Nu

I am aware that in most cases it is in my enlightened self-interest to do what is generally considered moral in the status quo (dont lie, steal, kill randomly, etc) and to not be a jerk to people.

But, let me create a hypothetical situation to show you where a dilema arises.

Mr. K has $5000 in his hand and is walking alone down a dark alley. If, by a cost-benefit analysis, I determine that his money is worth the risk of getting caught and prosecuted after killing and robbing him, then, according to my moral nihilism, I should kill him.

A more realistic example is this: I see a $20 dollar bill on the ground. I know it is not mine but noone will care if I pick it up. Should I?

Small dilemmas like this happen everyday for me, and more and more I find myself taking the route that is eventually in my self-interest instead of one that is considered morally right by my parents and peers.

Nu

Of course I am not entirely Nihilistic. If I was then I wouldn't even bother picking up the $20 dollar bill.

My goal in life can be loosely defined as "It is better to know, than not to know". Thus I do actions that increase my knowledge.

I am still in the process of deciding who should hold such knowledge: myself or society or both?

Jamie_L

My point is that your cost-benefit analysis may be in error. The world is a complex place, and future events are driven by many more variables than we can take into acount. Simple desires cloud our reason. A good moral system can help overcome these problems, and look out for your best interest when your own "cost-benefit analysis" may be leading you down a dangerous path. Supporting such a moral system and encouraging others to follow it can also halp protect you from the "cost-benefit analyses" of other humans.

Is this really a similar situation? Who is hurt? The person who lost the bill? They've already lost the bill. They are only hurt if a) they try to come back later and get it, finding it gone, or b) they go to a police station to claim it, and you don't turn it in. Considering its a single bill, it seems unlikely either scenario would unfold in such a way that the person gets their bill back. It seems unlikely you will be able to help the person who lost the bill. You really do not cause any additional harm to anyone by keeping the found bill.

Jamie

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

99Percent

b) they go to a police station to claim it, and you don't turn it in.

If you don't turn it in, then your action becomes questionable. Anybody will understand why you picked up a lost $20.00 bill (or $20,000 stash of bills) As long as no one is claiming the $20.00 bill I see no problem with keeping it.

99Percent

Mr. K has $5000 in his hand and is walking alone down a dark alley. If, by a cost-benefit analysis, I determine that his money is worth the risk of getting caught and prosecuted after killing and robbing him, then, according to my moral nihilism, I should kill him.

You cannot kill him for monetary reasons, no matter how convenient it looks for you will enter in a perpetual state of violence for the rest of your life. Money has never more value than your own life.

Nu

Arguments against my specific cost-benefit analysis are beside the point.

I recognize that I can, and will, make mistakes in my judgement thus it is in my best interest to not kill people..usually.

I made the hypothetical example to show you that I make decisions based strictly upon self-interest.

Is morality simply acting in a way that is in your long term self interest? Or does morality put an intrinisc good/bad judgement upon a certain way of acting?

Alonzo Fyfe

This is simply false.

There are simply countless people in this country, in the world, throughout history, who have killed who have not ended up in "a perpetual state of violence for the rest of their life".

Throughout history people have stolen with impunity, raped with impunity, conquered with impunity, enslaved with impunity, and killed with impunity, sometimes on a national scale.

And it is happening still today.

And there are others for whom it may be true, but who do not care or, actually, are seeking a state of violence. It may be a case of living fast and dying young, but we are all going to die sometime.

This is a case of what those around the philosophy department call being blinded by theory. A favorite theory supports a particular conclusion, so the person simply cannot see the evidence that the conclusion is false, no matter how obvious it is to everybody else -- like the creationist who simply cannot see the evidence of a world more than 6,000 years old.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Jamie_L

[quote]Originally posted by Nu:
Arguments against my specific cost-benefit analysis are beside the point.[QUOTE]

Actually, I think they are the point. You argued (I thought) that self-interest went against morality. My position is that morality is more in your self-interest than what you might perceive as short-term self-interest.

And my rebuttal was to show that sometimes when you think you are doing that, you aren't really.

In my opinion, yes, morality is simply acting in a way that is in your long-term self interest AND the greater interest of the community at large. Really, the two are related. A stable community that places value on everyone protects you. So, by placing the interests of others above your own in the short-term (donating to charities, etc.), you support a community that offers a greater chance of supporting you in rough times.

Morality places good/bad judgements upon actions based on these self and community-interest goals.

Imagine you raise two kids separately. You teach one to share and be nice, and you teach the other to bully, take what they want, and think only of themselves. Which one is likely to be happier in kindergarten? Which one will have more friends, have other kids share the cool toys, and endure less punishment? I'd say the one that has been taught "not to think of themselves first". And yet, by not thinking of themselves first, they are better off.

That's what its all about.

Jamie

99Percent

Alonzo Fyfe: This is simply false.

There are simply countless people in this country, in the world, throughout history, who have killed who have not ended up in "a perpetual state of violence for the rest of their life".

Yes of course, but you cannot know that you will remain unpunished before you commit your immoral action. That is the whole point of morality! If you knew for certain the results of your actions then there would be no need of morality in the first place.

The truth remains regarding whether anybody else knows or not that you killed somebody for money. At least one person know and that is you. That nobody happens to know besides you (which is unlikely in the first place) is happenstance.

Committing violent acts remains irrational no matter how much you pretend to rationalize it.

Alonzo Fyfe

Therefore, what? Therefore I should not do it?

That is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy. To argue that "I do not know that I will remain unpunished, therefore I should assume that I would be punished" carries just as much rational weight as "I do not know that I will be punished, therefore I should assume that I will not get caught."

The only conclusion that one can draw from ignorance is that one is ignorant.

Second, when I bought shares of stock on Monday AM, I did not know that the share price will not go down. It does not follow from this that it is always irrational to make such an investment. An investment in a crime is no different -- its ratinality depends entirely on a risk assessment of the potential benefits and costs. Crimes are no more likely to be always irrational than investing in stock. Comparably, a parachutist, mountain climber, or racecar driver does not know for certain that they will complete their next event safely. It does not follow that it is always irrational to parachute, climb mountains, or race cars.

Third, there are cases where a person risks the same punishments as a murderer would face. What of a person hiding Jews in the attic in NAZI Germany or working in the Underground Railroad in 1860 USA, or attempting to escape slavery, or a woman going without a Burka in Afghanistan last year? If immoral acts are always irrational, then these acts are similarly irrational, not because they are immoral, but because they are treated as such.

Fourth, we need to look at the same situation from the opposite direction -- what about immoral acts which are not punished in a society -- such as selling disease-infested blankets to the native Americans, enslaving Africans, laws making it legal to beat one's wife with a stick so long as it was less than the diameter of the thumb, the inquisition, the Japanese Internment, and countless other examples. Where is the irrationality of immoral acts where those actions are permitted?