tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5479728470483248410..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Practical vs Moral ReasonsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9482502692160843342007-01-01T08:16:00.000-07:002007-01-01T08:16:00.000-07:00Atheist Observer
Did I say that praise, condemnat...<b>Atheist Observer</b><br /><br />Did I say that praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment are the "best way" to mold desires? I could have - sometimes I write too quickly. In fact, for some desires, we do have other ways of modifying them - such as through drugs and through brain surgery.<br /><br />Castration, for example, is known to have an effect on the <i>desire for</i> sex. It may be inflicted on a person as punishment, but it has an effect that is independent of its role as punishment.<br /><br />Anyway:<br /><br />Reason/Persuasion & Information/Education<br /><br />These cannot change what people desire as an end, at least in any lawlike way. There are no set of fact-based premises that <i>entail</i> or <i>imply</i> a change of desires. Reason is only applicable to means (persuading a person that there might be a more efficient way to fulfill more and stronger desires).<br /><br />Now, our language uses the term 'desire' both for what people desire as an end or desire for its own sake (e.g., absence of pain), and for what they desire as a means (e.g., "I want to stop by the store on the way home and pick up some butter"). However, the desires that are ultimately important are what people desire as an end. (A desire as a means being simply a set of things a person desires as an end and a recognition of how to fulfill those desires).<br /><br />There might be some accidental relationship between a change in beliefs and a change in what a person "desires as an end". Both states are stored in the same brain, such that the change in brain structure associated with a change of belief might have an affect on the agent's desires as well. However, this is not a relationship of <i>entailment</i> or <i>implication</i>. This, instead, is like changing a person's mind by means of a sharp blow to the head.<br /><br />Prevention/Opportunity<br /><br />It is true that 'prevention' changes behavior. However, the question of when to use 'prevention' to prevent bad behavior has nothing to do with fault. There are cases where we need to prevent bad behavior where we readily admit that the person is not at fault for this behavior. We lock them in mental hospitals. However, we recognize that this has nothing to do with moral fault. These people are not 'evil'. They are 'sick'.<br /><br />Of course, we sometimes have reason to confine people (to prevent bad behavior) of those who are 'evil' as well. Yet, what is the difference between 'evil' and 'sick'? When does a person deserve prison, and when is a mental hospital more appropriate?<br /><br />I would hold that the distinction depends on whether we are dealing with desires that we think can be molded through praise, blame, condemnation, and punishment (evil) and those that happen to a person in spite of these social forces (sick).<br /><br />These measures, and measures like putting a lock on a door or requiring people to pass through metal detectors at the airport, are ultimately questions of prudence, rather than morality. They are actions we take in virtue of the real-world fact that not all people are moral.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47710643862817910132006-12-31T12:17:00.000-07:002006-12-31T12:17:00.000-07:00Alonzo,
Perhaps if you are still snowed in you wil...Alonzo,<br />Perhaps if you are still snowed in you will bear with me for a second post. Here I would like to discuss your view that the most effective tools we have for changing desires and behaviors are praise, condemnation, reward and punishment. I agree there are times when each of these is appropriate and effective, but I think there are other tools as well that are even more effective in many situations.<br />My comprehensive list of moralist’s tools in increasing order of effectiveness would include:<br />Reason/Persuasion – This can be effective when the individual is reasonable or is susceptible to persuasion. In some cases we can merely talk the person into changing desires or behavior. I see this as probably the weakest of tools, but it can be surprisingly effective if done by a skilled communicator.<br />Information/Education – This differs from the previous method in that we are not trying to directly persuade, but to provide facts and information about relationships and consequences that cause the individual to change desires or behaviors in light of the new information. The limitation of this technique as you said is that it requires facts which refute the wisdom of committing an undesirable action.<br />Praise/Condemnation – These tools are basically milder forms of reward and punishment. They are effective only if the praise is seen as a significant reward or the condemnation is seen as undesirable. They have the obvious limitation of being ineffective when the one giving the praise or condemnation is considered unimportant. They can even be counterproductive. Some would take it to be a badge of honor to be condemned by fundamentalist religious zealots.<br />Example/Demonstration – “When in Rome do as the Romans do” is a trite expression, but as a guide to human behavior there’s a reason it’s been around a long time. When I experience others consciously working to help me fulfill my desires, my natural response is to reciprocate. Receiving kindness from others is often a more powerful tool than being praised for one’s own kindness. We learn more from what we see and experience than we do from what we are told.<br />Reward/Punishment – The power of effective reward and punishment cannot be denied, but again they have limitations. The rewards offered must outweigh the rewards of the undesirable act. It would not be practical to try to create a reward for not stealing a billion dollars. And while our punishment choices include the ultimate denial of life itself, punishment can have unintended consequences. Kidnap victims are sometimes killed because the criminals believe they have already committed a capitol crime and have nothing to lose. Behaviors may change to avoid the punishment, but not necessarily in ways that ultimately produce more desirable behavior.<br />Prevention/Opportunity – Finally I would say by far our most effective tools to modify desires, and more significantly behavior, are the tools of prevention and opportunity. Sometimes prevention is the only effective way to stop bad behavior. We can only prevent terrorists from blowing up a city by preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon. Praise, condemnation, reward, or punishment mean nothing to a suicide bomber, but if it is impossible for him to fulfill his desire, he cannot harm others. Prevention is also what thwarts most crime. If crime were much easier to commit, criminals would commit far more crime. Thus prevention is not only our only tool in some cases, it is the most commonly used one.<br />Conversely, my good desires only help others when I act on them, and action requires not only desire but opportunity. The internet provides you with an opportunity to make the world better by sharing your views and insights with others from your home. Without that opportunity I would never have heard of you. We can reward good behavior, but most people find helping others already rewarding. What makes the most difference is giving them easy, convenient opportunities to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3588461426165226662006-12-31T12:15:00.000-07:002006-12-31T12:15:00.000-07:00Alonzo,
In Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s book...Alonzo,<br />In Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s book Freakonomics they talk about a business where a man leaves bagels and a deposit box at various locations. The bagels cost a dollar and collection is on the honor system. The man reports 85 to 90 % of the bagels are paid for. I would say that might roughly approximate the proportion of time people perceive that their interests and those of others coincide.<br />The people who pay feel the value to themselves and others of paying outweighs the value of the dollar they could keep. I admit I have no logical proof that this is anything like a universal truth, but my personal experience is that most of the time I encounter others they are behaving ethically.<br />Your example of intellectual property theft in China presents an interesting case. There is poverty, malnutrition, and preventable illness rampant in parts of China. How morally reprehensible is it to sell pirated copies of Microsoft Office, if the primary result is bringing food, sanitary conditions, and decent living conditions to a few hundred poor Chinese villagers, rather than a few thousand more dollars going to the richest man in the world? Granted, we don’t know if he would use it to build the biggest house on Puget Sound or give it to his foundation, but the moral question remains.<br />The question gets even more vexing if the people who buy the pirated copies could not afford to buy the genuine article, so Microsoft is actually not losing any sales, and if the pirated copies improve the productivity of the buyers and let them contribute more to the economy than they would have been able to without them.<br />I don’t argue that stealing intellectual property isn’t wrong, just that real actions in the real world often have multiple consequences with various moral implications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27411765674066163432006-12-31T04:52:00.000-07:002006-12-31T04:52:00.000-07:00Atheist Observer
Your 'proof', I am afraid, begs ...<b>Atheist Observer</b><br /><br />Your 'proof', I am afraid, begs the question to a large extent.<br /><br />If I am right, then we are engaged in a continual process of social engineering to mold the desires of others - to give them those desires that tend to fulfill the desires of others, and inhibit those desires that thwart the desires of others.<br /><br />To the degree that this moral project is successful, to that degree we will see the regularities you describe.<br /><br />The very concept of promoting desires that tend to fulfill the desires of others is one that brings practical reasons and moral reasons into alignment. As I said, for the good person, there is no difference between the actions recommended by practical reasons alone and those recommended by moral reasons, because he has been made to desire that which fulfills the desires of others.<br /><br />Yet, even here I would argue that intellectual recklessness that is harmful to others - particularly in the form of religious conflict and religion-based legislation, deception (e.g., the campaign to confuse whole populations on issues such as the dangers of smoking and greenhouse gasses for the sake of profit and the lies that dominate political campaigns and punditry), the lack of charity among those who can most afford to be charitable, widespread theft of intellectual property (particularly in China), tyrannical leadership in many countries, and the like suggest that we have a long ways to go to bring individual desires into harmony with what is good for others.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47366656560544704312006-12-30T22:57:00.000-07:002006-12-30T22:57:00.000-07:00Alonzo,
You asked for emperical verification that ...Alonzo,<br />You asked for emperical verification that the best choice for an individual is usually the best choice for others. You say you have no evidence one way or the other.<br />I would assert that the fact we live in an orderly society where we have thousands of interactions with others regularly, and encounter harm or crime only rarely is a powerful argument that most people find acting in a non-harmful way to others is the best choice for them. The combination of internal feelings, general societal norms, and the legal system form a generally effective way to enforce desires that are helpful to most people, and discourage those that are harmful.<br />Yes, people lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder, but with the exception of psychopaths and sociopaths, just about everyone recognizes going around hurting people constantly quickly becomes a losing proposition.<br />There is some emperical evidence that our brains are wired to pick up on subtle signs of deception, and that concepts of stealing and unfairness are recognized even by some animals.<br />I would contend that millions of years of evolution as a social species, and thousands of years of development of civilization have brought powerful forces to bear to align the good of the individual with the good of the society.<br />Obviously we have the horrible exceptions of slavery, totalitarianism, and war, but on a day-to-day basis the typical person finds truth, honesty, loyalty, kindness, and love personally rewarding, admired by others, and very seldom lead to jail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com