Mathematical Morality 10/21/2011

So, I'm reading "The Big Questions" by Steven E. Landsburg, and he believes that
it is a moral obligation to push one person in front of a mine art to save five other
people. In the movie !nthin"able, a similar situation is presented. #hen it omes to
!nitarian and a deontologist values, I have usually onsidered myself a modified$
deontologist, but I seem to ta"e a holisti approah. %o&ever, I 'ust don't understand the
point of a mathematial morality( the most happiness for the most people) I'm not sure
I really see the point. Suffering in 'ust one person is still suffering, &hy does it matter
ho& many there are) Is it better to "ill relatives so that they feel no remorse) Is it better
to "ill five drifters than it is to "ill one person &ith a big family that &ill miss them)
*nd is it better for five people to feel slightly bad or for one person to feel
ompletely horrible) I guess I'm going to ramble a little bit in this, 'ust to vent all my
+uestions and vie&s about this. ,or e-ample, &hat is the goal of morality. happiness or
progress of soiety) I don't "no& if I &ould be &illing to let one person die so that five
may live, but I may be &illing to let one person die so that &e have a ure for aner... or
even if it brought us more effiient tehnology/ ho&ever, I &ould feel more guilty about
letting the person die than by passing up the hane for ne& tehnology 0even the ure for
aner1. 2ue to this guilt, I &ould assume that I &ould be going against my vie&s on
morality, but then &ouldn't most people feel more guilty "illing someone diretly, than
indiretly letting five people die)
I feel that, urrently... and I may hange my mind later, that the best option for a
moral hoie is the one that ma"es us feel less guilty 0and besides, &ho &ants to have the
person &ho &ould in atual irumstanes, thro& someone in front of a mine art, as a
friend)1. 3f ourse, there is the problem of people &ho feel no guilt, so maybe I should
rephrase &hat I mean by stating. I thin" people should ta"e the route that avoids them
diretly ausing negative results to happen, despite potential for &orse indiret
onse+uenes. This means that you an "ill someone 0or more than one1 if they are
threatening the life of an innoent person, but you annot "ill an innoent person to save
the lives of more innoent people. So, I suppose I'm a utilitarian that refuses to ma"e
sarifies for the "greater good".
$Greg dratsab Huffman
(10/22/2011) NOTE: If the &orld is over$populated, does that mean that the !tilitarian
hoie is to let more people die, or even atively "ill more people on purpose) That
&ould ause greater happiness, orret)
(10/23/2011) NOTE: Is there a ontinuum &hen it omes to ative involvement) Is
pushing a button "no&ing your ation &ill shift the trolleys and "ill someone else as bad,
or as innoent, as the other options) It is similar to the 4ihard 5elly movie, The Bo-
067781, in that you have the option to ta"e someone9s life &ithout muh ative
involvement, but does that ma"e it better) *lso, is there a ontinuum for the type of
person someone &ould be &illing to shove in front of the trolley) If they are &illing to
push a fat man to save :, &ould they be &illing to put a baby in front of the trolley)
(8/18/2013) UPDATE: 4ES;3<SE 3< =*>E,*QS T3 T43LLE? ;43BLE>
anythingisfine posted...
statistially, most people &ould pull the lever but &ould not push the person... but the big
+uestions is #%?)
My response
Beause morality isn't 'ust a number. #hat value is there really in more people surviving
assuming your soiety isn't in danger of e-tintion) It matters ho& you treat people more.
*nd thro&ing someone over a liff isn't treating people very niely. Saving someone's life
is a nie at, but it is negated &hen you must intentionally hurt an innoent person to do
so. ,or instane, &ould &e say that someone is morally good if they saved @7 people, but
murdered A)
(9/18/2013) NOTE: Moral e!ort "ar#
Though I have argued against a mathematial moral system, I have given some
thought to applying a grading system to ma"e morals more realisti, and so &e don9t
stress every time &e ma"e a small moral slip. ,or instane this +uote of mine ame into
my head today. B!tilitarianism grades li"e a laCy math teaher, but deontologial ethis
re+uires that you sho& your &or".D
>aybe &e should give ourselves 0and maybe even others1 a moral report ard.
?ou ould organiCe it by day, &ee", month, et. If you tell a lie, thin" of it li"e a spelling
mista"e on a paper and subtrat a fe& points from yourself. If you ath someone else
lying, you an subtrat a fe& points from an internal soreard you "eep of them. ?ou
an put a Cero$tolerane poliy on ertain things suh as murder, rape, or anything you
'udge to be beyond the horiCon of aeptable mista"es. In bet&een these, you an assign
grading as you see fit. If you ommit betrayal on a friend, and feel very guilty about this,
then you an give yourself a Cero for that assignment, &hih means you &ill have to &or"
e-tra hard to ma"e it up. >aybe even doing some ommunity servie or volunteer &or"
for e-tra redit)
The point of this system &ould be to allo& people to ma"e mista"es, and not all
them immoral people unless they sore belo& a ertain level 0isn9t it usually E8F or
lo&er that is onsidered failing)1 ?ou an then ran" &ho of your friends is the most
moral of the bunh. 3f ourse, you &on9t be able to see all of their ations, so you &ill
never "no& for sure. !nli"e in shool, you aren9t re+uired to turn in your assignments.
%o&ever, if you are honest &ith yourself, you should be able to apply this formula to
your o&n moral system. 3f ourse, you have to hoose your moral rules first. Thus,
&hat others may onsider hyporitial beause you are ma"ing deisions ontrary to your
o&n established ethis, you &ould merely onsider a moment of &ea"ness that &ill lo&er
your moral grade for that &ee" or month.
MOA$ EPOT "AD E%PON%E o& 'ace(oo):
Sam Diamond: But &ho has the time)
Gregory Everette Huffman: ?ou don't have to physially "eep a list of everything you do,
'ust li"e not everyone "eeps a opy of their budget around. %o&ever, they do "ind of
have a rough idea of &hat their finanial situation is. The point isn't so muh to be e-at,
but the point is to not be disheartened by ma"ing a fe& mista"es and saying "fu" it" and
thro&ing your moral system out the &indo& sine you feel you have failed it. Gust li"e
&hen someone buys a andy bar or movie they didn't need they shouldn't say "fu" itH"
and start buying ne& ars and rashing them, sine they made a small budgeting mista"e.
(9/20/2013) Mea*+ri&, e-il* (y #eo&tolo,y -* +tilitaria&i*m.
#ould your moral system be a fator in deiding &hat you onsider more evil in regards
to number of people "illed versus ho& they &ere "illed) ,or e-ample, in a ase of &ho is
more evil bet&een Iharles #hitman and Issei Saga&a, if you preferred utilitarianism as
your moral system &ould you say Iharles #hitman) *nd if you &ere a deontologist
&ould you say that Issei Saga&a &ould be the more evil bet&een the t&o)
(12/1//2013) Tho+,ht:
I9m beginning to thin" that any ation that "no&ingly produes a vitim of in'ustie
annot be onsidered a moral ation. There may possibly be some ases in &hih to save
soiety one &ould need to at in a utilitarian fashion, but I thin" this is an alternative to
ating morally, and that Butilitarian moralsD is maybe an o-ymoron. This means that
utilitarian ations may at for the Bpubli goodD but not for the individual and his rights.
I &ould also say that any ation &hih does not reate a vitim of in'ustie annot be
labeled as immoral, beause all immoral ations re+uire a vitim of in'ustie. *nd
oneself annot be said to ommit an immoral ation if one only harms oneself, beause it
ma"es no sense to upbraid a person &ho is also the vitim( that &ould be blaming the
vitim. *lso, part of ommitting an immoral ation is using your Bpositive freedomD to
impede the Bnegative freedomD 0rights1 of someone else. So, ho& an one use his o&n
freedom to infringe upon his o&n rights)
0ame'A1* re*!o&*e to immoral actio& re2+iri&, a -ictim o3 i&4+*tice:
soysturm posts (1/1/201!"
Let's say that you and I are the last t&o beings that e-ist on the planet. I am in a
vegetative state from &hih I &ill never reover. ?ou are a dotor and "no& that I &ill
never reover. ?ou have your &ay &ith my body. Is that immoral) Ian you say that I &as
a vitim of your assault &hen I'm both physially and mentally una&are that you have
done anything to me) If I am, then &hy) *ny 'udgment that &ould be made &ould
re+uire a third party, as neither you nor I &ould be in a position to 'udge aurately. If I'm
not onsidered a vitim, then an you say that your ation &as immoral)
and you say that there must be an ob'etive foundation for ethis but i don't neessarily
agree &ith that, at the very least beause i'm not entirely ertain that humans an ever be
ob'etive about anything
i mean if you're a sentimentalist then you're basing your ethis on your feelings &ithout
aring about ob'etivity
*nd I'm not neessarily trying to argue against your point. I'm 'ust thro&ing JJJJ out
beause I should be sleeping and apparently deided to ta"e a fe& minutes to &rite this...
i mean 'ust the first thing i thought &as that those t&o ideas don't even neessarily ma"e
sense together as li"e B*2 T%I<=S >*5E ;E3;LE ,EEL B*2 and as suh doing bad
things &ill >*5E T%3SE ;E3;LE ,EEL B*2 so ho& an you possibly say you're
basing anything in ob'etivity &hen your theory is entirely based on something &hih is
sub'etive by its definition
*tually, 'ust re$reading your first post, I'd say that the only ations I an thin" of that
23<'T produe a "vitim," &hether that be diret or indiret, are &holly non$moral
ations 0should I read a boo" or listen to a reord for the ne-t t&enty minutes, should I
eat this hi"en right no& or in five, should I smile at that ro" or not1. If that's the ase,
then &hat &ould be the point of having this moral system, as every non$non$moral ation
you ould ta"e &ould be immoral)
#oody1 posts (1/1/201!"
to ta"e it up a noth and ta"e it to something that isn't a hypothetile +uestion
&hat if someone has se- &ith a death orpse that has no living relativesKfriends and
nobody finds out)
no vitim but still very imoral0at least for most people1
Greg Huffman posts (1/2$/201!"
%onestly, I thin" the orpse should be vie&ed as a disarded shell, and ontroversially... I
have to say I don't really find it immoral. Some people might symbolially find it
horrible, li"e someone ta"ing a piture of their daughter and using it for target pratie,
but outside of that, I really don't thin" it is so muh of a moral issue as a mental 0and
physial1 health problem.
The vegetative state one is atually the one that ma"es me thin" a little harder, ho&ever I
don't thin" a third party ma"es any differene at all. It "ind of reminds me of abortion. If
the baby doesn't feel anything, &on't remember it 0obviously sine it &on't e-ist after1,
and undergoes no suffering, does that mean that it is morally o"ay) %o&ever, for the
vegetative state thing 0to differentiate it from the nerophilia +uestion1, I'm thin"ing it
might be a fair argument to say that as long as you are alive it &ould be infringing on
your rights to your body if I &ere to do &hat I &ish &ith it.
I'm also not sure that ethis la"s ob'etivity so muh as they 'ust improve &ith time, 'ust
li"e siene has led to mista"es, but that doesn't mean it isn't getting loser to the truth. I
thin" the main goal of ethis 0at least legally spea"ing1 is allo&ing as muh freedom for
people as possible to their o&n lives &hile ma"ing sure they don't infringe on the rights
of others. 3n a personal level, I &ould li"e to see more people treating more people &ith
"indness and respet in general, but that shouldn't have muh legal enforement.
Greg Huffman posts (2/%/201!"
Lresponding to final paragraph in soysturm9s argumentM
4emove "indiret" from the e+uation, beause &ithout intent to reate vitims or at least a
realiCation that there is a high probability of ollateral damage, one's at most li"ely isn't
immoral. #hen you start bargaining &ith other people's rights through !tilitarianism...
that is &hen problems arise. I'm not saying suh a proess might not be deemed neessary
in some e-treme ases, suh as &hen running a ountry, but these ations an hardly be
alled moral. #hen you ma"e utilitarian hoies, you are giving up morals in order to
protet your interests 0suh as your ountry1.
(3/25/2015) 6&te&t o& the 6&#i-i#+al:
I reently &as doing some of the e-periments on philosophye-periments.om and
one of the morality senarios stumped me. #hy &as it that I felt that it &as morally
&rong to eat one of the asta&ays on an island to survive, but that I &as morally
aepting of a nurse that "illed her patients to protet them from the horrors of the <aCis.
Both of the senarios involved a person ta"ing lives into their o&n hand, but at least in
the first senario, it leads to lives being saved. #ell, I no& "no& the reason.
It omes do&n to the intent on the individual affeted by the hoie. In the ase
of pressing a button to hange the ourse of a train to hit less people, you still are
hoosing bad intentions for one group of people, &hereas not doing anything has at the
least a neutral intention for every potential vitim. If you eat the asta&ay, then you may
have the good intentions of saving as many lives as possible, but you have negative
intentions for that individual. Though, you may be able to get around this if
ENE4?3<E pi"ing stra&s agrees to the outome, but only if everyone agrees to it free
of oerion, beause a man is allo&ed to gamble his o&n life( though I9m relutant to
say this yet ma"es it morally aeptable. %o&ever, &hen it omes to the nurse "illing her
hild patients, it is true that she didn9t really have the moral authority to ma"e that
deision, but on the other hand she had good intentions for the individuals &hom she &as
depriving of their o&n rights, and &as trying to ma"e the deision that &as best for them.
#hile I am definitely a proponent of assisted suiide, the problem beomes onfusing
&hen you don9t "no& &hat the vitim &ould prefer, so you have to deide for them,
beause they are inapable of ans&ering. I &ould say that maybe these ations are
morally aeptable, or at least loser to being so, due to the intentions behind the ations
being of noble origin.
(3/27/2015) Mother 8ith T8i&*: A 2+e*tio& !o*e# to 0ame'A1* Philo*o!hy 9oar#
Is it morally better for a mother to give birth to t&ins than 'ust one) I &onder this,
beause people seem to give a great deal of importane to the number of people being
saved, so it appears that the more people in the &orld the better. If you s&erve to to hit
one person instead of five, then &hat are you saying) *re you saying that it is the better
option beause more people &ill still be in the &orld, or that the death of five people &ill
ause more suffering) #hat if the five people &ere all drifters, and the one person you
s&erved to hit &as a popular person &ho had more family members and friends that
&ould have to suffer this tragedy)
But the &orld is overpopulated as it is, do &e really need to fous on ma"ing morality
about the number of the population &e &ould lose) I'm not trying to be "old" and say it
&ould be a good thing if they died, but simply I'm saying that I don't see the importane
attahed to number, maybe it is a remnant from primitive times &hen there &as a danger
that the tribe &ould go e-tint) Is it better to prolong the suffering of many, or to let them
die out so that stronger and happier onsious beings an ta"e their plae 0or at least
prevent them from reproduing1) <o disrespet to those types of people, but if you are
born into the &orld 0thin" of Gohn 4a&l's Neil of Ignorane1, don't you li"e your hanes
better if you are more li"ely to embody the happier and stronger geneti bodies) #ouldn't
it be preferable to have a smaller number of happy people in the &orld than ma"ing sure
everyone is 'ust a little bit happy)
I thin" intent should be a bigger fator than number. If I s&erve to hit a person to avoid
five, I have a negative intent to&ards that one person, &hereas I have a neutral intent if I
let the trolley ta"e its ourse. I &ould also li"e to say one final thing, sine I have been
doing some ativities on philosophye-periments.om/ it is about ;eter !nger's The
Envelope O the Nintage Sedan. Loo" it up if you aren't sure &hat I am tal"ing about, but
it is stated that they don't understand &hy people hoose to help the guy as"ing for help,
but don't donate to harity. I thin" part of the reason ould be &hat I have tal"ed about
here, but I'm surprised it &asn't mentioned that there is a person 2I4EITL? as"ing for
help, &hereas the harity offer is from a third party. It seems to me that people &ill be
more li"ely to respond to a person &ho is personally as"ing for help... try having a
starving hild in *fria personally mail the guy, and I bet he responds differently.
(//20/2015) The Morally %+(4ecti-e.
I &as onsidering the problem of sub'etive morality vs ob'etive morality, and I
began to &onder if sub'etive morality ould be salvaged in a &ay. I believe in ob'etive
moral standards than"s to Sam %arris, ho&ever, I &onder if you ould rely on morality
by vote, in a &ay, &hih &ould be a sub'etive measure. <ot so muh as voting to
impose one9s morality onto another group of people, but rather voting against &hat one
finds immoral. ,or e-ample, in Sam %arris9 e-ample of the Bevery third must &al" in
dar"nessD &here the third baby has its eyes plu"ed out, &e &ould survey to see 0el pun1
&hat perentage of the population preferred this moral system to another one. I &ould
assume about AAF of the population, at least, &ould be unsatisfied &ith these measures,
but if the blind too" it as an honor, then &e &ould possibly allo& that ulture to "eep
their traditions. Though, I9m still &ary of saying this is a good idea, beause they might
not "no& &hat they are missing, and they only thing &hat they have is good, beause
they don9t "no& &hat to ompare it to.
3ne benefit of this system is that it &ould prevent multi$ulturalists from
advoating for Islam, sine many >uslim &omen aren9t happy &ith the &ay things are
urrently being handled in their ultures. They &ould vote against ho& things are, and
this sore &ould be ompared to other moral systems, and if it ame up heavily la"ing
0&hih I &ould assume it &ould1 then &e &ould be right to ensure them and urge them
to alter their religious teahings to be more inlusive of &hat more people &ant so that
everyone in the area is a loser to being a bit happier. The full politis of ho& to handle
this aren9t going to be disussed here, but I merely &ant to eluidate ho& the system of
measure &ould be set$up.
So, this system &ould onsiders &orlds full of psyhopaths, serial "illers, and
sadomasohists. In a &orld full of masohists, there may be a @77F approval rating
despite being a &orld full of pain. %o&ever, a @77F rating &ould mean that no one felt
their rights &ere being violated and no one felt there &as in'ustie being ommitted.
<o&, in a &orld full of serial "illers and vitims, one has to as" &hat the ration &ould be
of serial "illers and vitims. If it &as :7K:7 then there &ould be a :7F vote against and
for the system, &hih &ould be even &orse than the third eyes blind ulture. 3f ourse,
in a &orld &here 87F of the people &ere serial "illers and @7F of the people &ere
innoent vitims, you &ould be tempted to say that that &ould only be a @7F disapproval
ratings, but I thin" it may be higher than that, sine serial "illers &ould be ommitting
in'usties against other serial "illers, and even the "illers &ould start to &orry for their
o&n lives.
3f ourse, I do believe in the ob'etive truth of morality, but if you &ant to
salvage a moral sub'etivism, I thin" this &ould be the &ay to do it. %o&ever, one ma'or
problem &ith this system is that it doesn9t measure the &eight of the in'ustie. ,or
e-ample, some poor people in the !nited States might ast a vote of disapproval if they
feel they aren9t getting enough soial seurity, and these approval ratings ould math$up
&ith or e-eed the AAF of the raCy religious eye blinding ulture. So, maybe there
should be levels of dissatisfation that need to be &eighed as &ell and onsider the most
e-treme dissatisfation levels before the slighter ones. ,or e-ample, L:M &ould be a
ran"ing of e-treme feelings of in'ustie and L6M &ould be minor feelings of in'ustie.
Thus, if PQF of the people in the !nited States &ere disapproving by asting a level 6
in'ustie vote it &ould be superseded by a AAF level : in'ustie vote.
(//23/2015) Ma:im+m ;a!!i&e** or $ea*t 6&4+*tice.
I9m beginning to rethin" &hat the ultimate aim of morality or ethis should be. I
remember reading some boo" about ethis and they said that despite the desription for
utilitarian ethis being the greatest happiness for the greatest number, that really all
ethial systems aimed to ahieve this, but deontology 'ust onsidered the more subtle
fators that utilitarianism overloo"ed.
%o&ever, I9m starting to &onder if the real aim of morality and ethis should be
the least amount of in'ustie for the least amount of people. If you try to ma-imiCe
happiness, you run into a fe& problems. Should you "ill all of the unhappy people)
Should you reate more people to reate a great number of people to share in the
happiness) Should you spread happiness out) It seems if you tried to enat some of
these ends, espeially using politial po&er, then you &ind up ommitting a series of
in'usties along the &ay. %o&ever, it seems that &hile it surely is a morally positive
thing to reate happiness, it9s even &orse to do it if it reates a morally negative ation of
in'ustie. It seems that first, before ahieving happiness for a great number, &e should
redue in'ustie for a great number. If you &ere hopped do&n in the street for the sa"e
of the happiness of three people, &ould you feel li"e you had enountered the blade of a
moral person &ho is going to ma"e the &orld a better plae) It is better to let three men
die than to save them by putting the blood of one on your hands. I &ould rather live in a
&orld &ith less in'ustie, &ith less sarifiial vitims than a plae that &as &illing to
mo& you do&n for Bthe greater good.D There is no greater good for the man &ho is
deprived of his onsiousness, beause good only e-ists if a onsiousness if able to
ma"e that value 'udgment. So, &ho benefits from the greater good) *ny group that
benefits from ommitting in'ustie is an un'ust group that doesn9t deserve to live in
happiness, regardless.