The Ethics Entry

[bram]

Did some Chandra work today--stuff needed for the paper to get done, but not to advance the scientific understanding. You know, "We used the Chandra X-ray telescope, which has these features and is described in this other paper... we detected 600,000 photons or so after rejecting the sucky ones

Comments

A quick critique:

[rawmutton]

What if you apply the basic premise to itself? i.e.

I should believe that the statement, "Every 'should' statement is false, or meaningless," is true.

I don't see the word "should" meaning, "I'm planning to do X". That's "shall," or in a weaker sense, "will." Rather, "should" means "ought" and denotes a sense of compelling, a submission to a higher power, greater good, etc. Perhaps this is why you dislike this word :o)

Lastly, your idea could possibly fail its own litmus test (slavery, Holocaust) if the wording of the examples were changed slightly. For example, what if Hitler were motivated purely by self-interest? He'd simply be an uptight guy who really hated Jews and wanted them wiped off of the Earth, but really did not do so out of a sense of duty (a "should"). Regardless of historical accuracy (Hitler was a devout Catholic, after all) one could have a Holocaust-esque scenario motivated purely by self-interest.

Of course, I'm of the mind that everything is motivated by self interest, ot at least should be. :

Re: A quick critique:

[bram]

Thanks for the critique.

I did say in my entry that I didn't believe you should believe true things, particularly that "I should do X" is meaningless.

I argued that one can't help but believe true statements when confronted with evidence.

It has bothered me that though this point of view does give a difference between right and wrong it doesn't give a motivator for improvement.

I think that selfish motivations provide as much a "should" or "ought" as belief systems do. If you selfishly take something you are probably thinking "I should have this" and are mistaken. If you do not have that belief but act selfishly anyway, then you may not really be responsible for your actions.

If "I think I should" and "I am planning" are really equivalent, then if someone acts selfishly with a mistaken "should" belief, then that person will plan ahead. This is consistent with our thinking that "premeditated" crimes are the worst.

[lutron]

I think that this statement actually comes from Hume.

"So I came to the conclusion that every "should" statement is false, or meaningless."

I don't remember exactly where but Hume makes an injunction against all people who might say "ought." He warns that those people are not to be trusted. I remember it being later rather than earlier.

On a side note, I have a logic question. Doesn't the syllogistic format insist on necessity? If that's so, then I don't think you could account for such a thing as "should," unless you regard should as moral necessity. Does that make sense?

[bram]

lutron, you really need to update your journal more often!

Anyway, Hume was the greatest. No other philosopher had a clue. And he was apparently not only an even-tempered sort (joining the select club including Kant and Spinoza who lived their doctrines) but also very kind towards poor Rousseau.

So if Hume said it first, he was probably even more right than I am.

I don't know from moral necessity, but "should" as it's often used in reasonings is contingent; something "should" in order for something else, and what's the end-justifier?

hume and pricks

[anonymous]

from what i've read hume did not claim that reason SHOULD be the slave of passions, but reason IS the slave of passions. although slave is inappropriate word since it implies a hierarchy. his thesis states that reason is simply a logic. logic is merely linking of distinct and different elements into associations. thus logic provides no motivation. passions of pleasure and pain provide the motivation - direction. in this way, logic is directed by passion.

his anecdote concerning the preference of the destruction of the universe to the prick of a finger points out how humans utilize proximity - in time and space - in our decision making. someone drowning in the ocean 100 yards offshore raises less emotion than when viewed through a telescope. suddenly this man is within close proximity, and the viewer feels greater sympathy.

Re: hume and pricks

[bram]

Thanks, anonymous commenter. I will have to go back and read Hume again and see how his arguments relate to Kant, etc. Perhaps I'll post another comment here about what I learn.