tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post2789285238561211717..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Neutral DesiresAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-65478714399920700602007-11-15T09:38:00.000-07:002007-11-15T09:38:00.000-07:00martino: Unfortunately, I was using a very bad ex...martino: Unfortunately, I was using a very bad example to get at my central point. The "neutralness" of the desire doesn't really matter for the point I was attempting to extract from my rather thick skull.<BR/><BR/>Since Alonso adressed the comments on his latest post, I've actually commented there, and hoepfully expressed it better. My apologies for the delayed response.Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36452979173226626872007-11-13T22:04:00.000-07:002007-11-13T22:04:00.000-07:00Cameron: OK I get your point. That is PETA campaig...Cameron: OK I get your point. That is PETA campaigning against the unnecessary killing of animals for fashion (lets ignore the meat issue and football).<BR/><BR/>Whilst there are plenty of things we all do for rest and relaxation that are pragmatically neutral desires therefore morally neutral according to DU, when it comes to any form of campaign, such as this, I am having difficulty as seeing any as morally neutral. That is a campaigns idea of "doing good" may in fact be doing good or doing harm according to DU. We certainly have reason to commend the former and condemn the latter (allowing for priorities and amongst others financial implications). <BR/><BR/>So my difficulty now is the premise of your example since it is not morally neutral. Your key phrase to look at is <I>Certainly, some people have strong desires to protect animals, but the end result of promoting an aversion to wearing furs doesn't actually do anything to fulfill the more and stronger desires of members of society as a whole.</I><BR/><BR/>We have two choices here. (1) We can ignore Peter Singer like arguments and say the desires of animals do not count (2) We can say they do count. I will pursue only (1) here, although PETA is presumably taking choice (2).<BR/><BR/>So we can imagine two groups of people. (A) PETA supporters whose desires are thwarted whenever animals are killed for fashion (B) Fashionistas whose desires are thwarted if they cannot wear fur. I just tried to make A and B look similar but there is a substantive difference. <BR/><BR/>(i)In a world where fur is not a fashion item, group B still have plenty of ways of fulfilling their desires without thwarting the desires of others. And group A are having their desires fulfilled too - although there would be no motivation for them to exist as such a group in such a world. <BR/>(ii)In such a world where fur is a fashion item then group (A) desires are being thwarted and group (B) are being fulfilled - <B>but only by thwarting the desires of others</B> namely group (A). <BR/><BR/>So DU would prefer world (i) over (ii). <BR/><BR/>Now one could expand this and discuss a third group the fur trade and so on. But that is too much detail for the argument here. The real point is I cannot see how one can have a morally neutral scenario, as you attempted here, without some such analysis as I just attempted. The burden on you is to find a better example?Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28305351312758194802007-11-13T13:53:00.000-07:002007-11-13T13:53:00.000-07:00I don't think that PETA's motivations and your ave...I don't think that PETA's motivations and your average Football fan's motivations are the same. PETA is fulfilling a desire to "do good." I root for my home team, while at the same time thinking to myself what a waste of resources professional sports really are.<BR/><BR/>As I understand desire utilitarianism, insofar as the desire of animals goes, using animal products is morally neutral. From this perspective, the anit-furs backlash of the previous century was a waste of time. Certainly, some people have strong desires to protect animals, but the end result of promoting an aversion to wearing furs doesn't actually do anything to fulfill the more and stronger desires of members of society as a whole.<BR/><BR/>Assuming I haven't made a logical error then, and that the wearing of furs is morally neutral, should we call out the anti-furs activists for wasting their time and encourage them to redirect their efforts towards something more useful, or is the fact that their advocacy is fulfilling strong desires of theirs enough to let them be?<BR/><BR/>Lets say any group raises $1 M for their morally neutral cause. That much money is enough to do a lot of <B>meaningful</B> good, if it were only redirected. What about $10 M, or $100 M?<BR/><BR/>Put another way, how much potential good do you have to be squandering to be worthy of condemnation?Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61001094253346318292007-11-13T10:08:00.000-07:002007-11-13T10:08:00.000-07:00Alonzo I think we mostly agree. There may be no s...<B>Alonzo</B> I think we mostly agree. There may be no such thing as a pure neutral desire but pragmatically some desires cause more harm than others and this gives a priority to what desires to focus on. <BR/><BR/><B>Cameron</B> (I think) I know what you are saying but don't like your example not just your imaginary PETA but meat eating (at least excessive, which seems to be the norm now) is not a good example. Many, many more people could be fed without land, food, energy and government subsidies needed to supply meat.<BR/><BR/>Actually I find it difficult to imagine a campaign to modify a neutral desire given my view on this (neutral desires that it). Certainly many people are passionate about inconsequential issues - lets say sport and the like, reality TV or celebrities/celebrity magazines? Lets stick to (spectator) sport as that seems the most neutral to me. <BR/><BR/>I think your question then becomes something like should we condemn them for encouraging support for one team over another when they could be applying themselves to more worthy issues? <BR/><BR/>Yes with the proviso of what I have resolved with Alonzo, some things have a higher priority than others. That is the more neutral the issue is the less incentive there is to condemn them? Otherwise we are wasting our time by condeming them for wasting their time? :-)Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66067816518524726552007-11-13T08:23:00.000-07:002007-11-13T08:23:00.000-07:00I'm going to use one of my earlier examples to ask...I'm going to use one of my earlier examples to ask a question. Bear with me, I'll get there.<BR/><BR/>One of the things that I think is both interesting and good about the world in which I live (which I realize is probably not universally true for everyone on the planet), is that people are free to identify an issue that is particularly important to them and then set about trying to make a difference in that area. In other words, I think some special interest groups and do real good, even though many of these special interest groups eventually lose their way and sometimes do more harm than good.<BR/><BR/>PETA is one example of a special interest group that has identified their "pet" issue (no pun intended), and then set about trying to make a difference in that area.<BR/><BR/>Now obviously, many people feel that PETA's methods are extreme and do real harm, but that's not really my point for the time being. In fact, PETA in this example is a completely imaginary PETA that does no harm.<BR/><BR/>Assuming the following:<BR/>1. Through whatever methods it uses, PETA successfully promotes an aversion to eating meat.<BR/>2. One of the consequences of eating meat is additional environmental pollution (that is, fewer people eating meat would result the desire for a cleaner planet being fulfilled)<BR/>3. PETA does no harm to people, nor thwarts any other desires (this is an imaginary PETA in my example)<BR/><BR/>Should we then condemn PETA for wasting their time? That is, given that this imaginary PETA promotes an aversion to a negative desire that is very close to neutral, and that the members of PETA obviously have an extremely strong desire to prevent harm to animals, do we as a society have a reason to try to mold their desires to encourage them to spend their time on more useful endeavors? Put another way, is fulfilling my very strong desire to champion a cause a strong enough reason to leave me be if that cause is to change an effectively neutral desire in others?Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14970662968364556952007-11-13T06:00:00.000-07:002007-11-13T06:00:00.000-07:00martinoTechnically, it would be difficult to find ...<B>martino</B><BR/><BR/>Technically, it would be difficult to find a truly neutral desire.<BR/><BR/>Practically, the value of some desires - positive or negative - are not worth the effort to change - or even to find out what their value is, exactly.<BR/><BR/>The fact that we have limited resources means that those resources should be devoted first to where they will do the most good. Promoting aversions to rape, wanton violence, theft, lying, sophistry, and the like are simply more important than promoting aversions to watching television sitcoms.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the person who sits at home watching sitcoms is not doing himself or anybody else any good. But, he's not hurting anybody either. That's reason enough to simply cast a sneer in his direction and go on to the people who are doing real harm.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36467783763823461582007-11-13T01:59:00.000-07:002007-11-13T01:59:00.000-07:00And to add to this, any relaxing "neutral desire" ...And to add to this, any relaxing "neutral desire" that is effective in recharging your batteries for you to pursue good desires is also not really neutral. They would be indirect, as in in desires that tend to fulfil other desires. <BR/><BR/>That is the issue of selecting which relaxing "neutral desire" to fulfil - given one's beliefs, interests, means, responsibilities. abilities and so on - that is to select the most suitable means of relaxing still implies that this is evaluated against one's ability to fulfil other desires.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44043581225927202782007-11-13T01:47:00.000-07:002007-11-13T01:47:00.000-07:00Alonso: We do not have examples of a neutral desir...<B>Alonso:</B> <I>We do not have examples of a neutral desire itself worthy of condemnation.</I><BR/><BR/>This makes me wonder is there, in fact, a category of "neutral desires"? Your argument above implies that could DU fall victim to the impossibility claim we would make regarding Act Utilitarianism, (that no-one is really capable of maximising the good for all, based on pleasure or whatever). <BR/><BR/>I think it is important that there are neutral desires but could DU imply that there is no such thing since good desires are being thwarted by pursuing "neutral desires" which by being "sins of ommission" are only pseudo-neutral?Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.com