Which is more ethical?

[Just_me_Mike]

Hypothetically:
The race of humans are dying. All resources are depleted, but we have figured out a way to harvest humans in a way that some can survive and maybe create a new future.

What is the right thing to do, harvest the humans, or die with everyone and be done with it?

Edit: When I say harvest humans, I mean kill them for resources in this hypothetical situation.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why do you use the word "harvest?"

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Why do you use the word "harvest?"

Well it implies, that in this scenario, humans have figured out a way that survival might be possible, but it will require killing or harvesting lots of humans.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well it implies, that in this scenario, humans have figured out a way that survival might be possible, but it will require killing or harvesting lots of humans.

Well, "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (-Spock) The "many" can include the future people.

There's your answer.

 

[Reverend Rick]

When it comes to survival, ethics fly out the window.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

When it comes to survival, ethics fly out the window.

Why? You'd die for your child I assume. So your survival would be second to ethics in that case.

 

[MSizer]

This is an example of the conflict between deontology and utiltarianism. If you subscribe to deontology like Kant, then there is no situation in which it is morally permissible to do deep existential harm to any being. If you subscribe purely to utilitarianism like Bentham and Mill, then the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people wins out. This same scenario was pointed out by Hauser in the hypothetical emergency room scenario. Five patients will die if they don't each receive a new organ (each needs a different organ). A healthy visitor is in the waiting room. Are we either permitted or obligated to kill the visitor to save the five (total gain of 4)? Most people say "absolutely not" and it's because it's an emotional matter, not one of reason. Most people feel that it is morally acceptable to permit one to die, but not to inflict it directly.

Nobody has figured out a strong argument that I know of to answer these types of questions. I think it points out though that both radical deontology and radical utilitarianism have their flaws.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

This is an example of the conflict between deontology and utiltarianism. If you subscribe to deontology like Kant, then there is no situation in which it is morally permissible to do deep existential harm to any being. If you subscribe purely to utilitarianism like Bentham and Mill, then the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people wins out. This same scenario was pointed out by Hauser in the hypothetical emergency room scenario. Five patients will die if they don't each receive a new organ (each needs a different organ). A healthy visitor is in the waiting room. Are we either permitted or obligated to kill the visitor to save the five (total gain of 4)? Most people say "absolutely not" and it's because it's an emotional matter, not one of reason. Most people feel that it is morally acceptable to permit one to die, but not to inflict it directly.

Nobody has figured out a strong argument that I know of to answer these types of questions. I think it points out though that both radical deontology and radical utilitarianism have their flaws.

What side are you leaning towards?

 

[MSizer]

What side are you leaning towards?

I lean toward deontology. IMO moral principles are absolute, therefore murder is impermissible at all times IMO (not necessarily killing, which means self defense).

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I lean toward deontology. IMO moral principles are absolute, therefore murder is impermissible at all times IMO (not necessarily killing, which means self defense).

Than why are you so opposed to evil not being subjective and being absolute. Why can't evil in your mind be the opposite of moral? It is to me, I think.

 

[MSizer]

Than why are you so opposed to evil not being subjective and being absolute. Why can't evil in your mind be the opposite of moral? It is to me, I think.

Well, I'm not sure I know what your getting at. If I understand, you're saying that I might think something is evil, but that my opinion might conflict with "absolute" morality (if it does indeed exist, which I do think it does).

To that I would say that people can be mistaken about moral principles. Hitler probably thought that Jews were a threat to the world, and therefore in Hitler's point of view, allowing Jewish people to flourish would have possibly been evil in Hitler's mind. And, in Germany, that may have even been the popular opinion (I don't actually know) but that doesn't make it correct. IMO, if you do deep existential harm to a sentient being, you are acting immorally, no matter what your ideology or opinion & no matter how many others share it with you.

Radical islamic terrorists think that the west is evil, since they don't follow the teachings of islam, so they kill westerners. They think they're abolishing evil in doing so, but IMO their actions are evil, because they create deep existential harm to other beings by killing them and taking away loved ones.

So I do believe that a person can be mistaken as to what is morally permissible, obligatory and impermissible.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Well, I'm not sure I know what your getting at. If I understand, you're saying that I might think something is evil, but that my opinion might conflict with "absolute" morality (if it does indeed exist, which I do think it does).

To that I would say that people can be mistaken about moral principles. Hitler probably thought that Jews were a threat to the world, and therefore in Hitler's point of view, allowing Jewish people to flourish would have possibly been evil in Hitler's mind. And, in Germany, that may have even been the popular opinion (I don't actually know) but that doesn't make it correct. IMO, if you do deep existential harm to a sentient being, you are acting immorally, no matter what your ideology or opinion & no matter how many others share it with you.

Radical islamic terrorists think that the west is evil, since they don't follow the teachings of islam, so they kill westerners. They think they're abolishing evil in doing so, but IMO their actions are evil, because they create deep existential harm to other beings by killing them and taking away loved ones.

So I do believe that a person can be mistaken as to what is morally permissible, obligatory and impermissible.

To me, working from your idea of moral absolutes and that they exist independent of what people think, I think one day we as a majority (human species) will be able to point to most if not all situations and call it good or bad. I think that is what I am driving at.

 

[MSizer]

To me, working from your idea of moral absolutes and that they exist independent of what people think, I think one day we as a majority (human species) will be able to point to most if not all situations and call it good or bad. I think that is what I am driving at.

Cool. Yeah, it seems pretty idealistic, but I guess that would be great. In theory it sounds possible.

 

[no-body]

To me, working from your idea of moral absolutes and that they exist independent of what people think, I think one day we as a majority (human species) will be able to point to most if not all situations and call it good or bad. I think that is what I am driving at.

But where does this moral absolute come from? Certainly not from the animal kingdom; since from human perception there are many "atrocities" in it too like rape and murder. So it can't be said to be instinct. I agree personally with the principle of not hurting another sentient being, but I'd like to know how it's a universal moral standard when there is no standard for it in the world other than humanities consciousness.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

But where does this moral absolute come from? Certainly not from the animal kingdom; since from human perception there are many "atrocities" in it too like rape and murder. So it can't be said to be instinct. I agree personally with the principle of not hurting another sentient being, but I'd like to know how it's a universal moral standard when there is no standard for it in the world other than humanities consciousness.

Well I will let Mszier answer for arguments in favor of absolute morals, but I tend to agree with his view on it.

But I will address where I think they come from. If we live in a world without defining morals, or in a world where moral development, agreement, and awareness can not be achieved by the majority, if not everyone, we then are reduced to nothing more than animals with a toy called consciousness.

I don't believe us to be that type of animal, and believe as a result absolute morality exists, but will take time to fully realize what it is.

 

[Kerr]

Hypothetically:
The race of humans are dying. All resources are depleted, but we have figured out a way to harvest humans in a way that some can survive and maybe create a new future.

What is the right thing to do, harvest the humans, or die with everyone and be done with it?

Edit: When I say harvest humans, I mean kill them for resources in this hypothetical situation.

I would say harvesting the humans would be the wrong thing to do, even in a situation such as this.

 

[MSizer]

But where does this moral absolute come from? Certainly not from the animal kingdom; since from human perception there are many "atrocities" in it too like rape and murder. So it can't be said to be instinct. I agree personally with the principle of not hurting another sentient being, but I'd like to know how it's a universal moral standard when there is no standard for it in the world other than humanities consciousness.

I think Sen & Nussbaum have it spot on in her capabilities approach to ethics (although I think it needs to be slightly revised to include some other animals too).

In a nutshell, they outline 10 categories of conditions necessary to allow a human being to flourish (essentially to grant a human being the opportunity to forge a satisfying life).

So for example some of the principles are bodily integrity, freedom from emotional abuse, permission to own modest property, permission to participate in social institutions, permission to engage in meaningful relationships with other humans, animals and plants, permission to recreate (and it goes on - I can't quite remember them all - you can wiki it if interested).

So they've listed a number of things they feel necessary for a person to have the opportunity to live a happy life, regardless of race, culture, era or location.

Moral deliberations then simply become a matter of deciding whether an action facilitates or inhibits any of these conditions. If you inhibit these conditions, you act immorally. If you facilitate them, you act morally.

I don't think it's a perfect model, but I do believe it's the best one I've ever learned about, because it is objective and very practical (unlike other moral theories which are always ambiguous in some ways).

 

[no-body]

I think Sen & Nussbaum have it spot on in her capabilities approach to ethics (although I think it needs to be slightly revised to include some other animals too).

In a nutshell, they outline 10 categories of conditions necessary to allow a human being to flourish (essentially to grant a human being the opportunity to forge a satisfying life).

So for example some of the principles are bodily integrity, freedom from emotional abuse, permission to own modest property, permission to participate in social institutions, permission to engage in meaningful relationships with other humans, animals and plants, permission to recreate (and it goes on - I can't quite remember them all - you can wiki it if interested).

So they've listed a number of things they feel necessary for a person to have the opportunity to live a happy life, regardless of race, culture, era or location.

Moral deliberations then simply become a matter of deciding whether an action facilitates or inhibits any of these conditions. If you inhibit these conditions, you act immorally. If you facilitate them, you act morally.

I don't think it's a perfect model, but I do believe it's the best one I've ever learned about, because it is objective and very practical (unlike other moral theories which are always ambiguous in some ways).

So basically what you are saying is you want to take the best standard of ethics from the human point of view and "encode" it in people until it is the universal moral standard?

 

[MSizer]

So basically what you are saying is you want to take the best standard of ethics from the human point of view and "encode" it in people until it is the universal moral standard?

No, that's not even remotely what I said. You'd be closer if you had accused me of claiming morality comes from peanut butter sandwiches.

Morality is a human construct, but contingent on logical principles. It's just like science, which is also a social construct, yet contingent on observable evidence.

 

[no-body]

No, that's not even remotely what I said. You'd be closer if you had accused me of claiming morality comes from peanut butter sandwiches.

Morality is a human construct, but contingent on logical principles. It's just like science, which is also a social construct, yet contingent on observable evidence.

But what makes these logical principles if not your own mind? Certainly it doesn't come from nature or any other observable phenomena. Unless it's just the underlying principle of being true to ones own tribe and using human logic to stretch that to all living creatures. But it still doesn't make it an objective principle.

I think we've gone full circle back to my original question now...