The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[Bradskii]

So it's all based on what individuals prefer? How does that differ from subjective morality?

It doesn't. It effectively is subjective morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

It doesn't. It effectively is subjective morality.

I thought you were attempting to create some sort of framework for an objective morality in that post of yours to D-Wood. Was I mistaken?

 

[Bradskii]

I thought you were attempting to create some sort of framework for an objective morality in that post of yours to D-Wood. Was I mistaken?

There are objective facts. But no objective morality. There are situations when we will all agree that an act is wrong. And that some will claim to therefore be immoral. But that means that everything which we agree is wrong is immoral. So if we all agree that working on a Sunday is immoral, would that make it so?

Something is wrong if there are negative outcomes (or intended negative outcomes). It cannot be wrong if there aren't.

 

[Moral Orel]

Something is wrong if there are negative outcomes (or intended negative outcomes).

Why?

 

[Bradskii]

Why?

Whut? It's the definition of wrong. If an act is wrong then there was an outcome which was used to determine that fact. And the only two possible options are:

1. There was a positive outcome.
2. There was a negative outcome.

Which one would you like to pick? I'll save some time and pick it for you as there's only one logical answer. There was a negative outcome. Ipso facto: Something is wrong if there are negative outcomes.

And yes, the act of killing one guy is a negative outcome for him but a positive outcome for the five. So one needs to take a wider picture on ocassions. At what point do you stop looking at the bigger picture?

Grab another beer and discuss.

 

[Moral Orel]

Whut? It's the definition of wrong.

It isn't in the definition of "wrong". "Wrong" is what you shouldn't do, "right" is what you should do. Whether or not there is a positive or negative outcome is something that you want to make a part of how we determine what we should and shouldn't do. So why should we do things with a positive outcome? Why shouldn't we do things with a negative outcome?

How and why do you link "things you shouldn't do" with "cause a negative outcome"?

How and why do you link "things you should do" with "cause a positive outcome"?

 

[Bradskii]

It isn't in the definition of "wrong". "Wrong" is what you shouldn't do...

You shouldn't do it because it's wrong? You sound like a bad parent.

'Don't do that, young man'.
'Why?'
'Because...well, because it's...wrong'.

Is that it? Or should you should tell the kid not do it because to do it is to act in an 'unsuitable or undesirable manner'.

'How do we know that it's unsuitable or undesirable, daddy?'
'Well, because it will result in a negative outcome. Which means something we don't want to happen'.

 

[Moral Orel]

You shouldn't do it because it's wrong? You sound like a bad parent.

'Don't do that, young man'.
'Why?'
'Because...well, because it's...wrong'.

That's not what I said. I said something is wrong if it's something you shouldn't do. I'm asking you why I shouldn't do wrong things. Why shouldn't I cause negative outcomes?

Is that it? Or should you should tell the kid not do it because to do it is to act in an 'unsuitable or undesirable manner'.

Why shouldn't we act in an unsuitable or undesirable manner?

The burglar robbed your house. He was happy, you were mad. Your house being robbed is something that he wanted to happen. So calling it "something we don't want to happen" doesn't fit.

 

[Bradskii]

Why shouldn't I cause negative outcomes?
Why shouldn't we act in an unsuitable or undesirable manner?

Thanks for your input.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thanks for your input.

You were just scolding me for answering in a manner like saying, "Just because!". But when I ask you "why?" you blow me off. There is no answer to "why". You just feel like it's obviously true. If it was factually true that "one shouldn't cause negative outcomes" then morality would be objective. So can you demonstrate that it's true, or do expect me to accept it on faith?

 

[o_mlly]

Are we having fun talking about objective-morality again?

Would I be wrong in thinking that "objective" implies something you can demonstrate, rather than taking on faith?

Our self-proclaimed luminary on the objectivity of moral subjectivism fled the thread when his lamp failed to light.

Objective morality is demonstrable in the concrete. If one knows with specificity the object of the human act, the intention of the actor and the pertinent circumstances then the act can be judged moral or immoral.

The mere physicality of the act is insufficient to determine the object of the act. For instance, sexual intercourse is a human act. Between married couples of the opposite sex the act is, in its object, good. If the intent of the actors is propagation or pleasure then the intent is good. If the circumstance is to perform the act in public, say in a pornographic movie studio, then the circumstance is evil which defect renders the act evil.

 

[Bradskii]

If it was factually true that "one shouldn't cause negative outcomes" then morality would be objective.

Some acts are ones that we would all agree are wrong. That doesn't make the act objectively immoral on that basis. Otherwise all acts that we agree are wrong would be objectively wrong. That's plainly nonsensical.

When the father says 'You shouldn't hit your sister', there's no 'ought from is' implied. He's not making a philosophical point. He is using common parlance to persuade his kid that hitting his sister is an act that has a negative outcome for her - she'd prefer not to be hit. And the father would prefer it. And the kid better learn to prefer it or he'll suffer an act himself that he'd consider a negative result.

It's the same as if he'd said 'You shouldn't get your nose pierced'. Not because it's objectively immoral, but because he believes that there are negative implications. Everyone might agree. But that doesn't then make it objectively immoral.

 

[Moral Orel]

Our self-proclaimed luminary on the objectivity of moral subjectivism fled the thread when his lamp failed to light.

Nope. I stopped replying to you because the subject went over your head. Brad still has hope of grasping all the implications of a subjective morality so I haven't "fled the thread".

 

[Moral Orel]

Some acts are ones that we would all agree are wrong. That doesn't make the act objectively immoral on that basis. Otherwise all acts that we agree are wrong would be objectively wrong. That's plainly nonsensical.

When the father says 'You shouldn't hit your sister', there's no 'ought from is' implied. He's not making a philosophical point. He is using common parlance to persuade his kid that hitting his sister is an act that has a negative outcome for her - she'd prefer not to be hit. And the father would prefer it. And the kid better learn to prefer it or he'll suffer an act himself that he'd consider a negative result.

It's the same as if he'd said 'You shouldn't get your nose pierced'. Not because it's objectively immoral, but because he believes that there are negative implications. Everyone might agree. But that doesn't then make it objectively immoral.

Well then just say you're using "right" and "wrong" in the colloquial sense if that's how you meant it. Since we're specifically trying to delineate between subjective and objective, it's a lot less confusing if you avoid those terms in this context.

 

[Bradskii]

Well then just say you're using "right" and "wrong" in the colloquial sense if that's how you meant it. Since we're specifically trying to delineate between subjective and objective, it's a lot less confusing if you avoid those terms in this context.

I'm not going to put the words right and wrong in quotes every time I use them to differentiate what I mean by them and what you might mean by them.

I stated right at the outset that objective morality doesn't exist, so my use of those terms should have been clear from the start. Especially as I've spent a few posts explaining exactly what I mean by them.

 

[Moral Orel]

I stated right at the outset that objective morality doesn't exist, so my use of those terms should have been clear from the start. Especially as I've spent a few posts explaining exactly what I mean by them.

You stated that you were taking a crack at crafting an objective morality. That's where this exchange started. I don't know why you'd attempt anything of the sort if you thought it impossible. I wouldn't assume you were using "right" and "wrong" in the "ought" sense if you weren't trying to make a model for objective morality.

So let's take a look back at something you said that I found contentious, and translate it.

Something is wrong if there are negative outcomes (or intended negative outcomes). It cannot be wrong if there aren't.

Since "wrong" only means "undesirable" and "negative" only means "disliked", then what you meant is that:
Something is undesirable if there are outcomes I don't like (or intended outcomes I don't like). It cannot be undesirable if there aren't any outcomes I don't like.

You've just crafted a completely benign and frankly tautological statement to have the objective language used by most people discussing morality. And it's my fault I found your posts misleading...

Look, if we agree to goals, then we can make objective statements about how to reach those goals. But since those goals aren't objectively good or bad, we haven't done anything special or different. You haven't created some kind of quasi-objective morality.

 

[Bradskii]

You stated that you were taking a crack at crafting an objective morality.

There is no such thing. How can I attempt to craft something that doesn't exist? You completely misread my first post on this matter and you seem to be perpetuating that error.

Since "wrong" only means "undesirable" and "negative" only means "disliked", then what you meant is that:
Something is undesirable if there are outcomes I don't like (or intended outcomes I don't like). It cannot be undesirable if there aren't any outcomes I don't like.

All dogs have four legs. That animal has four legs, so is it a dog?

Just because a negative outcome is something I'd prefer not happen (I'd not like it), it doesn't mean that everything I don't like is a negative outcome. In other words, you can't transpose the two terms and have the same meaning.

I'm doing my best to give you terms that are generally applicable to most circumstances. If you try to transpose each of them and dissect each one for a deeper meaning then it won't work. The very nature of the beast means that you need to examine a specific act in specific circumstances and do your best to determine if the specific outcome is beneficial/positive/right or not (or any other term suitable for the situation that you'd think applicable) and decide if it's the correct action to take.

Hence the trolley problem and the many variations. You seem to want a set of rules that will be applicable in all situations so we can determine, effectively, what the objectively moral law must be. There's no such thing, so there is no set of rules or combination of terms that will do that.

 

[o_mlly]

I stopped replying to you because the subject went over your head. Brad still has hope of grasping all the implications of a subjective morality so I haven't "fled the thread".

So you think that you are the "self-proclaimed luminary" that fled the thread? OK. Tell us your argument that proves objectively that moral subjectivism is true. Do you know why you won't? It's because you can't. Just admit it and you can go back to your therapist and argue about your feelings on chocolate ice cream.

 

[Moral Orel]

So you think that you are the "self-proclaimed luminary" that fled the thread? OK. Tell us your argument that proves objectively that moral subjectivism is true.

Sure. Just as soon as you demonstrate that you even understand what moral subjectivism is.

 

[o_mlly]

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

The justification for the policeman's use of lethal force can be conservatively summarized as:
1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others
2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent
3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality
Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?

Summing up the progress so far:

The state may act in self-defense with the same circumstances as the policeman who acts in self-defense.

Unless one feels that morality is only in the mind in which case both the unjust aggressor and the targeted state of that aggression are both morally good to go.

Unless the aggressor ties several people to tracks and vacates the area.

Unless the plane is aimed at a less populated area in the targeted state.

Please stay on topic.