The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[Moral Orel]

You wanted an example of doing good or not. I gave you four.

Okay, then I'll just take one example.

Yes. Because I'll be healthier.

Being healthy is good, as a matter of fact. You should do good things, so you should make yourself healthy, as a matter of fact. Is all of this true, or is it not true?

Now what you're pointing out is that there are often conflicting outcomes. That's valid. But you're still going to at least attempt to judge the overarching act as good or bad. You do so by weighing the conflicting outcomes against each other.

For instance, you stated that your vacation was good. But it wasn't as though there was nothing bad at all in your experience. At a minimum, it cost you money, and losing money is bad, no? But your enjoyment was worth the cost, so your vacation was, in fact, good. It would have been better if it was free. Is this correct?

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, then I'll just take one example.


Being healthy is good, as a matter of fact. You should do good things, so you should make yourself healthy, as a matter of fact. Is all of this true, or is it not true?

Yeah. So should we give up eating animals and giving up coffee and passing on the salt and all sugar? That would all be good. So should you do it?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah. So should we give up eating animals and giving up coffee and passing on the salt and all sugar? That would all be good. So should you do it?

If you ever stop dodging the question, I'll answer. I mean, I already have in previous conversations, but I'll remind you if you ever stop dodging the question. I just want to know if you agree with the principle. I'm not trying to trap you into some kind of "oh but what if?".

"If some act you are capable of performing results in a good outcome, and there are zero bad outcomes, you should do that act." Is that statement true?

 

[Bradskii]

If you ever stop dodging the question, I'll answer. I mean, I already have in previous conversations, but I'll remind you if you ever stop dodging the question. I just want to know if you agree with the principle. I'm not trying to trap you into some kind of "oh but what if?".

"If some act you are capable of performing results in a good outcome, and there are zero bad outcomes, you should do that act." Is that statement true?

OK. Let's play. Yes.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK. Let's play. Yes.

I don't want to "play", I want to know what you actually think. Do you actually believe that statement is a true fact? I want to make sure you're telling me what you think, and not "playing along" for the sake of some argument you think I'm going to make about your answer.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't want to "play", I want to know what you actually think. Do you actually believe that statement is a true fact? I want to make sure you're telling me what you think, and not "playing along" for the sake of some argument you think I'm going to make about your answer.

So I said yes. What do you do with that answer?

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you actually believe that statement is a true fact?

I said yes.

Alright, I'll move ahead, but first a prediction. At some point you're going to say something to the effect of, "I only said 'yes' to satisfy my curiosity. I never actually affirmed that's what I really think". Because I think you don't want to commit to a position.

And second, like I said, once you stopped dodging, I'd answer too. I say 'no' it ain't true because "should" and "ought" are essentially meaningless in terms of morality. Because morality is subjective. And if that statement is a true fact, as you "said yes" to, then morality is objective. The central claim of an objective morality is that moral statements are facts. The same way that 2+2=4 is a fact, should and ought statements are facts. So when you claim that you don't believe in an objective morality, you're really talking about something else entirely, since you do believe in moral facts.

See a long while back you and I had a conversation, and then @zippy2006 came along and said he thought I misinterpreted you. I explained that what I think you're getting at is that there is real objective good and bad, but because we have different opinions on how to achieve the ends, that's what makes morality subjective. But the trick is that you're treating one kind of opinion (a guess) as a subjective opinion, and that doesn't really work, because the guesses are about objective facts. In my opinion chocolate ice cream is tasty. The tastiness of chocolate ice cream is subjective. In my opinion the next president will be a Democrat. The party affiliation of the next president is objective (we just don't know if it's true or not yet).

You even went so far as to outright state that morals aren't the same thing as our taste in flavors. I think you compared some kinds of alcoholic beverages. But that's what it means for morality to be subjective. Just like flavors, correct and incorrect are nonsense in terms of morals. Even if no one knows what the rules are, if you think that there are factual rules, you believe in an objective morality. I just wanted you to commit to a position to prove a point to Zippy. Like I said, I really don't care if you justify it or not.

And here's the rub. If you claimed to deny objective morality, but you waffled on my simple questions about what objective morality claims even a bit (and you waffled waaay more than a bit) it becomes clear that you don't have an accurate view of what people are claiming when they say morality is objective. Basically, you're arguing against a strawman. And if you fulfill my prophecy about recanting, well I still proved that I know what you're thinking, and frankly, that's good reason to believe that you really meant your "yes" anyways. Prove me wrong, lol.

 

[zippy2006]

Even if no one knows what the rules are, if you think that there are factual rules, you believe in an objective morality. I just wanted you to commit to a position to prove a point to Zippy. Like I said, I really don't care if you justify it or not.

My stance should be clear from posts like #493, 497, and 500. If the position is based on predictions about objectives states of affairs, then it is objective. If the position is based on consensus, then there is an important respect in which it is not objective. Different things have been argued at different points in the thread.

The ambiguity may arise because Bradskii is often assessing an outcome based on the expectation of how another human subject will behave. So it is a guess about how another person or set of persons will react.

For example, "It is bad to tell Orel that vanilla is the best ice cream." Why? Because the speaker believes that Orel believes that chocolate is the best ice cream and will react badly to the suggestion about vanilla. Still, it's not clear whether such a thing is subjective or objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

My stance should be clear from posts like #493, 497, and 500. If the position is based on predictions about objectives states of affairs, then it is objective. If the position is based on consensus, then there is an important respect in which it is not objective. Different things have been argued at different points in the thread.

The only point I was proving to you was that I had him pegged months ago.

 

[Bradskii]

Alright, I'll move ahead, but first a prediction. At some point you're going to say something to the effect of, "I only said 'yes' to satisfy my curiosity. I never actually affirmed that's what I really think". Because I think you don't want to commit to a position.

I've explained my position. You ask is it right we should always do good. Now that's an incredibly open ended question. Because what is right is almost always dependent upon the circumstances. In some cases one action may be correct and in another it might be considered wrong (hence the Trolley Problem where we an investigate this). Some Christians will take a deontological view in that some things are wrong in themsleves. So no circumstances need be considered. I don't agree with that. Circumstances dictate your actions.

As regards objective morality, we need to consider the facts relating to the act. And they must be indisputable. And that is the point where we have a problem. A single fact must stand alone. It must be absolutely true or false. And in some cases, that is not the case.

 

[Moral Orel]

I've explained my position. You ask is it right we should always do good. Now that's an incredibly open ended question. Because what is right is almost always dependent upon the circumstances. In some cases one action may be correct and in another it might be considered wrong (hence the Trolley Problem where we an investigate this). Some Christians will take a deontological view in that some things are wrong in themsleves. So no circumstances need be considered. I don't agree with that. Circumstances dictate your actions.

I know. And because you believe what we should do can be dictated, as a factual matter, you're on board with objective morality, just like I said months ago. If morality is subjective, then "should" and "ought" are essentially meaningless. You can't have factual statements with meaningless terms.

As regards objective morality, we need to consider the facts relating to the act. And they must be indisputable. And that is the point where we have a problem. A single fact must stand alone. It must be absolutely true or false. And in some cases, that is not the case.

Some facts will always be completely unknown to us, and yet they are still objective facts. Indisputable is not a criteria for objective. And sure, fine, circumstances dictate what the right thing to do is according to you. That just means that in these exact circumstances the right thing to do is this, and in those exact circumstances the right thing to do is that, and so forth. Maybe some circumstances cause there to be no right thing to do, that still doesn't mean you aren't speaking objectively. That sort of situation would be akin to someone asking, "Which is greater, four or four?", to which the objectively correct response is, "neither, they're equal". And you never stop speaking objectively.

Just the idea that morality can have factual statements about "should" and "ought" makes it objective. You want to point out that it's complicated and messy and sometimes we won't even know for sure what the right choice is, that's fine. You want to point out that sometimes there might not even be a right answer, that's fine too. Zippy ascribes to objective morality and he agrees with you. None of that precludes an objective morality. If there is ever a right or wrong act to choose, then morality is objective.

You, like so many other people here, are confusing relative with subjective. Morality can be relative to circumstances and still be objective. Subjective means that there is no right or wrong at all. Subjective means that it is akin to taste, like flavors of whiskey. If you don't think morality is analogous to taste as you've said, then you don't think morality is subjective. Think whatever you want to think, just get your label right, please.

 

[Bradskii]

I know. And because you believe what we should do can be dictated, as a factual matter, you're on board with objective morality, just like I said months ago. If morality is subjective, then "should" and "ought" are essentially meaningless. You can't have factual statements with meaningless terms.

Some facts will always be completely unknown to us, and yet they are still objective facts. Indisputable is not a criteria for objective. And sure, fine, circumstances dictate what the right thing to do is according to you. That just means that in these exact circumstances the right thing to do is this, and in those exact circumstances the right thing to do is that, and so forth.

But that's not correct.

Back to the trolley problem. The facts are indisputable. They are objective facts. Pull this lever, one person dies. Don't pull it, five people die. So is actively killing one person wrong, as many Catholics would say? Or do we consider the sacrifice of one life to be worth five? Your subjective opinion, based on absolute facts with which we both agree, may well differ from mine.

So even when the facts are objective, it still leaves us with the problem as to how we personally interpret them.

 

[Moral Orel]

But that's not correct. Pull this lever, one person dies. Don't pull it, five people die. So is actively killing one person wrong, as many Catholics would say? Or do we consider the sacrifice of one life to be worth five? Your subjective opinion, based on absolute facts with which we both agree, may well differ from mine.

So even when the facts are objective, it still leaves us with the problem as to how we personally interpret them.

But you're forgetting about the facts of how we should act. Either "One shouldn't actively kill another no matter what" is true, or "One should kill a person to save five people" is true. Just because folks disagree that doesn't mean it's subjective. It means that one person is correct and one person is incorrect.

We evaluate the situation, circumstances, evidence, what-have-you, to make a guess about an objective fact. If "should" statements can be true facts, that's what we're doing anyways. I don't believe they can, but you say otherwise.

 

[Bradskii]

But you're forgetting about the facts of how we should act. Either "One shouldn't actively kill another no matter what" is true, or "One should kill a person to save five people" is true. Just because folks disagree that doesn't mean it's subjective. It means that one person is correct and one person is incorrect.

That's a nice circular argument you have there. You're taking a moral position (we ought to do this) and declaring it to be one of the facts that we must use to determine what the moral position should be (what ought we to do?).

 

[Moral Orel]

That's a nice circular argument you have there. You're taking a moral position (we ought to do this) and declaring it to be one of the facts that we must use to determine what the moral position should be (what ought we to do?).

No, I'm not. It's only the conclusion, not a premise.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I'm not. It's only the conclusion, not a premise.

You noted it as being one of the facts that we need to consider. You even highlighted the word:

'But you're forgetting about the facts of how we should act. Either "One shouldn't actively kill another no matter what" is true, or "One should kill a person to save five people" is true.'

Let's take the first as being the fact of the matter and then determine the conclusion. You're then sayin 'one shouldn't actively kill another no matter what, therefore...one shouldn't actively kill another no matter what'.

 

[Moral Orel]

You noted it as being one of the facts that we need to consider. You even highlighted the word:

'But you're forgetting about the facts of how we should act. Either "One shouldn't actively kill another no matter what" is true, or "One should kill a person to save five people" is true.'

Let's take the first as being the fact of the matter and then determine the conclusion. You're then sayin 'one shouldn't actively kill another no matter what, therefore...one shouldn't actively kill another no matter what'.

Ahh, okay. So the conclusion you're talking about is pulling the lever or not pulling the lever.

So yeah, the argument from a Catholic is going to be essentially:
p we shouldn't actively kill someone no matter what
p pulling the lever actively kills someone
c we shouldn't pull the lever

Nothing circular about that. It's a completely valid argument. It's a premise and not the conclusion. It's only circular if it's both.

 

[Bradskii]

Ahh, okay. So the conclusion you're talking about is pulling the lever or not pulling the lever.

So yeah, the argument from a Catholic is going to be essentially:
p we shouldn't actively kill someone no matter what
p pulling the lever actively kills someone
c we shouldn't pull the lever

Nothing circular about that. It's a completely valid argument. It's a premise and not the conclusion. It's only circular if it's both.

Some Catholics don't require any proposals. They're superfluous. There is no 'conclusion' so there's no need for premises. So there is no argument. There is simply a rule: Don't actively kill an innocent person. Period.

 

[Moral Orel]

Some Catholics don't require any proposals. They're superfluous. There is no 'conclusion' so there's no need for premises. So there is no argument. There is simply a rule: Don't actively kill an innocent person. Period.

Uhh... I just presented the argument and the conclusion. I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Bradskii]

Uhh... I just presented the argument and the conclusion. I don't know what you're talking about.

One of the premises is the same as the conclusion.

The Roosters play the best footy.
Nobody else plays better.
Therefore the Roosters play the best footy.

Please tell me that you see that that's nonsensical.