116

Yes, but that is hardly “the end of physics” since the same mysteries - how to explain the mechanism of action for magnetism and gravitation in terms of things we can observe - were pondered and judged mostly inscrutable by Newton and later Einstein. The fact that we still cannot do it, despite having many fantastic tools that utilze these phenomena only makes the mystery more alluring.

This is why Feynman emphasized learning and using the math of physics even though the fundemental physical mechanisms weren’t understood. Otherwise we would never have developed the technology we have now.

117

The whole “end of physics” is actually something the mainstream physicists are talking about that I disagree with. By the way, what technology did Feynman pave the way for?

118

Anyone talking about “the end of physics” while Dark Matter and Dark Energy are being bandied about by leading physicists as serious ideas has their head firmly planted in their nether-regions. We are on the verge of a fundamental re-think of physics. The greatest dogmatism always precedes the biggest shifts (a bit like that Biblical maxim… “pride comes before a fall.”)

Clayton -

119

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I use the word the way it was used by Ayn Rand, namely the way in which you should conduct yourself if you want to survive in the long run. Clearly, on that definition, even Crusoe has a use for morality.
[/quote]

Well, that is a definition that doesn’t do much for my argument! Then, are you saying morality is subjective? Behavior necessary for long term survival may change from individual to individual, depending on their respective circumstances.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I don’t really get the relevance of existentialism and yoga, which you go on to mention.
[/quote]

Well, they aren’t really relevant anymore, since I was attempting to show how one simply needs to act how they would like others to act, and they will have inched society ever so so slightly to a preferrable state, rather than issue some blanket edicts on preferrable conduct.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The ethical relativist denies that any values are superior to others. But by engaging in argumentation, surely the relativist has made a value judgement — that it would be preferable to argue than not. How could he have accomplished this if all values are equal?
[/quote]

I would consider this a hyperbolic mischaracterization. So do you, apperently,

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The obvious reply to this is that ethical relativism does not maintain that value judgements are impossible — for that would indeed be a self-refuting and hopeless position — but rather that whatever standard of value is employed in making such judgements is necessarily subjective and relative to the individual. That is to say, nothing has value without someone to place a value on it.
[/quote]

So let’s just forget that part.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
but by what standard of value were those values adopted? By virtue of what goal are our goals pursued? And how could any standard of value in the long run be adopted at all if none possess any apparent superiorities?
[/quote]

Habit, faith, and ignorance.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
As a result, like the incessant inquiring of a child, one can pose the question "Why?’ in the face of every human endeavour and after a while seemingly tear away the basis for all motivation.
[/quote]

This is called an Existential Crisis. That is why I brought it up. You real question seems to be,

“What is the cure for an existential crisis?”

Which you answer,

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
To cease the infinite regress of ends, there must be some self-justifying end-in-itself that makes it possible to evaluate that acting to gain and/or keep any value, any goal, is preferable to not, and which allows the rise of a chain of means and ends in the first place. This ultimate goal cannot be subjectively chosen (for that would beg the question) but is objectively determined by the facts of reality and necessarily beyond one’s choice.
[/quote]

Which is an unprovable position. You could just as easily say,

“To cease the infinite regress of ends, submit your will to Allah.”

Just because you have chosen to place your faith in Logic, doesn’t necessarily mean that you have chosen the “truth”. Rather than accept the unknown, you have chosen to ignore it.

[quoteuser=“Objectivist Ethics”]
It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible.
[/quote]

It is the individual which chooses, as a matter of faith, their ultimate goal. There is no way to “know” which is the “right” or “true” goal for which to struggle.

To the rest,

Oy, semantics. Language is such a shoddy facsimile of concepts! I find physics a great field for demonstrating how little humans know about our own physical beings. Also, this clip just became a bit more “deep” to me,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQWksKNrJm0

120

@ AJ - You completely missed the point. I repeat, maximizing “pleasure” is not and cannot be the goal of a moral code, because the concept of pleasure presupposes an agent that already finds certain things pleasurable. If you asked me, “How can I maximize my pleasure”, you would essentially be saying, “How can I acheive the acheivment of my aims?” Well, I would first need to know what your aims are. Ethics is the study, not of how to acheive your ends, but of what your ends should be. As Henry Veatch wrote in his classic Rational Man, the job of morality is not to make you happy but to make you unhappy, to rouse you from your complacency and awaken the thirst for self improvement.

@ Jackson LaRose -

You know, the trouble with point-by-point replies is that, while the make the author seem authoritative and comprehensive, they are more often than not a string of fallacies written by someone who was lazy and thoroughly misunderstood the original post. (No offense.)

“Morality”, in the traditional Greek rational-egoist sense in which I use the term, has meant those virtues one should cultivate in order to achieve one’s ultimate goal or “natural end”. So if your natural end is life, then a rational egoist would tell you that it would be moral to, say, diet & exercise. That is the way I use the term. Just putting this out there so it’s clear, since I hate the stupid arguments about semantics which debates on forums often descend into. Either accept my definition or introduce your own.

Now, of course it’s true that “behavior necessary for long term survival may change from individual to individual”, but by analyzing man in an isolated state we can derive some fundamental moral principles he ought to abide by assuming life as his goal, just like we can derive some necessary economic truths about action. For example, were you stranded on a deserted island, you would need to consistently practise the virtue of “rationality”, i.e. you could not survive by dozing off and hallucinating, but rather you would need to be awake and alert, to orient yourself to the facts of reality, so you could gather the material resources required for survival.

And you completely misunderstood my argument for ultimate goals, like everyone else in this thread. If you had understood my point, you would have realized that simply repeating slogans like “habit, faith, and ignorance” is not a coherent answer. The problem is ultimate justification for human ends. And if you asked me why I did what I did, and I responded, “because of habit, faith, and ignorance”, you would run into the same problem because you could simply ask me, “Why?”

You call this an existential crisis, when it was Aristotle who first identified it:

I’ll quote Ayn Rand again as well, since she makes the point with her usual clarity:

The problem of ethics, at least in the natural law tradition, has been to identify the self-justifying end-in-itself that makes all ends possible. (And I repeat, the ultimate goal cannot be the object of a choice, since it would run right back into the regress problem.) Responding with trite cliches will not cut it as answer to this.

According to you, this is an “unprovable position”. Why? Because I “have chosen to place [my] faith in Logic”. You say I cannot prove my position, and then you deny the possibility of any proof anyway. Well, can you blame me for failing to meet your exacting standards? But this is interesting. Do you deny the existence of such a thing as logic, a valid argument and an invalid one, a necessary truth and a sufficient truth, an identity and a contradiction, etc.? Because if you do, there is no point in arguing any further. You cannot even participate in an argument unless there is something objective to disagree about and a common frame of reference to facilitate communication. You cannot argue with me, for example, unless you accept the Law of Non-Contradiction, otherwise you would be wantonly uttering meaningless speech and no one could grasp you. I rather like logic, as a matter of fact, since it makes argumentation possible.

Your final point is merely that “it is the individual which chooses, as a matter of faith, their ultimate goal.” This is what we experts call “begging the question”, assuming what one needs to prove. But since you don’t place your faith in logic, but rather in existentialist slogans, you probably don’t mind!