My video on The Amazing Atheist's rebuttal

[brimstoneSalad]

TheVeganAtheist makes a lot of small mistakes that inherit from some deontological views that were inspired in a large part by Francione.

Kindly elaborate as I am a big fan of Francione

A bit is discussed here:

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=11&t=309
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=11&t=311

Deontology is based on circular reasoning and faulty premises; it only works if you believe in some supernatural force granting those inalienable rights, and aren't a big fan of logic or science.

Why is it wrong to do X to Y? Because Y has inalienable rights to not have X done to it.
Why does it have such rights? Because it's wrong to violate those rights.
Why? Because they're rights!

...

Some people prefer to base their moral beliefs on bald assertions and supernatural claims or circular logic (at best), Francione and the totality of deontologists are in that camp. Others prefer to base them on reason and valid logic; Sam Harris, Peter Singer, and most other consequentialists.
Do they fail sometimes? Yes. They fail often even (I've discussed some of Singer's mistakes), but they make a good try of it, and they're on the right track at least. Deontologists aren't even in the right universe; their only "argument" is to point out others mistakes in hopes that people will ignore their own.

[Jebus]

OK Francione is off my list after reading that. I am trying to learn more about utilitarianism. I haven't read much philosophy in the last 20 years but I have thought along these lines since childhood.

I think what you (Brimstonesalad) have hinted on in many posts is that the most moral person is s/he whose choices are most intended to maximize total benefit and reduce total suffering. If this is a correct description of your position would you agree that

It would be morally ok for a poor person to steal from a rich person
it would be morally ok for a loved person dying of kidney disease to steal a kidney from a person with no friends or family.
it would be morally ok to blow up the planet (if someone had the power to do so) as there is more suffering than happiness

[brimstoneSalad]

I am a consequentialist, but I'm not a utilitarian due to a number of failings in the system (I've discussed a bit elsewhere), although Utilitarianism is probably the best thing to study because it is the closest thing to correct that has a broad scholarship.

Anyway, It's not just the present you have to consider, but the far reaching consequences of actions, and the opportunity costs of those actions.

I'll break it down with your examples:

It would be morally ok for a poor person to steal from a rich person

What does a society look like that permits this kind of action? One thing you have to consider is tendency; whether, if many people behaved like this, it would be useful.

Aside from that:

In practice, rich people give more to charity and benefit the world more with their money than poor people do, who are more likely to spend a large portion of their income on drugs (like alcohol), or throw it away on rent, spend it on gas (instead of taking public transportation), etc.

Look at where the money is coming from, where it is going, and where it would otherwise go to get an idea of the net change in harmfulness or helpfulness to the world.

Now, if you're Robinhood, and you're stealing from the corrupted rich, and giving to the abjectly poor peasants, we may be talking about something good. Of course, that it without the context of social order to consider (which can also be a good thing), and ignoring the other crimes the character did to protect himself from the law.
Usually one crime begets another, more serious, one in evading punishment. People who have merely stolen may commit murder to evade the consequences. This is a causal relationship -- they murdered because they stole, and so the harm of murder (to the degree it is probable) is bundled in with stealing, which culminated in the action.

it would be morally ok for a loved person dying of kidney disease to steal a kidney from a person with no friends or family.

In social context, no, this creates a very bad tendency. We need to know that we're safe from having our organs stolen. Bodily security is one of the first elements of societal order. I happen to believe that society does more good than bad, or at least has a better potential to (and is getting there).

Outside the social context; it doesn't really matter if you love them. What matters is whether that person is doing more good for the world, or more bad, than the one who was sacrificed, and the relevant consequences and opportunity costs.

it would be morally ok to blow up the planet (if someone had the power to do so) as there is more suffering than happiness

There's a group that goes by the mantra of "Only one solution" that believes that (and that the world is a shit pie). This isn't rational, however, because it ignores the facts that:

1. Life will return. You can't eliminate life. Hitting the reset button won't change anything, it just restarts the struggle and prevents real solutions to the problems creating suffering.
2. The universe is pretty much undeniably brimming with life too. If you really think that, you should aspire to create some evil robots to wipe out all organic life in the universe, which means you need the world to continue as it is to further scientific advancement.
3. We have potential to do better, and progressive moral values have always won in the end; there's no reason to think that with social and scientific progress, there isn't another option to exterminating life.

[Jebus]

OK thanks, but your replies to my first two statements considered the overall impact of what could happen if society allowed this type of action to be morally acceptable. Stealing is one of the few crimes that is illegal in every country of the world so it's safe to say that nearly everyone across the board would agree with you on that.

However, I was most concerned with that one single act of stealing. The acting agent would be careful not to let anyone know that s/he is stealing so it is unlikely to have any ramifications beyond that one isolated action. Would you still consider it an immoral action?

I disagree with your response to the third point. It seems to me that the suffering to happiness ratio only increases with time, mostly because it takes many years for the populations to reach their maximum numbers. It is also too difficult to predict if the happiness to suffering ratio will improve in the future. What happens in other parts of the universe is also irrelevant as the distances are so enormous that there could not possible be any causation elsewhere if our planet blew up.

[brimstoneSalad]

However, I was most concerned with that one single act of stealing. The acting agent would be careful not to let anyone know that s/he is stealing so it is unlikely to have any ramifications beyond that one isolated action. Would you still consider it an immoral action?

If you're actually taking the money from an entity that would do evil with it, and putting it toward a more neutral or good purpose instead (or taking the money from a neutral entity and putting it towards a good purpose), then it would be a helpful action IF nobody could possibly know about it/ there were no risks of other consequences.

It's not a very realistic situation, and I don't think individuals are capable of evaluating those factors correctly.

E.g. I've known people who think stealing from Walmart (evil) for themselves (good?) is a good thing. The problem is the tenuous reasoning they use to justify those points.

When you're stealing for your own gain, in particular, I think you would be particularly vulnerable to cognitive dissonance and rationalization to excuse it, even if it's not good. The Robinhood situation is different, because he was not stealing for personal gain, so he was in a better position to objectively evaluate those two agents (the stolen from, and the given to).

I disagree with your response to the third point. It seems to me that the suffering to happiness ratio only increases with time, mostly because it takes many years for the populations to reach their maximum numbers. It is also too difficult to predict if the happiness to suffering ratio will improve in the future.

Things may get worse yet before they get better, but this trend can not continue; it simply isn't sustainable.

That is even assuming there is more suffering than good in the world, which I don't necessarily agree with, of course.

What happens in other parts of the universe is also irrelevant as the distances are so enormous that there could not possible be any causation elsewhere if our planet blew up.

The effects are in terms of opportunity cost.

If humanity is not destroyed, it will eventually reach the stars. The distances aren't that large, particularly for probes or robotic explorers.

We can't know for certain what the future holds if we continue on our path of social and technological evolution, but we can reasonably know what happens if we hit the reset button; life will emerge again, and we'll be back to the state of nature. Destroying all macroscopic life on Earth is a temporary measure.

If we continue, there is a possibility of improvement. If we reset, we just reinforce the status quo until the next intelligent species comes along, but at that point development of advanced technology may be impossible (due to our already having exploited all easily accessible resources), so the Earth would be stuck with a population of pre-industrial revolution beings suffering and causing suffering until the sun engulfs the planet.

[miniboes]

Do you agree with the sciency well-being based morality that Sam Harris advocates, Brimstone?

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you agree with the sciency well-being based morality that Sam Harris advocates, Brimstone?

I can only say probably mostly.

Harris, as far as I know, seems to subscript to a more or less typical Utilitarian line of thought (much like Peter Singer).

I've outlined some of those issues elsewhere.

You may have caught this discussion, but this is where the issue comes up:

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... t=10#p5081

There's also some discussion here:

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... 2419#p2419

Utilitarianism falls short on a number of fronts.

I think I'm going to read this, because it looks like a good summary: http://cognitivephilosophy.net/ethics/s ... sumptions/
If I have a chance, I'll do a point-by-point discussion.

If you have any other good summaries of Harris' arguments, that would be a great source for comparison as well.

[Jebus]

When you're stealing for your own gain, in particular, I think you would be particularly vulnerable to cognitive dissonance and rationalization to excuse it, even if it's not good.

I think this is possible but unlikely (unusual). Anyway, I wasn't expecting the discussion to go in this direction, so let me rephrase the original question: Do you, as a consequentialist, believe that an act of theft, compared to the act of doing nothing, is the morally preferable act if the act raises the average happiness level of all beings?

If humanity is not destroyed, it will eventually reach the stars.

Again, possible but unlikely. Although I see your point about opportunity cost, my assessment of risk vs. opportunity is a lot more negative than yours. Life developed very early in our planet's history, yet intelligent life is something very recent. I also believe that intelligent life (humans) are the cause of most of the suffering we see in the world today. Therefore, if we were to hit the reset button we should guess (by looking at past history) that it will take 3.8 billion years before intelligent life develops again. This is much longer than most scientist's earth age estimations. Hence, the earth would get a couple of billion years of (happier) less intelligent life. Having written that I am aware that you disagree with me that there is more suffering than happiness today, which obviously should be the primary reason that we disagree on the moral merits of hitting the reset button.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think this is possible but unlikely (unusual).

This has been the case for every thief I have ever known.

Maybe I've just been unlucky, and have only met the rationalizing ones, and every other thief is perfectly reasonable.

Do you know a lot of thieves who are rational rather than rationalizing, and don't make bad excuses for their self benefiting actions?

Sounds like a survey is called for.

Do you, as a consequentialist, believe that an act of theft, compared to the act of doing nothing, is the morally preferable act if the act raises the average happiness level of all beings?

This is what's unlikely.

Yes, in the immensely improbable event that you actually have an action of theft that you know (not assume) will cause more good than bad in the world, you should do it. Just as, if you knew Hitler as an infant, and you really knew that he would turn out the way he did (and that nobody else would just replace him), it would probably be appropriate to drop him on his head.

You're asking for an unreasonable and probably impossible level of foreknowledge, though, against the weight of proven human tendency to rationalize and be anything but objective when it comes to selfish desires.

Again, possible but unlikely.

If you don't think humanity will reach the stars eventually if we don't kill ourselves off, there's a gap in scientific understanding on your part that needs to be filled. Why do you think this is unlikely?

Do you think the stars are too far away, or the technology is impossible?

Although I see your point about opportunity cost, my assessment of risk vs. opportunity is a lot more negative than yours.

Your assessment is based on inadequate information.
What's the state of your knowledge in the domain of science and technology? Economics? Human psychology?

Do you understand the issue with sustainability that we're facing?

Our current growth and lifestyle is not sustainable. This is not a question, and it's not an option. It's simply not a trend that can continue indefinitely. We will be left with no options other than massively reforming our food sources.

Animal agriculture may or may not ever fully end, but if it doesn't it will become a luxury at most, for the very rich. When economic pressures are relieved by changing the status of meat, animal welfare laws will be able to improve the state of the industry.

Just like child sex trafficking will never really end, but most people neither approve of it, nor could afford it if they did.

Life developed very early in our planet's history, yet intelligent life is something very recent.

At our current technological level, we only have the capacity to destroy the majority of the world's macrofauna. There is a vast array of genetic infrastructure already in place that we just aren't capable of annihilating, hidden in every unreachable crack and crevice on Earth.

Life would not have to develop again from scratch; we're not capable of that degree of sanitation.

I also believe that intelligent life (humans) are the cause of most of the suffering we see in the world today.

We're both the most moral, and the most wicked beings on the planet, but the key word there is "today".

If we haven't reached it yet, we're approaching peak suffering. We're also hitting a renaissance of secularism, and shedding the dogma that has held back scientific solutions to the world's problems.

Having written that I am aware that you disagree with me that there is more suffering than happiness today, which obviously should be the primary reason that we disagree on the moral merits of hitting the reset button.

I don't think it's relevant, because the assumption that the reset button is even a reasonable option ignores opportunity cost of eliminating all current progress.

Even if there is more bad than good in the world, there's no reason to believe that will always be the case, or that resetting things would help matters.

[brimstoneSalad]

Jebus, here's something discussing an argument I found that is similar to yours, using off-the-cuff intuition based assumptions of varying degrees of suffering. Only this argument suggests we should eat meat to prevent animal suffering:

http://reflectivedisequilibrium.blogspo ... -wild.html

Pessimism about wild animal welfare resuscitates the Logic of the Larder argument
Some argue that suffering exceeds happiness in the lives of wild animals in the aggregate, and in light of the above facts further argue that that the total negative welfare of wild animals dwarfs that of factory-farmed animals. On a this view, the immediate effect on animal welfare of expanded meat consumption would be positive, as the destruction of wild habitat outweighs conditions on farms.

The author of that blog is undecided on the issue, but takes it seriously.

Is that view just as valid as yours, if life is really a shit pie?