Do you have a coherent ideology?

[madviking]

How do you know that?

null hypothesis; show me why numbers should matter.

But to attempt an answer: I think Mr Viking correctly identifies that numbers don't enter into assessing morality, because morality at least tries to attain the absolute, and the absolute is either correct or it isn't. One good action cannot be said to be better than another good action. It's either a good action or a bad action.

yea, morality comes in absolutes and not relatives (and is objective), for me at least.

 

[Global Skeptic]

null hypothesis; show me why numbers should matter.

I can't show you that because you can't see it, rather if you by show mean explain, then I can do that, except I won't be doing that:
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/

 

[Terxpahseyton]

yea, morality comes in absolutes and not relatives (and is objective), for me at least.

I think there is some truth to morality coming in absolutes. Because IMO the "mental root" of morality is a matter of thinking in black and white. Saying I think morality stems from a human need to know right and wrong. And this needs is in its essence an emotional one. And emotions about right and wrong tend to be of an absolute nature.

However, if we talk about a morality stemming from reflection rather than emotions, it very much is possible to have a concept of morality which can be at least loosely be expressed in numbers. For instance, I my reflected version of morality holds that higher living quality is more moral and lower living quality and less moral and that is all one needs to know about morality.
So all things being the same - if I can cause higher living quality in person x than in person y but have to choose, I should always choose person x. It doesn't stop at an absolute like "I should help people" but specifically suggests a more or less qualified and quantifiable good. Quantifiable because making feel two persons better is better than making one feel better.

To me, morality affects too many things that are true sensations: thriving, sapience, horror, pain, gladness, pleasure, etc. They're as real as blue is.

Okay, but that only tells us that morality is concerned with real things. But my contention is with the objective existence of the normative force itself. Not what it is applied to or related to.
I mean if you see a child walking down the street alone and then tripping over, falling on his face and starting to cry - you may feel a strong urge to go help that child.
Is that morality? No, to me it is just an urge. Morality rather is the idea that you shall help, not the notion that you will want to. The latter is a real thing, the former is just a believe on can hold or not. That makes the believe real. But does it make real what one believes in?

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I can see that. To me, morality is an urge to act that causes an outcome. You need moral agents to have morality. Their behaviour causes real outcomes, some of those outcomes suck and some are great. The sucky outcomes were because their morality deviated from objective morality.

I don't think it's knowable, we're too flawed. We cannot even figure out the laws of gravity, only approximations that are pretty spiffy.

I know it gets complicated very quickly. A host of our moral theory is built off of instinctive heuristics from our primate days. But the things that morality affects are real.

 

[Angst]

We don't deserve objective morality.

 

[Borachio]

That's surprisingly ambiguous.

Do you mean we're not good enough to be "given" an objective morality?

Or do you mean we're too good for it; that having an objective morality would be too painful for us?

 

[madviking]

I can't show you that because you can't see it, rather if you by show mean explain, then I can do that, except I won't be doing that:
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/

both solutions to the trolley problem are morally bad.

 

[Borachio]

I agree. But they insisted I answer one way or another, so I felt a bit cheated. I hold the person who devised the test responsible for the deaths of any people involved.

The first thing to note is that your consistency score is 83%. This is higher than the average score for this test (where higher is better), which is 78%.

It is often thought to be a good thing if one's moral choices are governed by a small number of consistently applied moral principles. If this is not the case, then there is the worry that moral choices are essentially arbitrary - just a matter of intuition or making it up as you go along. Suppose, for example, you think it is justified to divert the train in the first scenario simply because it is the best way to maximise human happiness, but you do not think this justification applies in the case of the fat man on the bridge. The problem here is that unless you're able to identify morally relevant differences between the two scenarios, then it isn't clear what role the justification plays in the first case. Put simply, it seems that the justification is neither necessary nor sufficient for the moral judgement that it is right to divert the train.

You've done better than average in this test, but now is not the time to rest on your laurels, because let's face it, most people don't think very clearly about morality. However, before you embark on any further study(!) we suggest you check out the next page of analysis.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I got 100% consistency

Though there seems to be one big problem with the test. It seems they equalize to continue to exist with being more happy.
I saved the 5 over the one not because of those 5 but because I estimated that their death would decrease the happiness of more other people. Relatives, friends etcetera. I don't accept death as morally relevant in itself and it strikes me as absolute nonsense to equate a lack of living with a decrease in living quality.

 

[madviking]

eh utilitarianism doesn't suit me anymore. i got 100% consistency but for killing the 5.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am tired of it myself. It is exhausting. But I can not claim anything else to be moral with a straight face.

 

[madviking]

utilitarianism sucks as it assumes that happiness/utility is a rational and vaguely quantifiable commodity. i have my own kinda complicated theory for happiness and it conflicts with classic utilitarianism.

 

[Borachio]

Well, don't stop there! What is it?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

utilitarianism sucks as it assumes that happiness/utility is a rational and vaguely quantifiable commodity.

How does it assume that it is rational?
Perhaps some assume that it is quantifiable, I prefer the assumption that it has quality rather than quantity though.

 

[Mise]

I got 100% consistency too and I honestly just picked the ones that were morally right in my view (irrespective of previous answers). Actually I didn't really expect 100% consistency; I assumed they'd measure it against the answers in the "train" portion of the quiz, rather than the initial set up questions. Then again I've thought about this a lot, so I think my answers to the opening questions were "considered" rather than "knee jerk". (Also I'm a little bit drunk so apologies for rambling.)

 

[madviking]

fine, it's essentially "art is happiness". don't be hard on me this is my unfinished theory that i really haven't written down before.

p1. world is has no inherit meaning -> humanity tries to derive meaning from it -> we create art in many forms to try to decipher meaning from the world
p2. happiness is achieving meaningful and satisfying meaning in your life
p3. (good) art, as i have defined it, achieves this
p4. however, as meaning and art are subjective, hence happiness is a function of subjective factors, and thus is itself subjective.
c1. art is happiness
c2. happiness is subjective
p5. as happiness is subjective and no two people share a similar understanding of the world, any concept of objective happiness is misguided, to say the least.
c3. utlilitarianism is kinda sucky

 

[Borachio]

OK. Looking good so far.

"Art is happiness". And, why not? I can't think of any reason why not.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am starting to believe you are kinda sucky. Utilitarianism by no means needs to assume that there is objective happiness.

 

[madviking]

How does it assume that it is rational?
Perhaps some assume that it is quantifiable, I prefer the assumption that it has quality rather than quantity though.

by rational i meant that one can perform 'utilitarian experiments', such as a the trolley problem; one can perform a method akin to the scientific method to determine (rationally) what the "best" outcome is.

one can argue that for intangible things such as happiness, its 'quality' is its 'quantity'.

 

[kochman]

fine, it's essentially "art is happiness". don't be hard on me this is my unfinished theory that i really haven't written down before.

p1. world is has no inherit meaning -> humanity tries to derive meaning from it -> we create art in many forms to try to decipher meaning from the world
p2. happiness is achieving meaningful and satisfying meaning in your life
p3. (good) art, as i have defined it, achieves this
p4. however, as meaning and art are subjective, hence happiness is a function of subjective factors, and thus is itself subjective.
c1. art is happiness
c2. happiness is subjective
p5. as happiness is subjective and no two people share a similar understanding of the world, any concept of objective happiness is misguided, to say the least.
c3. utlilitarianism is kinda sucky

Not true, everyone likes orgasms. Everyone.