99Percent

Oh look, another unsupported assertion: Entering into a win/lose proposition is irrational. As far as I can recall from decision theory, it would only be irrational if one valued the expected probability of "win" less than the expected probability of "lose."

The thing you are overlooking, tron, is that in the game of violence the loss is death. Death is absolute, obviously you cannot go back to life after death. So even though it is a win/lose situation, the outcome is unreversible. That is why entering into this game is irrational. Its like Russian roulette. In the first round there is only 1 in 6 chance of dying but the fact that you might actually die, is what makes playing Russian roulette irrational. In a simple example a person who "rationally" decides to go into a home, kill the owners and steal everything is risking death because the owner might fight back too and there is a hight chance he will fight back after all the stakes are very high: life and death.

While that might be the rational decision, one might easily value a win/lose proposition more than a win/win proposition, making the win/win proposition the irrational decision.

This is nonsensical. How can you rationally value more a win/lose proposition than a win/win proposition?

Are you claiming that it is always irrational to gamble? First, gambling is not a win/lose proposition not a lose/lose proposition. Second, even if in the long run one is likely to lose money (not true of every gamble), it is not necessarily irrational. It might be irrational if one used expected monetary value as one's guide to rationality, but it appears to only be a rough approximation of human decision making.

Gambling would be irrational if you gamble everything you have at every turn. This is what happens in a violent situation. You are risking your life which is everything you have. The stakes are life and death. That is why it is irrational. I can't believe that a person so intelligent as yourself still refuse to see this.

Still, I think I may see the problem: you have not considered that what is "rational" can be quite subjective. You apparently value certainty far more than most other people.

Certainty is objectively valued because it promotes life. Uncertainty promotes death. Without life there can be no value to begin with. There is NOTHING subjective about this last statement. If you value uncertainty above certainty, all other things being equal, you are valuing death over life, as simple as that.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

tronvillain

99Percent, you assert truth on your personal authority will all the skill and self-confidence of a Christian theist.

Now, you seem to be asserting that ever choosing to risk one's life is irrational. One wonders how you are able to set foot outside your door, let alone drive a car or ride on an airplane. You obviously do not actually hold that gambling with your life is always irrational.

As I said before, entering into a win/lose proposition would only be irrational if one valued the expected probability of "win" less than the expected probability of "lose." If lose is death but the probability is extremely low, it is quite possible that it will be rational for people to risk it. Even Russian Roulette could be rational for some people, given a big enough payoff.

Vorkosigan

As I said before, entering into a win/lose proposition would only be irrational if one valued the expected probability of "win" less than the expected probability of "lose."

Or if a "loss" in situation A gives you a "win" in situation B. Ethical decisions occur in networks and bundles, they are never divorced from other ethical decisions. Blowing one's head off may well be rational, if your wife can pay the family debts with the insurance gained thereby.

Michael

99Percent

tronvillain: 99Percent, you assert truth on your personal authority will all the skill and self-confidence of a Christian theist.

So are you, and so much the better because if we didn't have confidence in what the truth is then we might as well not exist, much less reason about anything.

I have to admit I got sidetracked with trying to define violence and with the value of certainty over uncertainty. I realize I made a foolish statement and openly admit I was wrong when I said so. Obviously all worthwhile living entails a risk of dying.

I give myself the luxury of making sometimes outrageous absolutist statements in my search of knowledge - I am not afraid to be wrong, thanks to my other 1%

Now I hope we can go back as to why we can say that willed violence is objectively immoral.

Taking into account that moral decisions are based on supposedly rational evaluations of human beings you can see that when one intentionally enters a violent situation with another involuntary person (this person would have to have free will on its own to see this), you can objectively see that this person is valuing more his own pleasure (sadism) or material gain (stealing) at the cost of another's person life and free will. In short he is valuing the life and will of others to a zero degree in relation to his own personal values. This is why you can objectively say that intentional violence is immoral, because if this person has these values then he will continue acting this way with any other human being.

turtonm: But by judging the ethical decisions of others you take into account what were his values in doing so. By realizing that someone blew his head off, you can reasonably agree that he valued his life less than the material gain of his family and therefore he was acting irrationally, because human life must be valued above all other considerations, or else the moral decisions become self defeating. (see Alfonzo Fyfe's post).

tronvillain

99Percent:
No, this person is valuing his own pleasure (sadism) or material gain (theft) more than another person's life and free will. It does not follow from this that he assigns no value to their life and free will.

You can only objectively say that intentional violence is immoral given a specified moral system under which it is, which leads us back to subjective morality. Also, it doesn't follow from valuing pleasure or material gain more than another person's life in a specific instance that it will be done in every instance.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

David Gould

Why is human life other than mine of greater value than my pleasure?

Where does this value objectively stem from?

Why is my life of greater value than my pleasure?

For example, if I am suffering a long, slow hideous death why would it be morally wrong to kill myself?

It seems to me that 'my happiness' is the highest value that is common to all 'mys' (people).

And what makes me (David Gould) happy might be different than what makes you happy.

tronvillain

tronvillain:
For instance, I would probably be willing to commit murder in exchange for a billion dollars, yet I have never even hit anyone.

daemon

So I would be correct in stating that you determine morality through use of logic and the mere assumption that your perceptions are correct? While I do not contest the premise, I don't see the connection--it appears to be a complete non sequitur.
So, then, it is not merely to "go against the truth," but to also have the intent to deceive. How do you determine that the intent to deceive is inherently immoral?
So playing a joke on someone is wrong, then, if it involves lying to them?
Never mind... I'm not sure it's entirely relevant.
It is quite obviously not self-evident, as we are having this discussion. I don't see how you have clearly defined what constitutes an irrational act in the first place, however. If not an action that stems from an irrational belief, what is it?
Firstly, this is demonstrably incorrect. The Aztecs would sacrifice people to make the sun come up; the priests were treated well and prospered because they killed.

Secondly, what is meant by "lose?" From what you've said here, I don't think I understand what you mean by it.
So, then, you don't dispute that it was immoral for the person to take the job?
Well, a couple weeks ago it was worth approximately 83 gallons of gas (unleaded); this week, it's worth approximately 69 gallons of gas. So, no, I don't automatically know what $100 is worth.
But you said that the situation must be a certain win/win proposition to be moral! This is a flat-out contradiction of what you stated a moral action must be--how do you reconcile this?
I'm sorry, but this is non sequitur. Why do you hold this to be true? Please note that I do not wish to discuss the validity of capitalism, but rather the derived morality of it.

99Percent

But would that murder be morally correct?

99Percent

daemon: So, then, it is not merely to "go against the truth," but to also have the intent to deceive. How do you determine that the intent to deceive is inherently immoral?

Because you are also going agaist the will of another person.

So playing a joke on someone is wrong, then, if it involves lying to them?

If that person doesn't want a joke played upon, then yes. Its a matter of valuing the free will of others.

It is quite obviously not self-evident, as we are having this discussion. I don't see how you have clearly defined what constitutes an irrational act in the first place, however. If not an action that stems from an irrational belief, what is it?

The tool of survival inborn for all human beings is reason. If you don't use your reason you will not survive for long. I don't think I have to be defending this statement. It is quite self-evident. Morality arises out of the use of reason. As simple as that.

Firstly, this is demonstrably incorrect. The Aztecs would sacrifice people to make the sun come up; the priests were treated well and prospered because they killed.

Yes but that moral standard on the part of the Aztecs is what made their society crumble when the Spaniards came. All the people were sick and tired of the tyranny and fear instilled by the Aztec priests and very quickly defected to the more reasonable Spaniards.

Well, a couple weeks ago it was worth approximately 83 gallons of gas (unleaded); this week, it's worth approximately 69 gallons of gas. So, no, I don't automatically know what $100 is worth.

Sure you do. Gas is a very poor example to gauge the value of money. The majority of goods and services have stable prices. (unless you live in a country of great economic turmoil, but then it would be another situation entirely).

But you said that the situation must be a certain win/win proposition to be moral! This is a flat-out contradiction of what you stated a moral action must be--how do you reconcile this?

The situation must have a better potential for a positive final outcome in order for it to be morally correct. Where is the contradiction?

I am going to skip the discussion of capitalism to conserve the topic at hand.