= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Decius comments on By Which It May Be Judged - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (934)
Torture and murder are not the most moral things to do in 1.00000 00000 00000*10^2% of exemplified situations which require moral judgement.
Are you going to taboo "torture" and "murder" now?
Well, that's clearly false. Your chances of having to kill a member of the secret police of an oppressive state are much more than 1/10^16, to say nothing of less clear cut examples.
Do the actions of the secret police of an oppressive state constitute consent to violent methods? If so, they cannot be murdered in the moral sense, because they are combatants. If not, then it is immoral to kill them, even to prevent third parties from executing immoral acts.
You don't get much less clear cut than asking questions about whether killing a combatant constitutes murder.
Well, if you define “murder” as ‘killing someone you shouldn't’ then you should never murder anyone -- but that'd be a tautology and the interesting question would be how often killing someone would not be murder.
"Murder" is roughly shorthand for "intentional nonconsensual interaction which results in the intended outcome of the death of a sentient."
If the secret police break down my door, nothing done to them is nonconsensual.
Any half-way competent secret police wouldn't need to.
You seem to have a very non-standard definition of "nonconsensual".
I meant in the non-transitive sense.
Being a combatant constitutes consent to be involved in the war. How is that non-standard?
Being involved in the war isn't equivalent to being killed. I find it quite conceivable that I might want to involve myself in the war against, say, the babyeaters, without consenting to being killed by the babyeaters. I mean, ideally the war would go like this: we attack, babyeaters roll over and die, end.
I'm not really sure what is the use of a definition of "consent" whereby involving myself in war causes me to automatically "consent" to being shot at. The whole point of fighting is that you think you ought to win.
Well, I think consent sort of breaks down as a concept when you start considering all the situations where societies decide to get violent (or for that matter to involve themselves in sexuality; I'd rather not cite examples for fear of inciting color politics). So I'm not sure I can endorse the general form of this argument.
In the specific case of warfare, though, the formalization of war that most modern governments have decided to bind themselves by does include consent on the part of combatants, in the form of the oath of enlistment (or of office, for officers). Here's the current version used by the US Army:
Doesn't get much more explicit than that, and it certainly doesn't include an expectation of winning. Of course, a lot of governments still conscript their soldiers, and consent under that kind of duress is, to say the least, questionable; you can still justify it, but the most obvious ways of doing so require some social contract theory that I don't think I endorse.
Indeed. Where the 'question' takes the form "Is this consent?" and the answer is "No, just no."
At the same time it should be obvious that there is something---pick the most appropriate word---that you have done by trying to kill something that changes the moral implications of the intended victim deciding to kill you first. This is the thing that we can clearly see that Decius is referring to.
The 'consent' implied by your action here (and considered important to Decius) is obviously not directly consent to be shot at but rather consent to involvement in violent interactions with a relevant individual or group. For some reason of his own Decius has decided to grant you power such that a specific kind of consent is required from you before he kills you. The kind of consent required is up to Decius and his morals and the fact that you would not grant a different kind of consent ('consent to be killed') is not relevant to him.
"violence" perhaps or "aggression" or "acts of hostility".
Not "consent". :-)
Did all of the participants in the violent conflict voluntarily enter it? If so, then they have consented to the outcome.
Generally not, actually.
Decius, you may also be interested in the closely related post Ethical Inhibitions. It describes actions like, say, blatant murder, that could in principle (ie. in contrived circumstances) be actually the consequentialist right thing to do but that nevertheless you would never do anyway as a human since you are more likely to be biased and self-deceiving than to be correctly deciding murdering was right.
Correctly deciding that 2+2=3 is equally as likely as correctly deciding murdering was right.
Ok, you're just wrong about that.
In past trials, each outcome has occurred the same number of times.
This could be true and you'd still be totally wrong about the equal likelihood.
Murder is unlawful killing. If you are a citizen of the country you are within it's laws. If the oppressive country has a law against killing members of the secret police than it's murder.
Murder (law) and murder (moral) are two different things; I was exclusively referring to murder (moral).
I will clarify: There can be cases where murder (law) is either not immoral or morally required. There are also cases where an act which is murder (moral) is not illegal.
My original point is that many of the actions of Jehovah constitute murder (moral).
What's your definition of murder (moral)?
Roughly "intentional nonconsensual interaction which results in the intended outcome of the death of a sentient".
To define how I use 'nonconsensual', I need to describe an entire ethics. Rough summary: Only every action which is performed without the consent of one or more sentient participant(s) is immoral. (Consent need not be explicit in all cases, especially trivial and critical cases; wearing a military uniform identifies an individual as a soldier, and constitutes clearly communicating consent to be involved in all military actions initiated by enemy soldiers.)
This may be the word for which I run into definitional disputes most often. I'm glad you summed it up so well.
I'm pretty sure they would say no, if asked. Just like, y'know, a non-secret policeman (the line is blurry.)
Well, if I was wondering if a uniformed soldier was a combatant, I wouldn't ask them. Why would I ask the secret police if they are active participants in violence?
So cop-killing doesn't count as murder?
Murder is not a superset of cop-killing.
You said "consent". That usually means "permission". It's a nonstandard usage of the word, is all. But the point about the boundary between a cop and a soldier is actually a criticism, if not a huge one.
Sometimes actions constitute consent, especially in particularly minor or particularly major cases.
Again, shooting someone is not giving hem permission to shoot you. That's not to say it would be wrong to shoot back, necessarily.
Are you intending to answer my criticism about the cop and the soldier?
I don't see your criticism about the cop and the soldier; is it in a fork that I'm not following, or did I overlook it?
Assuming that the social contract requires criminals to subject themselves to law enforcement:
A member of society consents to be judged according to the laws of that society and treated appropriately. The criminal who violates their contract has already consented to the consequences of default, and that consent cannot be withdrawn. Secret police and soldiers act outside the law enforcement portion of the social contract.
Does that cover your criticism?
Why?
A singleminded agent with my resources could place people in such a situation. I'm guessing the same is true of you. Kidnapping isn't hard, especially if you aren't too worried about eventually being caught, and murder is easy as long as the victim can't resist. "Difficult" is usually defined with regards to the speaker, and most people could arrange such a sadistic choice if they really wanted. They might be caught, but that's not really the point.
If you mean that the odds of such a thing actually happening to you are low, "difficult" was probably the wrong choice of words; it certainly confused me. If I was uncertain what you meant by "torture" or "murder" I would certainly ask you for a definition, incidentally.
(Also, refusal to taboo words is considered logically rude 'round these parts. Just FYI.)
Consider the contrived situation usually used to show that consequentialism is flawed: There are ten patients in a hospital, all suffering from failure of a different organ they will die in a short time unless treated with an organ transplant, and if they receive a transplant then they will live a standard quality life. There is a healthy person who is a compatible match for all of those patients. He will live one standard quality life if left alone. Is it moral to refuse to forcibly and fatally harvest his organs to provide them to the larger number of patients?
If I say that ten people dying is not a worse outcome than one person being killed by my hand, do you still think you can place someone with my values in a situation where they would believe that torture or murder is moral? Do you believe that consequentialism is objectively the accurate moral system?
Considering that dilemma becomes a lot easier if, say, I'm diverting a train through the one and away from the ten, I'm guessing there are other taboos there than just murder. Bodily integrity, perhaps? There IS something squicky about the notion of having surgery performed on you without you consent.
Anyway, I was under the impression that you admitted that the correct reaction to a "sadistic choice" (kill him or I'll kill ten others) was murder; you merely claimed this was "difficult to encounter" and thus less worrying than the prospect that murder might be moral in day-to-day life. Which I agree with, I think.
I think diverting the train is a much more complicated situation that hinges on factors normally omitted in the description and considered irrelevant by most. It could go any of three ways, depending on factors irrelevant to the number of deaths. (In many cases the murderous action has already been taken, and the decision is whether one or ten people are murdered by the murderer, and the action or inaction is taken with only the decider, the train, and the murderer as participants)
Let's stipulate two scenarios, one in which the quandary is the result of a supervillain and one in which it was sheer bad luck.
Do I own the track, or am I designated by the person with ownership as having the authority to determine arbitrarily in what manner the junction may be operated? Do I have any prior agreement with regards to the operation of the junction, or any prior responsibility to protect lives at all costs?
Absent prior agreements, if I have that authority to operate the track, it is neutral whether I choose to use it or not. If I were to own and control a hospital, I could arbitrarily refuse to support consensual fatal organ donations on my premises.
If I have a prior agreement to save as many lives as possible at all costs, I must switch to follow that obligation, even if it means violating property rights. (Such an obligation also means that I have to assist with the forcible harvesting of organs).
If I don't have the right to operate the junction according to my own arbitrary choice, I would be committing a small injustice on the owner of the junction by operating it, and the direct consequences of that action would also be mine to bear; if the one person who would be killed by my action does not agree to be, I would be murdering him in the moral sense, as opposed to allowing others to be killed.
I suspect that my actual response to these contrived situations would be inconsistent; I would allow disease to kill ten people, but would cause a single event which would kill ten people without my trivial action to kill one instead (assuming no other choice existed). I prefer to believe that is a fault in my implementation of morality.
Nope. Oh, and the tracks join up after the people; you wont be sending a train careening off on the wrong track to crash into who knows what.
I think you may be mistaking legality for morality.
I'm not asking what you would have to do, I'm asking what you should do. Since prior agreements can mess with that, lets say the tracks are public property and anyone can change them, and you will not be punished for letting the people die.
Murder has many definitions. Even if it would be "murder", which is the moral choice: to kill one or to let ten die?
Could be. We would have to figure out why those seem different. But which of those choices is wrong? Are you saying that your analysis of the surgery leads you to change your mind about the train?
The tracks are public property; walking on the tracks is then a known hazard. Switching the tracks is ethically neutral.
The authority I was referencing was moral, not legal.
I was actually saying that my actions in some contrived circumstances would differ from what I believe is moral. I am actually comfortable with that. I'm not sure if I would be comfortable with an AI which either always followed a strict morality, nor with one that sometimes deviated.
Blaming the individuals for walking on the tracks is simply assuming the not-least convenient world though. What if they were all tied up and placed upon the tracks by some evil individual (who is neither 1 of the people on the tracks nor the 1 you can push onto the tracks)?
You still haven't answered what the correct choice is if a villain put them there.
As for the rest ... bloody hell, mate. Have you got some complicated defense of those positions or are they intuitions? I'm guessing they're not intuitions.