At 11:52 AM 2/20/2007, ANTIcarrot wrote:
>Between them, Newton and Einstein wrote the book on gravity. (Ignoring for
>the moment the nagging little details like dark matter that cosmologists
>like to worry about.) Their theories of gravity apply to everything. To
>every particle of matter, whether it be star, rock, plant, or animal. Their
>rules even apply to humans.
True.
>Ideally, I believe, rules of ethics should similarly be as universal as
>possible. In my opinion, if a proposed rule of ethics can produce a result
>which is logically foolish (if it for example 'proves' that no human before
>3000BC was a person for example) is flawed.
Hmmm... That was a twist on words that really shades things.
"Rules" on Gravity are "This is how we observe it works, it makes the rules."
"Rules" in ethics are "This is what we say it should be, based on our own
opinions and viewpoints."
The whole definition of "Right vs Wrong" really comes down to a combination
of personal view and overall effect. It is "wrong" to kill
somebody/something. But is it "Right" to not kill somebody who is going on
a killing rampage in a mall and made it very clear that the only way to
stop them is either by their death or by methods which may not kill them,
but will result in the deaths of hundreds more?
Details:
XXX is killing hundreds of people at the mall.
Option 1: Kill XXX. Three more people besides him die.
Option 2: Try to avoid killing XXX but bring him under control instead. 50
more people will die.
("But what about bringing him under control without anybody else
dying? You need to consider that option!" Well, if that were an option,
it would be great, right? But hey, given the resources and rate at which
he is killing people, it's not an option. Reality overrides utopian
desires. Much as I'd LOVE for XXX to put down his weapons and stop the
killing for a moment while we figure out how to bring him under control
without him killing anybody else, he's not going to do that. And while you
were busy arguing for that option, 15 more people died at his hands. Good
job.)
However at the same time, the Overall View of this really comes down to
basic needs, desires, and life forces.
Basic concept:
Make more.
...
That's it. Everything else is just a means to that end. All of the other
life needs break down from that. The sole purpose of living things, and
the measure of their success, is their ability to make more of themselves.
The needs to eat, breathe, expel waste, keep out of the elements, etc, all
focus on keeping the entity alive. But staying alive is not enough. The
sole purpose of staying alive is to make more of you over the long
run. Adaptation. Strongest surviving. Mate selection. Sex feeling
good. All of that is just a way to try to encourage the best process of
making more.
Even "play" and even all advanced concepts of "sentience" are really just
extended desires that lead to that basic goal. Having a car, through
varying aspects, either helps perform natural selection by removing
less-suitable people from the gene pool, or allows the "more suitable" ones
a better chance of reproducing and having their offspring survive and be
strong. A wildcat "Playing" even as an adult may learn better hunting
skills and be able to provide for cubs better. Chimpanzees going out and
slaughtering the competing tribe to the last kid even helps ensure that
their genes are going to survive while the others' don't. Of course, the
policy is necessary because if they don't slaughter the other tribe, the
other tribe may slaughter them later and then their genes wouldn't
survive. This would be bad, so they must slaughter the rest.
Morals and ethics (I'll just use morals) investigates the concept of
meeting both this basic need as well as extended desires without depriving
others of either basic needs or extended desires. However morals is a give
only. An individual can seek to not deprive, but any other who doesn't
cannot be acted upon directly without that act being immoral.
Consider:
A person with certain morals will not steal from the store, since that
would damage others' basic needs and extended desires in a way.
A person without those same morals will steal. But other than "trying to
convince them it's wrong", the only way to prevent it if that is not
possible is potentially immoral. Incarceration is technically immoral by
the basic definition of not depriving others. Allowing them free when the
jails are overfilled could be considered immoral, since now they go back to
hurting others. Killing them is definitely immoral, since it deprives them
of Basic Function #1: Reproduce (Which requires being alive).
So Morality is actually a balance within which the good of the many
outweighs the good of a few. If a pair of serial killers have slaughtered
dozens of people, and all efforts to rehabilitate them have failed, is it
more moral to incarcerate them, or more moral to allow them to be free and
continue trying to convince them they're wrong while they continue to
slaughter dozens more?
Hell, in another argument, is it moral to allow an alien race that has
slaughtered the whole population of dozens of planets to continue to do
this while you try to reason with them and use logic and morals? Or is it
more moral to incarcerate that race of slaughtering aliens and keep them on
their few planets, thus saving hundreds of other planets? But how do you
build a jail out of a planet? Well, you force them to stay there under
penalty of death if they leave. Can't build walls after all.
Of course, somebody came to the conclusion that this imprisonment was
"ethnic genocide" and took a moral high ground on it without actually
considering the whole picture. They completely failed to look at the fact
that they were incarcerated, not killed. And they failed to look at the
fact that the alternative was the continuing destruction of a planet a day
or more.
So, morals can be very immoral if you're not careful. Misguided
morals. There's a wonderful concept. "It's MEAN to keep ANY animal locked
up! These ferrets must go free!" Okay, there may be morals that say
keeping an animal locked up is bad. But at the same time, ferrets as they
exist right now are not capable of surviving more than a few days in the
wild. So that wonderfully moral person who frees them has condemned them
to death.
There is no ideal unless EVERYBODY has perfect ethics and morals. And
anybody who tries to have perfect morals will only get hurt badly by those
who don't. Morality is a balancing act between hurting others, allowing
others to be hurt, and hurting yourself. Or, more specifically, the lack
of all three.
Received on Tue Feb 20 2007 - 15:50:08 CST