Baloo

This is a phrase I'd just like to drag out into the open, as it seems to clog up the drain on so many otherwise smoothly flowing discussions of morality. Knowing that I would "get away with something" entails the following:
1) I have COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of the present.
2) I have the ability to use this COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE to forecast, with 100% ACCURACY, ALL future events.

In other words, this hypothetical setup only applies if I am an omniscient being. I am not omniscient. Humans, being finite, are not omniscient. Hypothesizing a human with the property of omniscience is the same as hypothesizing a bachelor with the property of having a wife. Before a person has even finished the sentence "If you knew you'd get away with it..." they have already committed a logical fallacy (or are at least hypothesizing a situation in which the laws of logic are suspended).

Am I playing a game of linguistic dodgeball here? If so, I'm playing on the same field that has long been used by theists, who react the exact same way to the hypothetical "If God appeared to you (and you knew it was Him), and He told you it was morally acceptable to [fill in atrocity here]." The same basic response is given, time and time again, "For God to do that would be contradictory to the nature of God, thus your hypothetical is illogical and I won't answer it."

In fact, both sides responding to the ridiculous hypotheticals are absolutely correct in dismissing such hypothetical constructs. Otherwise, the atheist is forced to admit that, if he KNEW there would be no negative consequences, he would commit an atrocious act for a meager gain. The theist is forced to admit that, if he KNEW God wanted him to commit an atrocious act, after being told it wasn't immoral, he would do it.

So we all go round and round, time and time again... and what does it all boil down to? Simple. As should be expected, logically consistent moral systems do not work in hypothetical situations which require suspensions of logic. IOW, these arguments get us NOWHERE, but to a conclusion that is damned near a tautology (at least, to a statement that should come as a surprise to noone).

I realize debates on morality are hollow without hypotheticals. I just ask that people stop killing intriguing discussions by gumming them up with hypotheticals that are logically inconsistent.

Baloo

Some examples:

Alonzo Fyfe says:
"If we change just this one rule, and allow for the possibility of undiscovered defection, a strategy of "cooperate when you must, defect when you can' wins out over 'tit for tat' for any player sufficiently good at determining when he can get away with defection -- particularly in a population of tit-for-tat players."

IOW, in game theory, if we posit a player can KNOW when defection will go undetected, he ought to defect in such situations.

"A similar objection can be raised against most types of contract theory. When an agent finds himself in a position where he can act contrary to the contract without activating the noncompliance clauses, the rational agent should do so."

IOW if a contractarian KNOWS he can "act contrary to the contract without activating the noncompliance clauses", the system breaks down.

Alonzo, one question: which of the above models of morality was designed for omniscient beings?

Baloo

And vixstile:
"Now lets say this individual is in a situation where they know they can easily get away with committing many of these immoral acts without suffering any negative consequences."

pug846

Baloo said:

I think you are missing the point. It doesn’t take 100% foreknowledge to be pretty sure of something. There are in fact lots of times when someone could commit a crime and be pretty damn sure that they could get away with it. Hell, in certain societies, things like murder of a certain group would not only go unprosecuted (is that a word?), but encouraged.

Two comments: 1) This is a minor point, but not all atheists buy into a subjectivist view of ethics, just like not all theists don’t buy into an objectivist form of ethics. 2) I can’t speak for other atheists here, but it isn’t merely a matter of whether you might get caught or not. There are lots of crimes I don’t commit that I am reasonably sure I could get away with for other reasons. In fact, there really aren’t many crimes that I don’t commit merely because I’m not going to be punished by the government for them. (Speeding is one that jumps out at me; I would DEFINETELY speed more than I do if I knew I could always get away with it.)

I think you are also misunderstanding the theists response in regards to God asking them to commit an atrocity, but I’ll leave that to someone else to argue.

bd-from-kg

Baloo:

This kind of hypothetical is no sillier that talking about circles and squares in geometry, or saying that light will travel in a constant speed in a perfect vacuum. Obviously what's going on is that one is postulating an idealized situation to get rid of pointless discussions about just how close to a perfect circle this particular figure is, or how close to a perfect vacuum this specific bit of space is, or how nearly certain one is of "getting away with it" in this specific situation. In the latter case the point is to find out whether th moral system in question holds that stealing, for example, is wrong because you'll probably get caught, or whether it's wrong for some other reason. This should be elementary, but some people are so muddled about what their moral system really is that you have to ask such questions to get it clear.

Alonzo Fyfe

Yes, you are playing linguistic dodge ball.

(1) The technical definition of knowledge is "justified true belief", and that is the way I use the term here. If beliefs have to be 100% certain to count as knowledge, then nobody knows anything about anything -- we can never use the word 'knowledge' in the real world.

(2) In explaining my objection, I have typically made reference to other types of decision making in the face of risk -- such as buying stock. One looks at the upside potential, the downside potential, and chance of each, and makes a decision. One does not need perfect knowledge. One just needs a situation where (Upside potential * probability of not getting caught) > (Downside potential * (1 - probability of not getting caught.) 100% probability of not getting caught is simply an extreme (impossible) example, it is not a requirement.

(3) I have illustrated my points with real-world examples, such as the person who took my money out of my desk drawer at work and was not caught. Further evidence that I never required a 100% certainty in my objections. The person who took the money out of my desk at work knew that the risk of being caught was not zero, but was so low that it was rational for her to take the money. Rationality theorists would have to say that what she did was moral, right, and proper.

(4) I have raised my own objections against theories that base moral decisions on what a person would do in a hypothetical situation in a hypothetical world, and its relevance to what one should do in a real world situation in the real world -- that rationality requires making real-world decisions in real-world situations.

In light of all of this, I am wondering where you got the idea that this silly definition of "know" has any relevance to what I had written.

One more related point, rationality theory also holds that it would be "wrong" for a person to try to escape slavery in a society where those who attempt to escape are executed, that it is "wrong" to be a heretic in a society where heretics are executed, that it is "wrong" to be a homosexual where homosexual acts are punished by death, that it is "wrong." If you base actual right and wrong based on actual punishment, then I performed an immoral act in putting my money in my desk drawer, since this resulted in the penalty of having my money taken from me.

If you are going to assert that objections to rationality-based theories require a 100% chance of certainty that no bad consequences will follow before an action becomes right or moral or proper, then there are no actions that are right or moral or proper, because no action that any human can perform has a 100% certainty of having no bad consquences. When I put my money in my desk drawer at work, I certainly did not have 100% certainty that nothing bad would happen as a result. Therefore, it was immoral for me to do so?

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>