99Percent

Alonzo Fyfe: S * P > F * (1 - P).

S = Utility of success
F = Utility of failure
P = Probability of success

Note 1: This is an idealized formula but, like formulas presuming massless strings and frictionless pullies in physics, is the preferred type of formula to use in an illustration.

Note 2: Opportunity costs (the value of any alternative action one could have performed) are presumed to be included in S and F.

Note 3: Neither S nor F is infinite. A being that places infinite value in any one end is incapable of doing anything but pursue that one end -- he is under the effect of a compulsion and is not a true decision-maker.

Unfortunately for your formula, F can be infinite when dealing with death. In the case of death the utility of failure is infinite.

(1) In performing an immoral act, you do not know if you will be caught.

This has no bearing on the formula above. It is already incorporated into the formula through the variable P. To say that the mere existence of P means that an act is irrational would imply that all decision making is irrational, because every action involves some uncertainty in outcome.

It does have bearing. You don't know the value of P and therefore you cannot use the formula

(2) For all immoral acts, F is extremely high.

Infinite, in fact, as in the case of death.

(3) Immoral acts are to be understood as those actions where the above formula is false (that are irrational). Thus, irrational acts are immoral by definition.

Intentional irrational acts that affect others are immoral, yes.

Furthermore, harmful acts (murder, torture, theft, rape, slavery) then become moral whenever the above formula happens to be true.

No, because murder, torture, theft, rape and slavery involve violence and therefore death which would make F infinite.

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

99Percent

You offer two objections to my claim that immoral acts are rational when S * P &gt; F * (1 - P) where:

S = value of the results if successful
F = value of the results if unsuccessful (fail)
P = probability of success.

Your objections are that immoral acts are always irrational because:

(1) The formula above cannot be used because we do not know the probability of success

(2) F = negative infinity in the case of an immoral act, because immoral acts are contrary to life, and life has infinite value.


Response to objection 1

The conclusion that you must prove is that it is always irrational to perform an immoral action. In order to support this conclusion, you have to be arguing that it is always irrational to perform an action when we do not know the precise probability of success or failure. But, if all such actions are irrational, then all human action is irrational, because we never know the precise probabilities and the precise results of anything we do.

I stated at the start that the equation was simplistic, in the same way that physics examples assuming massless strings and frictionless pullies are simplistic. Yet, the principle behind it remains. It is not always irrational to act in the face of uncertainty.


Response to objection 2

If it were the case that life has infinite value, as you said, then every decision that a person would ever make would be made with an eye towards its effect on extending or shortening his life.

This means everything, including what to eat, how much exercise to get, which job offers to accept, what to read, which shows to watch on television, hobbies, what to say, etc. Everything

I doubt if anybody, even you, lives their life the way it would have to be lived if "life has infinite value" were true. We all trade off life to some extent -- we all have other values.

And if there were such a person, rather than being a paradigm of ratinality, he would likely soon find his symptoms listed in the DSM manual of mental illness.

Now, let's assume that you get past this hurdle. You have a second hurdle to cross. Even if life had infinite value, you would not be able to make your objection because "F" is not the only side of the equation that can contain a life component. "S" can also contain a life component.

When it does, an immoral act would still be rational whenever it would extend the agent's life -- if even by a few seconds.

More precisely, an act would still be morally permissible whenever

S * P &gt; F * (1 - P) where:

S = number of additional seconds the agent would live if the act were successful
F = number of additional seconds the agent would live if the act failed
P = probability of success.

Here, you must demonstrate that, for all immoral acts, the equation above is always and necessarily false. All of the original objections come into play against any chance that you can successfully do that.

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

dk

Technically the word rational used as a noun involves multiplication, division, addition and/or subtraction. I think you mean to use rational as an adjective, perhaps “rational reason”. Do you mean moral acts agree with good (rational) reasons; and immoral acts agree with bad (irrational) reasons. In either case I have to disagree. Clearly reason can be employed to murder or to save a life. Good reason conveys a moral understanding of an action. Murder conveys a immoral action by unifying reason, intent and action. Murder is wrong because the consequences are impossible to evaluate with any degree of certainty. Self defense justifies homicide with a good reason, but only if the intent was defensive, and the death of the perpetrator was a secondary affect of an act of self defense. Clearly many murderers have what they believe is a reason to murder, but it’s a bad reason.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

99Percent

Alonzo Fyfe: The conclusion that you must prove is that it is always irrational to perform an immoral action. In order to support this conclusion, you have to be arguing that it is always irrational to perform an action when we do not know the precise probability of success or failure. But, if all such actions are irrational, then all human action is irrational, because we never know the precise probabilities and the precise results of anything we do.

I think we are losing track of what morality is. Morality arises precisely because we can never know the precise probabilities of success or failure in certain decisions. We cannot predict all the consequences of our actions. If we knew for certain what the consequences were of everything we did we would not have any need of morality, in fact we might not even have free will.

The rationality behind objective moral actions rests on trying to maximize the probabilities of success, not on determining the probabilities themselves, for if you can know the probabilities of success of your actions then it no longer is a moral decision it is simply a rational decision. Since in a moral decision you don't have absolute knowledge, you must

• be able to honestly and truthfully be confident that you made the best decision based on the knowledge you had at the time regardless of the outcome.
• and not initiate violence since violence causes uncertainty and therefore goes against maximizing the probabilities of success

In fact, "success" or "failure" might never be determined, yet you must remain confident that you still made the correct moral decision.

Therefore I don't think your formula applies to morality.

Jamie_L

It seems to me that Alfonso's arguement relates to two separate but related things:

1) General rules of morality
2) Specific actions taken by moral agents

It further seems that 1) is governed almost exclusively by rationality. On the other hand 2) is not. The argument is that it can be considered rational in certain situations for certain individuals to perform immoral actions, even those actions are immoral becaues IN GENERAL it is irrational for them to be performed.

I can buy that.

Jamie

DRFseven

But you still have not explained why this should be so. How do you know that morality is "about all of us", and, even if it is, how do you know any kind of a "should" applies?

Alonzo Fyfe

Jamie L

It seems to me that Alfonso's arguement relates to two separate but related things:
1) General rules of morality
2) Specific actions taken by moral agents

It further seems that 1) is governed almost exclusively by rationality. On the other hand 2) is not. The argument is that it can be considered rational in certain situations for certain individuals to perform immoral actions, even those actions are immoral becaues IN GENERAL it is irrational for them to be performed.

This sounds like a reasonable interpretation, though the phrase "in general" is a bit vague. If it is given a meaning like "all things considered" -- and if the passive voice used in this characterization (with its implied agent-independence) is taken as essential to this description, then I can accept this, I think.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>