enfant terrible

19 posters in this thread have played the game so far. Their averages are:

Moralizing: 0.07
Interference: 0.01
Universalizing: -0.37 (or 0.16 if negative scores are set to zero)

viscousmemories

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that someone's apparent reliability can be tainted by previous failures to follow through on a promise? Because even in that case, would it not still constitute a harm "after the fact"?

For what it's worth, part of the problem I have with the fact that my morality depends on a measure of harm to another person is the fact that harm is very difficult (if not impossible) to measure. Particularly indirect or discreet harm. For example, if I lie, I may feel guilty. That guilt might make me less confident. That lack of confidence might make me lax on my job, which might in turn cost my company money, which may affect the profit-sharing check of every employee there... etc.
As I said, I think it's very difficult to measure the degree of harm that comes from an act. For example, in your infidelity scenario I am tempted to say that as long as the spouse never finds out, she won't be hurt, and as long as she wasn't hurt, what the man did was not immoral. However, as I said previously, I believe that things can potentially breed other negative effects than what is readily apparent. As with my earlier lying example, the man might feel guilty, which may result in his treating his spouse less affectionately, which would hurt her.

vm

Abrupt

I got the same results as Buddrow_Wilson, followed by the same "insulting tidbit". Here they are again for easy reference:

Now I got these results by answering that there is something "a little wrong" with the man breaking his deathbed promise to his mother, and consequently that the culture with the norm of breaking deathbed promises to one's mother is a little "bad" in that regard. I did not find anything wrong with other scenarios.

And here is the description of the offending situation:

Unfortunately, it is far from clear given just this to go on that the scenario is "private" and that it doesn't "involve harm". One could argue, for example, that people who break their promises are unreliable people, and that therefore it is harmful to trust them. One could argue that the mother was harmed at the time the promise was made. One could even argue that in some sense the mother is harmed still (that is, posthumously). Ironically, TPM once published a lecture by the late Rick O'Neill entitled "Can the dead be harmed?" which defended precisely this latter position, and with which I am sympathetic.

All in all, a sloppy oversight on their part.

ju'iblex

I'm finding this universalising polarisation very interesting, i wonder where the differences in our thinking lie on the matter.

for the record i got .04 0 and 0

i said a little wrong on eating the cat.

Abrupt

If you think that for the act to be wrong (and not simply weird or deviant), it must be wrong across the board, regardless of the culture to which our perp belongs, then you get a 1.

If you think that the act can be wrong in your culture but right in some other culture (and frankly, I'm not really sure what that means), then you get a 0.

If you didn't think that any of the acts were at all wrong, there's no information to bsae a universalizing rating on, so you get a -1.

Pyrrho

Whether lying is always "immoral" or not, when one encounters people known to make promises that they don't keep, the intelligent person will never trust them when they make promises. Only a fool would trust them under such circumstances.

Thus, it has an impact on future interactions.

Edited to add:

Of course, what one will make of it all will depend on the particular promises made, the frequency of breaking promises, and the reason why the promises were broken (which can affect blame, but if the person "simply forgets" whatever they promise, it still means they cannot be relied upon to fulfill their promises, so it still impacts the future and whether it is sensible to trust the person or not).

Whether we will say that breaking promises is "lying" or not will depend upon the precise definition of the term we employ. It certainly involves stating a falsehood. And it certainly is relevant to how trustworthy the person is.

Pyrrho

As you say, you know about it, and it affects you in the future. Now, given that you are likely to be acting differently because of the effect on you, there is a strong possibility that this will affect others, even if they never find out about it. So, from what you are now saying, it seems that you should say that all lying is immoral, even if others never find out about it, because one is likely to be harming others as a result.

This ties in with my previous concern about what counts as an "entirely private" act? Frankly, I don’t think that people’s beliefs are entirely private, as a person’s beliefs affect one’s actions, and one’s actions affect others. So, the fact that others believe what they believe is very important. For more on this, see Clifford’s essay
The Ethics of Belief.

enfant terrible

Hmmm... this looks like a circular argument to me. You can only feel guilty if you consider your action immoral; but if the only harm is caused by your guilty feeling, and you don't think that anything that causes no one any harm is immoral, how would you feel guilty in the first place?

viscousmemories

How is it that I feel guilty doing something that I shouldn't feel guilty about doing? You'll have to consult the Catholics on that issue. They are uniquely qualified to explain how that process is enacted.

viscousmemories

Ah, but just because the argument can be made that everything we do indirectly affects everyone else we later come into contact with, doesn't necessarily mean that the effect is harmful. Imagine a person who's such an effective liar he can get away with anything at any time. Such a power might make someone feel rather strong and self-confident, and that strength and self-confidence may have a positive influence on others around him. In this case, where the hypothetical good outweighs the hypothetical harm, is it still immoral for him to lie?
I'll read the essay, but before I do I'll just toss in my initial reaction to that statement. I agree that people's beliefs affect their actions and therefore impact my life. That's why I'm not a big proponent of religious tolerance. That I would be expected to tolerate someones beliefs with knowledge of the fact that those beliefs cause them to act in ways that negatively impact me is absurd. I'll reiterate, though, that it's the fact that the indirect effects are difficult (if not impossible) to measure that makes me think they don't really deserve much consideration. (Did I say that before? Sorry if I didn't. I'm sayin' it now, though.)

vm