View Full Version : Question for Wiploc: Your metaethics and child molestation
Unless I am mistaken--and I very well could be--wiploc wishes to define evilness as suffering or at least gratuitous suffering. Formally, we can say that wiploc's definition amounts to-
Act S is evil if and only if act S causes suffering or gratuitous suffering.
I find this definition to be profoundly problematic for a variety of reasons. However, at the moment, I would only like to focus on one problem. To introduce this problem, I deploy a hypothetical scenario:
Imagine George is a baby sitter for a newborn infant named Sally. Sally's parents are on their weekly date and have hired George to care for Sally during their absence. While the parents are on their date, George sexually molests Sally. It is important to assume that during this molestation, George does not physically injure Sally; George only feels Sally's genitals. We should also make two other assumptions: (1) that no one discovers George's molestation of Sally and hence no other person should suffer from George's deeds at all. Finally, (2), Sally is too young to understand or recall that George molested her and hence Sally does not experience mental anguish, either.
Under wiploc's definition, I cannot understand how George's actions constitute an evil act. Yet, my moral intuitions tell me (and I assume the feeling is mutual) that George did commit an evil act. Since moral intuitions are paramount to moral reasoning, then the abovementioned hypothetical problem poses a significant obstacle for wiploc.
How do you respond, wiploc?
His Noodly Appendage
11-01-2008, 05:42 PM
So, your argument goes something like this:
P1: Under Y, X would not be evil.
P2: X is evil.
C1: Therefore, Y is wrong.
C2: Therefore, X is evil.
So, your argument goes something like this:
P1: Under Y, X would not be evil.
P2: X is evil.
C1: Therefore, Y is wrong.
C2: Therefore, X is evil.
No. that's a weird argument to attribute to me. And, P2 and C2 are equivalent.
To clarify: I did not state that P2 is true. I said that my moral intuitions tell me that Y is wrong, but that's not enough to say that P2 is true. After all, it is consistent -at least on my view-to say that x is not wrong and my moral intuitions tell me that x is wrong.
I should add that if a person did agree that P2 is evil, then that person could not consistently accept the definition that I attributed to wiploc. This person would need to either totally reject the definition or emendate it to something similar but consistent with P2.
I should also add that George's happiness resulting from molesting Sally exists in isolation. There is no overcoming or balancing suffering that occludes the corresponding utilitarian imperative that-
George ought to molest Sally (in this circumstance).
Wiploc may try to hude behing Rule Utilitarianism, but I doubt it will do him any good.
Columbus
11-02-2008, 03:09 AM
I should also add that George's happiness resulting from molesting Sally exists in isolation. There is no overcoming or balancing suffering that occludes the corresponding utilitarian imperative that-
George ought to molest Sally (in this circumstance).
I'm not speaking for Wiploc, of course. But I think you are completely wrong here.
It is not possible for George to get happiness from sexually fondling new borns. He might get pleasure from it, but not happiness.
Now, I've changed enough diapers to know that new borns are OK with being touched in ways that older people would be outraged by. It is quite possible for George to touch Sally without doing her any harm. But the problem here is that seeing children as sexually gratifying cannot happen "in isolation". Sexuality just doesn't work in isolation, at least not after you're twelve or thirteen. So if George is getting his jollies off of tiny kids then there are at least two problems. One, George clearly has a problem relating to other adults sexually. Which leads to Two, George is a danger to children. Having sex with children is a huge cause of damage. Therefore it is simply not permissable, ever. Society cannot prevent it from happening, per se, so the best we can do is to attach heavy penalties to getting caught at it. Even if George didn't actually cause Sally any damage, he is liable for severe punishment because his behaviour is so risky.
It is like driving drunk. Even though most intoxicated drivers get where they are going without causing any harm, driving drunk carries an increased risk of harm to others that is unacceptable. So it doesn't matter if you are turning into your driveway after driving fifty miles without crashing into a pedestrian, if you get caught driving drunk you will pay dearly. Not because you actually caused any damage, but because you took a chance with other people's safety in a way that is clearly proscribed.
Wiploc may try to hude behing Rule Utilitarianism, but I doubt it will do him any good. Again, I can't speak for Wiploc. But I don't have any problem with rules that are based on the probabilities of causing damage. I don't see any reason to wait until someone has caused permanent damage to sanction behaviour that is excruciatingly likely to cause such damage. Some forms of behaviour can be judged in advance of the harm caused, drunk driving and child molestation are only two of those forms.
Tom
It is not possible for George to get happiness from sexually fondling new borns. He might get pleasure from it, but not happiness. Impossible? This would mean that there is a contradiction within-
George molested Sally and on the account George was happy.
I don't see how or where you supported that.
Sexuality just doesn't work in isolation, at least not after you're twelve or thirteen. So if George is getting his jollies off of tiny kids then there are at least two problems. One, George clearly has a problem relating to other adults sexually. Which leads to Two, George is a danger to children. Having sex with children is a huge cause of damage. Therefore it is simply not permissable, ever.
Who said sex? I said molest.
Society cannot prevent it from happening, per se, so the best we can do is to attach heavy penalties to getting caught at it. Even if George didn't actually cause Sally any damage, he is liable for severe punishment because his behaviour is so risky.
This thread is not about punishment.
It is like driving drunk. Even though most intoxicated drivers get where they are going without causing any harm, driving drunk carries an increased risk of harm to others that is unacceptable.
DD pose an immediate harm to others. Can you show me how the problem of George and Sally are relevantly similar?
Again, I can't speak for Wiploc. But I don't have any problem with rules that are based on the probabilities of causing damage.
Where is this probability coming from?
GenesisNemesis
11-02-2008, 03:44 AM
Act S is evil if and only if act S causes suffering or gratuitous suffering.
Statement A is evil if and only if Statement A is in bold.
His Noodly Appendage
11-02-2008, 05:20 AM
I don't know wiploc's position, but I suspect that the statement you produce is something of an overgeneralisation.
There's a whole bunch of marginal cases that make something of a mockery of a literal interpretation of that position.
First, we need to look at intent.
If someone runs out onto the freeway, hitting them with your car may a tragedy, but it surely cannot be called evil. With no intent to harm (and no egregious negligence), there cannot be malice.
Is intent to harm the whole of it? You might think so, since dropping a safe on someone's head is surely evil, even if you miss and no harm results.
But it's not that simple. What if, ferinstance, you cast spells in an attempt to make your enemy's heart explode inside his chest? There's all kind of ill intent there, but it's not equivalent to attempted murder. So, there needs to be some kind of credible threat to the victim. And equally, there needs to be a credible victim - attempting to kick your imaginary friend down the stairs is also just kinda sad and creepy, not soul-blackening murder.
Also, when you're looking at 'ought', you don't have access to future outcomes - only predictions thereof. 'Ought' doesn't work in hindsight.
So if an action, be it driving drunk or groping a child, is likely to cause harm, then that's what you have to go on. And the worse the worst-case outcome, the lower the probability of harm needs to be in order for the action to be unethical.
Since both the likelihood and potential harm of both actions is unacceptably high, then doing so is unethical, even if nothing bad happens, and even if something else good results.
And finally, 'ought' does not apply to 'good but no harm' actions. Another chocolate would doubtless bring me pleasure, with no harm resulting, but that does not mean I have any kind of moral obligation to eat one. In order for 'ought' to apply, the action needs to prevent harm. And neither does it apply to good/harm for oneself. Even if I would be miserable for the lack of another chocolate, I still have no kind of moral obligation. It's only if someone else would suffer if I didn't that I could claim that I ought to.
Did I miss anything?
Columbus
11-02-2008, 05:52 AM
It is not possible for George to get happiness from sexually fondling new borns. He might get pleasure from it, but not happiness. Impossible? This would mean that there is a contradiction within-
George molested Sally and on the account George was happy.
I don't see how or where you supported that.
I supported it just below. I didn't go into a bunch of detail, because it didn't seem needful."Sexuality just doesn't work in isolation, at least not after you're twelve or thirteen. So if George is getting his jollies off of tiny kids then there are at least two problems. One, George clearly has a problem relating to other adults sexually." Nobody can be happy if their sexuality is so stunted that they get off on babies. The best sex is between mutually supportive adults giving each other gifts of pleasure, the worst sex is is between a predator and his prey. George falls nearer the latter category.
If I were on a "jury of his peers" I would feel badly for his predicament, but if I was sure he was guilty I'd vote to lock him up.
Quote:
Sexuality just doesn't work in isolation, at least not after you're twelve or thirteen. So if George is getting his jollies off of tiny kids then there are at least two problems. One, George clearly has a problem relating to other adults sexually. Which leads to Two, George is a danger to children. Having sex with children is a huge cause of damage. Therefore it is simply not permissable, ever.
Who said sex? I said molest. I've changed babies diapers, touching them in places. I wasn't molesting them. What you said was:While the parents are on their date, George sexually molests Sally. That's what I was going on. Your hypothetical statement included the term "sexually molests".
Quote:
Society cannot prevent it from happening, per se, so the best we can do is to attach heavy penalties to getting caught at it. Even if George didn't actually cause Sally any damage, he is liable for severe punishment because his behaviour is so risky.
This thread is not about punishment.Well, it is now. Maybe George didn't really do any damage to Sally by sexually molesting her, but sexually molesting children is so fraught with potential damage that punishment is warranted, regardless of the actual outcome. There is no feasible way to determine whether or not the sexual molestation will result in long term damage, but the damage is so clearly possible and enormous, that the only real option is to severely punish people who break the laws regarding statutory rape, even if they have caused no apparent damage.
Quote:
It is like driving drunk. Even though most intoxicated drivers get where they are going without causing any harm, driving drunk carries an increased risk of harm to others that is unacceptable.
DD pose an immediate harm to others. Can you show me how the problem of George and Sally are relevantly similar?Sure. The statistics concerning sexual molestation of children aren't that hard to find. I could give you some anecdotal evidence from people I know personally.
Exactly what sort of evidence would you need to believe that sexually molesting children causes more damage than driving drunk?
The problem with your hypothetical, the reason that it isn't relevant to the human situation, is the "in isolation" part. Sexually molesting children does not occur "in isolation". George sexually molesting Sally didn't necessarily do anything that I didn't do when I cleaned my 6 month old niece with baby wipes. The difference is that I was taking care of her, there was nothing sexual about it all.(Actually, I thought it was kind of gross, I was really doing it so my sister and her husband could go out on a "date". I'm a fag non-parent. I never chose having babies with shitty bottoms:eek:) You described George as sexually molesting Sally.
Quote:
Again, I can't speak for Wiploc. But I don't have any problem with rules that are based on the probabilities of causing damage.
Where is this probability coming from? From real life observations and experiences. I know people who were molested as kids, the long term effects are ugly, pervasive, and nearly inescapable for the victims. You could Google out statistics if you care to get empirical data. The probability is coming from data that is quite available to anyone who wants to base their opinion on facts.
I don't see anything objectively wrong with sex between adults and kids. What I do see is the damage done, the degradation of the human situation as a whole. So while it is possible that any given episode of statutory rape might not result in a disaster, the likelihood that it will and the overwhelming evidence that it generally does is enough for me to support strong laws concerning it and demand consistent enforcement.
Tom
I suppose I think there are degrees of "wrongness". If a five-year-old attempts sexual molestation of a three-year-old, it's wrong mainly because of what it may lead to rather than in terms of harm caused, unless, say, there is an attempt at penetration with a damaging instument. And regardless of who's doing it, I don't see "fondling" as being as bad as penetration.
But what is objectionable is exploitation of the weaker by the stronger. Consensual sex between 14-year-olds may be against the law, but it's not the same thing as sex between a 14-year-old girl and her 29-year-old teacher.
I think we try to protect children in such situations because they are not normally in a position to understand the implications of various actions and they find it hard to withstand pressure from adults.
[QUOTE=His Noodly Appendage;237674]First, we need to look at intent.
If someone runs out onto the freeway, hitting them with your car may a tragedy, but it surely cannot be called evil. With no intent to harm (and no egregious negligence), there cannot be malice.
Is intent to harm the whole of it? You might think so, since dropping a safe on someone's head is surely evil, even if you miss and no harm results. But it's not that simple. What if, ferinstance, you cast spells in an attempt to make your enemy's heart explode inside his chest? There's all kind of ill intent there, but it's not equivalent to attempted murder. So, there needs to be some kind of credible threat to the victim. And equally, there needs to be a credible victim - attempting to kick your imaginary friend down the stairs is also just kinda sad and creepy, not soul-blackening murder.
I don't mean to be rude, but what's your point? you didnt relate this to the hypothetical problem at all.
Also, when you're looking at 'ought', you don't have access to future outcomes - only predictions thereof. 'Ought' doesn't work in hindsight.
let's say George is omniscient or that there is noo good reason to think that Sallyor anyone other than him will know about it and good reason to think they they won't.
These are trivial objections, guys.
And finally, 'ought' does not apply to 'good but no harm' actions. Another chocolate would doubtless bring me pleasure, with no harm resulting, but that does not mean I have any kind of moral obligation to eat one.
I never said pleasure, I said happiness. Moreover, utilitarianism tends to be a normative theory. This means what one ought to do.
In order for 'ought' to apply, the action needs to prevent harm.
I'm not aware of this caveat within any utilitarian system.
I supported it just below. I didn't go into a bunch of detail, because it didn't seem needful."Sexuality just doesn't work in isolation, at least not after you're twelve or thirteen. So if George is getting his jollies off of tiny kids then there are at least two problems. One, George clearly has a problem relating to other adults sexually." Nobody can be happy if their sexuality is so stunted that they get off on babies. The best sex is between mutually supportive adults giving each other gifts of pleasure, the worst sex is is between a predator and his prey. George falls nearer the latter category.
This does not support an impossibility. It supports improbability.
If I were on a "jury of his peers" I would feel badly for his predicament, but if I was sure he was guilty I'd vote to lock him up.
I've changed babies diapers, touching them in places. I wasn't molesting them. What you said was: That's what I was going on. Your hypothetical statement included the term "sexually molests".
yes, molest. sexually molest. Sexual molest is not sex.
Well, it is now.
No, no it is not. I will just ignore you attempts to do so.
but sexually molesting children is so fraught with potential damage that punishment is warranted,
This is not about children, this is about infant Sally.
There is no feasible way to determine whether or not the sexual molestation will result in long term damage, but the damage is so clearly possible and enormous, that the only real option is to severely punish people who break the laws regarding statutory rape, even if they have caused no apparent damage.
I will ignore this punish talk because it has nothing to do with the OP.
Sure. The statistics concerning sexual molestation of children aren't that hard to find. I could give you some anecdotal evidence from people I know personally. keep your anecdotal evidence.
Exactly what sort of evidence would you need to believe that sexually molesting children causes more damage than driving drunk?
It's not just about the extent damage. It's about the likelihood of that damage.
The problem with your hypothetical, the reason that it isn't relevant to the human situation, is the "in isolation" part. Sexually molesting children does not occur "in isolation". Quit making vacuous declarations.
George sexually molesting Sally didn't necessarily do anything that I didn't do when I cleaned my 6 month old niece with baby wipes. The difference is that I was taking care of her, there was nothing sexual about it all.
That's a pretty big difference. :dunno:
From real life observations and experiences. please don't waste my time.
Columbus
11-02-2008, 08:00 PM
please don't waste my time.I'm not sure why wiploc hasn't responded to your oversimplification of his meta-ethic. Maybe he's too busy trouncing you in the Rat Ring. Maybe he thinks this thread is a waste of his time. I don't know.
The problem here seems to be that you are arguing for an objective morality, without saying so. Molesting babies in a way that doesn't do them any damage doesn't become OK because they haven't suffered any harm or experienced anything they don't experience every bath-time. In your OP you ascribed the statement "Act S is evil if and only if act S causes suffering or gratuitous suffering." to wiploc. Where I am taking exception is to the and only if part. Some acts are evil because they tend to lead to degradation of the human situation even if one particular event doesn't. Shooting at someone you don't like does not become a moral act if you happen to miss and take out a serial killer instead, thereby saving a few more victims.
Tom
please don't waste my time.I'm not sure why wiploc hasn't responded to your oversimplification of his meta-ethic. Maybe he's too busy trouncing you in the Rat Ring. Maybe he thinks this thread is a waste of his time. I don't know.
You should refrain from talking about issues you clearly do not understand.
Here's a check list:
Get a dose of modal logic and metaethics. Then comment on the ring rat thread. Until then, you havent got a clue.
His Noodly Appendage
11-03-2008, 12:05 AM
First, we need to look at intent.
If someone runs out onto the freeway, hitting them with your car may a tragedy, but it surely cannot be called evil. With no intent to harm (and no egregious negligence), there cannot be malice.
Is intent to harm the whole of it? You might think so, since dropping a safe on someone's head is surely evil, even if you miss and no harm results. But it's not that simple. What if, ferinstance, you cast spells in an attempt to make your enemy's heart explode inside his chest? There's all kind of ill intent there, but it's not equivalent to attempted murder. So, there needs to be some kind of credible threat to the victim. And equally, there needs to be a credible victim - attempting to kick your imaginary friend down the stairs is also just kinda sad and creepy, not soul-blackening murder.
I don't mean to be rude, but what's your point? you didnt relate this to the hypothetical problem at all.
I'm showing how your gross oversimplification is silly.
let's say George is omniscient or that there is noo good reason to think that Sallyor anyone other than him will know about it and good reason to think they they won't.
These are trivial objections, guys.
If I am a preternaturally good archer, with reflexes and accuracy sufficient to pin moving flies to the wall at a hundred paces with no failures in 10,000 attempts, it is not immoral to do the William Tell trick with a willing volunteer.
If I'm an ordinary person, it is.
Whether the act was harmful is knowable only in hindsight.
Whether the act is malicious, callous, reckless or negligent is knowable in advance. And deliberately making such a decision is evil.
I never said pleasure, I said happiness. Moreover, utilitarianism tends to be a normative theory. This means what one ought to do.
In order for 'ought' to apply, the action needs to prevent harm.
I'm not aware of this caveat within any utilitarian system.
Evidently, which is why I pointed it out.
I have no moral obligation to be happy, and I'd love to see you make an argument for such. This is why I presented the chocolate scenario. Though the chocolate might make me happy, I don't see you arguing that I ought to eat it.
I also have no moral obligation to go out of my way to make others happy. Shall I bake cookies for my co-workers? Well, sure, if I want to. But there is no obligation.
Unless, of course, said co-workers are so poor they can't afford food. If that were the case, I would indeed be so obliged - I can say that I ought to bake them cookies.
wiploc
11-05-2008, 12:09 AM
I'm not sure why wiploc hasn't responded
.
I just got here. SMS, when you call somebody out, you might PM them so they'll know.
to your oversimplification of his meta-ethic.
.
It's not a meta-ethic. It's a definition.
Maybe he's too busy trouncing you in the Rat Ring.
.
Yeah, there is a similarity between his behavior here and there. He won't accept a definition. He insists on defining something his way, and then attributing his meaning to someone else.
crc
wiploc
11-05-2008, 12:43 AM
Unless I am mistaken--and I very well could be--wiploc wishes to define evilness as suffering or at least gratuitous suffering.
.
All suffering. More precisely, the causes of unhappiness. But I'm happy to be a little sloppy, and call all suffering, all unhappiness "evil."
Formally, we can say that wiploc's definition amounts to-
Act S is evil if and only if act S causes suffering or gratuitous suffering.
.
Close enough for this thread.
I find this definition to be profoundly problematic for a variety of reasons..
The only reason that you find it problematic is that you don't believe it. You think I really mean something else and am doing a poor job of expressing it.
However, at the moment, I would only like to focus on one problem. To introduce this problem, I deploy a hypothetical scenario:
Imagine George is a baby sitter for a newborn infant named Sally. Sally's parents are on their weekly date and have hired George to care for Sally during their absence. While the parents are on their date, George sexually molests Sally. It is important to assume that during this molestation, George does not physically injure Sally; George only feels Sally's genitals. We should also make two other assumptions: (1) that no one discovers George's molestation of Sally and hence no other person should suffer from George's deeds at all. Finally, (2), Sally is too young to understand or recall that George molested her and hence Sally does not experience mental anguish, either.
Under wiploc's definition, I cannot understand how George's actions constitute an evil act..
They don't. Did you read the definition? Did you read your example? If no unhappiness results, then there was no cause of unhappiness. If there is no cause of unhappiness, then there is no evil, because evil is the causes of unhappiness.
If someone runs in front of your car, and you hit him, that accident was evil if and only if it causes someone to be unhappy.
Yet, my moral intuitions tell me (and I assume the feeling is mutual) that George did commit an evil act..
Hey, we defined "evil." Given that "evil" is defined, you should use a different word for whatever it is that you mean in the above sentence. You might say George committed a sin, or he did a bad thing.
What you don't get to do is assume that I don't really mean my definition, that I really mean whatever you mean when you say "evil."
You can have any definition you want; just don't impute it to me.
For the record, I agree with you that George did a bad thing.
Since moral intuitions are paramount to moral reasoning, then the abovementioned hypothetical problem poses a significant obstacle for wiploc.
How do you respond, wiploc?I respond by asking you what you mean by "evil."
I respond by pointing out that you felt messed with when Columbus redefined happiness on you, in the same way that I feel messed with when you redefine "evil" or "omnipotence."
There's a brain-teaser that goes like this: Suppose a hunter walks around a tree, looking for a squirrel. Suppose further, that there is a squirrel on the back side of the tree. As the hunter moves around the tree, the squirrel does also, always keeping his belly towards the hunter, and always staying out of sight, so the hunter never sees the squirrel. Now here's the question: When the hunter has walked around the tree, has he also walked around the squirrel?
The answer is that you have to define "around." Once you decide what you mean by the word, there is no brain-teaser, there's only an obvious answer.
For your own purposes, you can define evil any way you want. But, if we're using my definition, you can't make George's situation seem like a brain-teaser. The word "evil" is defined, so there's no issue left to decide. No unhappiness means no evil.
For the record, I agree with you that George did a bad thing.
On what grounds?
n the same way that I feel messed with when you redefine "evil" or "omnipotence."
keep our formal debate within the formal debate forum, please.
you can't make George's situation seem like a brain-teaser. It's not meant to be a brain teaser. it's meant to show that your theory conflicts with moral intuition.
I'm showing how your gross oversimplification is silly. I didn't notice. I still don't.
If I am a preternaturally good archer, with reflexes and accuracy sufficient to pin moving flies to the wall at a hundred paces with no failures in 10,000 attempts, it is not immoral to do the William Tell trick with a willing volunteer.
If I'm an ordinary person, it is.
Sure.
Whether the act was harmful is knowable only in hindsight.
if my knowable, we mean certainty, then sure. What is your point?
Whether the act is malicious, callous, reckless or negligent is knowable in advance. And deliberately making such a decision is evil. Okay. Relate this to the argument. :dunno:
Evidently, which is why I pointed it out. I was toying with you. I'm not aware of it because it is not true about utilitarianism. It needs to miminally avoid harm, etc, but it does not need to prevent harm.
I have no moral obligation to be happy, and I'd love to see you make an argument for such. i never said you did.
This is why I presented the chocolate scenario. Though the chocolate might make me happy, I don't see you arguing that I ought to eat it.
First, i'm not a utilitarian and so it is difficult to see how I am supposed to argue that. Second, if it were known that there was no adverse effects-such like with George and Sally--then it may be said that you ought to eat chocolate.
I also have no moral obligation to go out of my way to make others happy. Shall I bake cookies for my co-workers? Well, sure, if I want to. But there is no obligation. Again, one of the criticisms of consquentalism is exactly what you deny. It is said that one always has to do what has the best consequences. It's a contested criticism, but it is a criticism.
Columbus
11-07-2008, 08:03 AM
For the record, I agree with you that George did a bad thing.
On what grounds?
wiploc, if
Quote:
Formally, we can say that wiploc's definition amounts to-
Act S is evil if and only if act S causes suffering or gratuitous suffering.
.
Close enough for this thread.
then why exactly would you suddenly declare George's action to be bad? If Sally didn't suffer in any way, then why would you think George did a bad thing? You just agreed that an action is evil if and only if it causes suffering, but then out of the blue you said that George did a bad thing without causing any suffering to anyone. But you never explained why you contradicted yourself so thoroughly.
Tom
I was toying with you. I'm not aware of it because it is not true about utilitarianism. It needs to miminally avoid harm, etc, but it does not need to prevent harm.
I screwed this sentence up. Utilitarians do their best to minimize harm. This, however, does not mean that utilitarians need to prevent harm.
wiploc
11-07-2008, 03:16 PM
For the record, I agree with you that George did a bad thing.
On what grounds?
wiploc, if
Quote:
Formally, we can say that wiploc's definition amounts to-
Act S is evil if and only if act S causes suffering or gratuitous suffering. .
Close enough for this thread. then why exactly would you suddenly declare George's action to be bad?
For the same reason we think drunk driving is bad even when nobody gets hurt. Under rule utilitarianism: he broke a rule that tends to keep people from getting hurt; he did a bad thing. Under desire utilitarianism: he had a desire that tends to get people hurt; he shouldn't have wanted to do that.
Nobody who's not omnipotent gets to be an act utilitarian. A god could have diddled the kid without harm and without guilt, but George is, presumably, not a god, so George was taking an unreasonable risk.
If Sally didn't suffer in any way, then why would you think George did a bad thing? You just agreed that an action is evil if and only if it causes suffering, but then out of the blue you said that George did a bad thing without causing any suffering to anyone. But you never explained why you contradicted yourself so thoroughly.
Tom
I don't think I contradicted myself at all.
wiploc
11-07-2008, 05:05 PM
It may help if I point out that I don't conflate evil with sin. They aren't the same thing. Evil is the punishment for sin.
crc
wiploc
11-07-2008, 05:18 PM
For the record, I agree with you that George did a bad thing.
On what grounds?
See post #22, above.
you can't make George's situation seem like a brain-teaser. It's not meant to be a brain teaser. it's meant to show that your theory conflicts with moral intuition.
I didn't offer a theory. I offered a definition. What does "evil" mean? A traditional definition is that evil is the causes of unhappiness. That's what many people mean by the word. It's what I usually mean by the word. That's not a moral theory, it's a definition.
You, obviously, are not bound my the definition I use. But I hardly see that you're in a position to criticize mine when you don't have a definition of your own.
Any moral theory will necessarily conflict with moral intuition. That's because moral intuition is a mess of conflicting impulses. Oftentimes, moral intuition is influenced by the bible---which guarantees that it's full of self-contradiction.
[quote]
For the same reason we think drunk driving is bad even when nobody gets hurt. Under rule utilitarianism: he broke a rule that tends to keep people from getting hurt; he did a bad thing. Under desire utilitarianism: he had a desire that tends to get people hurt; he shouldn't have wanted to do that.
The mere act of molesting an infant does not tend to hurt people. Wiploc is wrong on this part. Indeed, people must believe or become aware of the molestation, too. Yet, that's not something that I have given wiploc the luxury of assuming. For our purposes, as i said earlier, we can conceive George as being omniscient. Thence, we can conceive George as knowing that molesting Sally will not result in harm because he knows that no other person than him will come to believe it.
Moreover, not only are people to become aware or come to believe that the act happened, but they must view the act as wrong, too. If the people who came to know of the act were brainwashed, or for whatever other reason did not believe that molesting infants is wrong, then they would not suffer mental anguish. For instance, it is difficult to see how wiploc would attribute the wrongfulness of molesting an infant within a world that wholly embraces infant molestation. We can say that this world believes that it is good to get sexual gratification from feeling the vaginas and penises of infants.
In any case, let's assume that Sally's parents did find out about George's actions. As such, they are harmed. However, why are they harmed?!? After all, George did not actually harm Sally. Sally did not endure any suffering. So, what is the harm that Sally's parents endured? One may say that George betrayed their trust. However, betrayal depends on George doing something harmful. Yet, what was the harm?
Boro Nut
11-08-2008, 03:33 PM
I don't mean to be rude, but what's your point? you didnt relate this to the hypothetical problem at all.There is nothing evil about molesting hypothetical children. In fact it should be actively encouraged. Game over.
Boro Nut
I don't mean to be rude, but what's your point? you didnt relate this to the hypothetical problem at all.There is nothing evil about molesting hypothetical children. In fact it should be actively encouraged. Game over.
Boro Nut
:yuck:
For the same reason we think drunk driving is bad even when nobody gets hurt. Under rule utilitarianism: he broke a rule that tends to keep people from getting hurt; he did a bad thing. Under desire utilitarianism: he had a desire that tends to get people hurt; he shouldn't have wanted to do that.
The mere act of molesting an infant does not tend to hurt people. Wiploc is wrong on this part. Indeed, people must believe or become aware of the molestation, too. Yet, that's not something that I have given wiploc the luxury of assuming. For our purposes, as i said earlier, we can conceive George as being omniscient. Thence, we can conceive George as knowing that molesting Sally will not result in harm because he knows that no other person than him will come to believe it.
Moreover, not only are people to become aware or come to believe that the act happened, but they must view the act as wrong, too. If the people who came to know of the act were brainwashed, or for whatever other reason did not believe that molesting infants is wrong, then they would not suffer mental anguish. For instance, it is difficult to see how wiploc would attribute the wrongfulness of molesting an infant within a world that wholly embraces infant molestation. We can say that this world believes that it is good to get sexual gratification from feeling the vaginas and penises of infants.
In any case, let's assume that Sally's parents did find out about George's actions. As such, they are harmed. However, why are they harmed?!? After all, George did not actually harm Sally. Sally did not endure any suffering. So, what is the harm that Sally's parents endured? One may say that George betrayed their trust. However, betrayal depends on George doing something harmful. Yet, what was the harm?
quoted for easier access.
Boro Nut
11-08-2008, 03:54 PM
I don't mean to be rude, but what's your point? you didnt relate this to the hypothetical problem at all.There is nothing evil about molesting hypothetical children. In fact it should be actively encouraged. Game over.
Boro Nut
:yuck:I know your sort. If you ever try molesting any of my children you had better make sure it's one of the six hypothetical ones. I have long campaigned for child molesters to be housed in secure accommodation and be provided with a steady stream of hypothetical children, where they can be closely scrutinized at all times and we can occasionally stick pins in them. Because of reactionaries like you I have got nowhere.
Boro Nut
wiploc
11-08-2008, 08:23 PM
I know your sort. If you ever try molesting any of my children you had better make sure it's one of the six hypothetical ones. I have long campaigned for child molesters to be housed in secure accommodation and be provided with a steady stream of hypothetical children, where they can be closely scrutinized at all times and we can occasionally stick pins in them. Because of reactionaries like you I have got nowhere.
Boro Nut
Now that's funny!
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.