Re: Objectivity [was Re: Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
> On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif-ik1l9ssToec+JF/[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
> > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
> > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
> > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
> > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
> > >
> > >
> > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
> > > == "bad".
> >
> > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
> > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
> > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
> >
> 
> Why?
> 
> Show me the Proof!!!
> 
> The burden of proof is on you.

There are several problems with this definition, and I'll mention one below,
but I have to admit it's not very fair that I "disprove" a definition based
on your very short and probably not entirely accurate explanation of it - I
didn't like it when you did that to Kant and Kirkegaard after my explanations,
and I probably shouldn't be doing this to Neo-Tech. I have to admit that I
never read anything about "Neo-Tech" except what you said on this list.

I think Arik's point was, though, that there's nothing "scientific" about
this definition. What makes this definition more "scientific" than a dozen
other definitions of ethics? For example, how is this definition of ethics
based on intention, better than a definition based on actual consequences
(aka "utilitarian" ethics)?

Anyway, the biggest flaw I see with this definition is that it relies on
a person's intentions, which are very subjective, rather than the actual
consequences of his actions, which is more objective (because everyone
sees the consequences of an action, but only the person knows his intentions).
The problem is that except in the extreme case of psychopaths (who are unable
to understand the concept of other human beings having their own lives and
wishes), most "bad" actions are somehow justified in the eyes of its doer.

If you asked a white slave-owner whether he's conciously harming his negro
slave's biological needs, he would say no: he would say that he took care of
their basic needs (minimal amount of food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and would
claim (wrongly of course, but he thought this was true) that negros are so 
privitive that left to their own devices they would be far worse off. He
would add that furthermore, without the slaves the slave-owners would go
bankrupt and starve, so that it is *freeing* the slaves which is immoral
because it would bring "biological" harm to the slave-owners.

A second problem, possibly in your short explanation and not in neo-tech
itself, is the definition of "biological needs". What are these, and why
discuss them and not the "wishes" or "will" of the person instead? A few
obvious examples: a person has the biological need to have sex. Does this make
resisting being raped an immoral act? Is stealing food moral because a
person needs to eat? Is selling real-estate for money an immoral act,
because people need to sleep somewhere and you're prevented them a place
to sleep by charging money? And what about people's non-biological needs,
like the need to be free, the need to be happy, the need not to be bored,
etc. - is it moral to violate these needs? For example, is it moral according
to your definition to keep a human in a large cage while catering for his
biological needs (giving him food, water, air, sex, etc.)? Can this defintion
explain why (or whether) it is moral to do this to a convict, but not to
"ordinary" people?


-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Thursday, Apr 19 2007, 1 Iyyar 5767
nyh-TS7m/[email protected]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |a fine for doing well.