Moved to WordPress

I decided to go with WordPress, so the posts and comment(s) have been moved to http://doubtingthefish.wordpress.com

Thanks!

-olly

The Problems with separating Utilitarianism from Self-Interest

At Aaron's suggestion, I'm replying to his comment with another post. I think that I have a better handle on Aaron's moral system now, but there are a few problems, at least as I see them, that I'd love to see addressed. First off, there's the problem of principles. Aaron states:

We can determine principles about morality based on facts of reality. Values are contextual to individuals (There is no such singular entity as a "family" or "community"; those are just collections of individual entities), but morality is based on principles, and principles are universal.

I do understand where Aaron is arguing from here, and as he stated, it's much different then a Utilitarian worldview, as I previously suggested he was claiming. He seems to be arguing two positions here, which are quite distinct from each other, though they are of course connected.

1.) "Values are contextual to individuals". In other words, values (as in WHAT we value, not Moral Values) are dependent upon who you are, where you live, cultural and social paradigms and norms, etc. This I can buy, and in fact I wholeheartedly agree with. Take a political example. I'm a very liberal person (but don't call me a Democrat!), at least in a classical liberal context. I'm something of a libertarian without the conservative social values. My best friend, on the other hand, is a resolute republican, in the newer context of Republicanism (i.e. Bush/Reagan Republicanism, not classical States Rights Republicanism). We grew up on the same block, with fairly similar families. He honestly had never thought about his politics until 9/11, and then he started to do some political 'soul-searching' (if you'll forgive the term). He basically came to a conclusion that in the Freedom vs. Security debate, Security wins. I on the other hand feel the opposite. I think it's pretty apparent to most of us that what we value (again not our Moral Values, capitalized) are contextual to who we are as individuals.

2.) "morality is based on principles, and principles are universal". Here's where I take some issue with Aaron. I'm not necessarily arguing that he's wrong about this statement, but I feel that I personally need something more to back it up. It goes along with another section that Aaron writes later:

And all morality is universal and fact-based and applies equally to everyone. To be "moral" or "good", each person must use his or her values according to the same universal moral rules.

My issue with this statement is that, again, I would like some facts to back it up (no pun intended). If each person uses their value system based on moral absolutes or universals, then what ARE those moral universals? Claiming that there is an absolute, means that there should be an axiom of some kind that can be derived from it. If that's the case, I guess I'd like a clearer idea of one or two or ten of these axioms, whatever they may be.

Truth be told, all legitimate "other-interest" is based on the fundamental "self-interest" in that you are you, you own you, and you are only able to see from the direct perspective of you, and you will fundamentally only willingly act within the perspective of your own best interests, automatically.

My issue with this statement is the problem of self-destructive behavior. How does something that I choose to do, which is self-destructive, fit into the self-interest worldview? Aaron is arguing that my diagram is inaccurate, because the other-interests, as he puts them, are still based in self-interest. But what possible self-interest can come from a self-destructive act? One answer given is the following (in relation to my example of taking a bullet for my wife):

Regarding your example about how you would take a bullet for your wife: that too is self interest. You "value" your wife. You relate to her. You empathize with her. You feel very connected to her on many levels. She is a vital part of your value sysem. Of course, you can value her so much that you would risk your life, or face certain death, to save hers. But that would only underscore the fact that you value her so deeply. If given the choice, you would indeed choose for her to exist and for you to die, that is only because it would make you happier that way; that it would serve your self-interest more.

Ok, I can somewhat see Aaron's point here. Indeed, it would be my personal choice, therefore on some level it may be considered in my own self-interest. I don't necessarily see how the choice would make me happier, because presumably (at least in the context of my example) I'd be dead, but it would be a choice to help someone else, based on my own care of that person.

But that can't account for a truly self-destructive act, which is not done for anyone else, but purely on my own. Take smoking for example. I know how bad it is for me, and yet I do it anyway. I know that, continued, it will probably kill me in the end. There is no benefit to be gained from smoking, with the one exception of enjoyment. In the context of the argument that Aaron is making, self-destructive acts could still be considered moral acts. Indeed, they wouldn't even be considered morally neutral acts, because if we are acting for our own enjoyment, we are acting in a moral way (back to the self-interest standpoint). I may be slowly committing suicide by poisoning my body, yet it would be considered moral within the framework given. Maybe that IS what Aaron is arguing, but if so I'd like clarification.

Essentially what I'm saying here is that if an act makes me feel good, then by Aaron's reasoning, it's in my own self-interest, therefore becoming a moral act. But what if that act, at the same time as being in my own self-interest, adversely effects others around me against their will. Aaron states later:

When you get down to it, the only really immoral acts are coercive acts. Lying, stealing, hurting, or otherwise forcing another individual to do something against their will. Every individual owns themselves. No individual "owns" any other individual. Therefore, nobody has the right to force their own values onto anybody else. If any given action is consented upon by all involved parties, then it is fine. Consent gives legitimacy.

But how do you deal with conflicts between self-interested (aka moral) acts and the negative effect of those acts? Which wins, morality or immorality? What's the trump card?

Take another example. Let's say I'm stranded somewhere, me and one other person. We've run out of food, and it's becoming clear that rescue is far off. What if I were to realize, and then act upon this, that if I killed this person, I could survive through cannibalism long enough to be rescued? Aaron says that consent gives legitimacy, but he ALSO claims that morality is based upon self-interest (not Utilitarian self-interest, but upon the universal principles that are derived from self-interest). So where does that leave me in this dilemma? I'm at a point where an action would be both moral and immoral at the same time which, is just as untenable position as relativism itself.

To wrap up this long post, I would argue two things: first, that self-interest cannot be, at the most basic level, separated from utilitarianism. I think that Aaron is probably right, that there are some universal axiomatic principles that can be derived and used as morals, but that in the end they come back to being utilitarian.

The second thing I would argue is that an act can be moral, in a utilitarian sense, and be other-interest based at the same time. I would argue that me giving my life for my wife is a utilitarian choice, but not one that is in my own self-interest. Arguing that it would 'make me happier' is falling towards the very relativism that Aaron is striving against, because it becomes to easy to say 'this act is moral, because it makes me happy', and apply that to many MANY acts that I think most people would consider immoral. Take the problem of a serial killer. It may make them happy, indeed the ONLY thing that may make them happy, is to murder people. If they were to stop, they would be miserable. So either you can argue that what they are doing IS indeed morally acceptable, with all of the obvious problems that come with that, or you can argue that it is immoral for them to kill people. But if that's the case, then they are putting other-interests ahead of their own self-interest, in order to be more 'moral'.

Self-interest is a basis for much of our moral framework, this I would go so far as to say, but I don't think it can account for all situations, and I DO think in the end that it's largely utilitarian.

-olly

The War on Relativism..

So I am basically starting this blog as a place to put my own thoughts down while reading many of the other atheist and theist blogs that I read on a regular basis. While I can always respond in comments, sometimes I feel the need to move outside of that context, so here you go!

First off, a little about myself. I am 26 years old, living in the Seattle/Tacoma area, and working at a software company. My background in the whole theist/atheist debate is a bit of a complicated one, so here goes:

Age 0-10: No clue about what this God stuff was all about. My parents are not exactly the religious fundy's that a lot of people (my wife included) had to deal with growing up. Actually, quite the opposite: my dad describes himself as an existentialist (I actually think beatnik is the perfect term for him, since it grabs the existentialism and throws in his constant poetry reading lol). My mom is a hippie/civil-rights activist/volunteering advocate, who practices yoga, meditation, etc, and VEHEMENTLY disavows being associated with Christianity (though she does believe in a 'god type force' in her own words).

Age 10-14: Attended a Nazarene church with my best friend and his fundy family. I was constantly confused by what I was seeing/hearing/being taught. I remember being in the Youth group, and listening to a long diatribe about homosexuality, and wondering, in the immortal words that Eric Cartman would speak later, "What's the big fucking deal bitch??". I also remember having this book shoved at me that had all these weird quotes about hell/heaven/the devil/Jesus/etc, and not understanding why ANYONE would buy any of this stuff.

Age: 14-19: Absolute, 100% atheist. At that point, through high school, I had completely rejected religion, in all it's forms.

Age 19-22: This is hard to define. When I was in college, I had something of a 'religious' experience. Considering that I went to a religious college, this isn't surprising. I started to believe that there was SOMETHING bigger then me out there. I couldn't put my finger on what, but guided by the wonderful brain-washers around me, I decided to just call it Christianity and be done with it. I never went to church, I never truly believed that Jesus was divine (which is a pretty important part of Xianity)... I just believed there was something bigger then me. At the same time that I was going through all this, I was in pursuit of my Philosophy degree, so I was being exposed to all of the famous Philosophers that are quoted constantly throughout theist and atheist blogs. I read them from top to bottom, left to right.

At the same time, I was discussing religion with my wife, who was going through her own 'spiritual crisis', having come from a fundy family, and finding that what she was taught didn't always jive with how she felt about life. Homosexuality was hard for her, since she had no problem with it, but her family are raving bigots in this regard. Sex before marriage was another big one, since she firmly believed that if her God was a loving God, and she did believe that, here was no reason that God would have a problem with she and I sharing that, regardless of the marriage question. Finally, she was having a REAL issue with the idea of the Xian afterlife, since she was wrestling with the question of what would happen if she or I died, and the surviving one re-married: what would that mean when we met up in the Xian version of heaven?

Take all of that, throw it in a blender, and you had my head for that period of time.

Age 22-current: So, where did I go from there, and where am I now? Well, I finally resolved a few things for myself. I realized that I WAS still an atheist (and still am), and still am. So what does that mean for my whole 'there is something larger then me' feeling? It's still there, but I've realized what it is (there are a couple different things): natural forces (weather, the tides, nature in general that humans can't tame no matter how hard we try); and collective human experience (which in the end is so much bigger then any one of us). These two things are bigger then any one human being... but they AREN'T spiritual!!! They are just real concrete things. I also was wrestling with the ideas of existentialism, which I tend to think are more accurate then a lot of philosophies. I for one agree with Jean-Paul Sartre, when he asserts that there is NO SUCH THING as a priori knowledge. There are instincts, but unless you stretch it, those can hardly be called knowledge.

I also started to think about relativism (here's the meat and point of this long winded post), and I came to consider myself a relativist. I simply couldn't buy that any moral code was the 'right' one... to me, the differences in moral codes were simply the outcroppings of cultural, social, political, differences. Any time someone appeals to an authority around me, I HAVE to ask them what makes their 'authority' 'right'? But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that relativism is really an untenable position in the end. The statement alone, "everything is relative" is a contradiction, and there really is no way of describing relativism that doesn't come out sounding non-sensical ("I kind of think that maybe relativism is absolute, but I reserve the right to be wrong."... just doesn't work that well, does it).

So back to the point of this post. I was reading Aaron Kinney's blog, which is an excellent piece of work from someone who has obviously long considered their position, and I keep sticking on one point. Aaron is arguing from a standpoint (if I'm reading him correctly), of 'morality from self-interest'. In other words, when we act in a moral manner, we are doing so because it's in our own self-interest to do so.

An example I always like to give for this argument is that of committing murder. Why wouldn't I kill someone? Well, from the argument Aaron is making, at the very basic level, I wouldn't kill someone because of the consequences. It's in my best interest to not go to jail, so I better not kill someone. Self-interest.

While I think that Aaron is right to a degree, I don't think that this is necessarily the best argument against a relativist point of view. My question to the self-interest argument would be this: why do people give their lives for another being? I would take a bullet for my wife, in a heartbeat. This really has nothing to do with my own self-interest. If I die, it doesn't do me any good now does it? My own self-interest would be to live, not to give my life for another human being.

I really have come to think that humans act from an overlapping circle theory of interest, not just self-interest. It goes like this:








As you can see, I've constructed (badly I know) an diagram of various kinds of 'interest' that we feel. I think that the black mark in the middle is where 90% of our morality comes from. With this construction, I can answer the question of self-sacrifice: I do it because it falls into the familial interest category.

Granted, my three category titles may be a bit vague, but I'm making the point that, yes, we do get our morality from -interest... but self-interest isn't the only -interest that we draw it from. I might give my life for my wife, so that she can live and continue to have a good life. This doesn't really do me any good, since I'll be worm bait at that point, but it's a moral choice that I'm comfortable making from an -interest standpoint.

hopefully that didn't confuse you all too much!!!

-olly