|
|
(SG)
Here's something (to think) about over the weekend.
----begin----
Discussions on The Moral Maze #1
Let me remind you of a puzzle. There are five people:
|
|
A Man. (M)
A Woman. (W)
A Friend. (F) (of the man and woman).
A Boatman. (B)
A Stranger. (S)
|
The man and the woman are very much in love. They are separated by a river and
there is no way of getting across to the other side (there are no tricks in
this puzzle, there really is no way of getting across). A boatman is able to
take her across the river, but on hearing of her predicament and the fact that
she is so keen to be re-united with her lover, he doubles the usual fare from
$100 to $200. The woman only has $100. A stranger who is passing, hears this.
He tells the woman that he will give her the $100 if she has sex with him. The
woman decides to have sex with the stranger for $100. She receives the $100,
pays the boatman, and is ferried across the river to be with the man. They are
both very happy together. However, a few days later, a friend finds out about
the woman sleeping with the stranger for money, and immediately tells the man.
The man confronts the woman and ends the relationship, stating that he wants
nothing more to do with her. The woman is devastated.
Please rank the five people (M,W,F,B and S) from 'best' to 'worst' in terms of
their behaviour. Put the 'best' character at the top of the list and the
'worst' at the bottom, with the others in order in between.
The purpose of this puzzle is to get you to think about your own personal
system of ethics. In a coherent system, your ethics should derive from your
values - those things which you seek to gain and keep. Many of you wrote in
with your ordered list (for which I thank you). The results are shown below,
best person first, worst person last:
|
|
Most popular choice: (WBSMF)
Next most popular: (BSWMF)
Next most popular: (WBSFM)
Next most popular: (WMSBF)
|
Most people put the friend last. The rest of the entries were evenly
distributed amongst the other 120 possibilities!
As you can see (and as predicted) there are many variations and it is unusual
to receive two the same!
This intriguing puzzle underscores the fact that there are almost as many
different, conflicting ethical stances as there are people in the country!
(desertrat)
(no surprise here)
(SG)
As a nation, we do not have a rational and coherent ethical standard, set of
values or belief system.
(desertrat)
Nor should we. The only way to have a single "rational and coherent ethical
standard, set of values or belief system" is to impose it by force, which is
absurd. This is not to mention the idea of "nation" being absurd to begin with.
This planet is made up of individuals (too many of them but that's a different
subject,) and so long as we share a rational and coherent set of legal duties
and obligations, we are at peace and free individually to entertain any system
of belief regardless of how incoherent that might be.
(SG)
In the light of this, it is staggering that we have a workable legal system!
(desertrat)
This statement is non sequitur. First, this tale deals with moral values rather
than legal duties. None of these characters has committed any crime, that is to
say, no impartial jury would likely convict any of these characters of criminal
activity based upon the information given in the story. Second, we most
certainly do not have a workable legal system. Juries are no longer, that is,
if they ever were to begin with, impartial. What we have is no workable legal
system, what we have is a system of predation and parasitism. Those who are
more powerful rob, enslave, imprison and kill systematically.
(SG)
Having a properly considered set of ethics is essential if you wish to become a
person of power and integrity. That very word 'integrity' means that your
ethics (morals, etc.) are integrated - that is they 'hang together' as a whole.
It is a very powerful thing to know what you believe and why you believe it -
the latter being by far the most important.
(desertrat)
I doubt whether one's moral integrity has anything to do with "power." Moral
hypocrites routinely victimize others regardless of the moral integrity of
their victims. Perhaps I misunderstand what is meant here by "power."
(SG)
To obtain such an ethical coherency should be the urgent task of every
intelligent man and woman.
(desertrat)
I would think each individual would be naturally interested in avoiding
hypocrisy, but safeguarding against hypocrisy, that is, ensuring that one's
personal beliefs are coherent and integrated is less important than ensuring
that one's actions remain within legal limits. And lest anyone think I refer to
the laws passed by those imposters who call themselves the government, I'll
include a quote by Lysander Spooner which references what I mean by "legal
limits."
|
|
"The science of mine and thine---the science of justice---is the science of all
human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do;
what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing
the rights of any other person.
"It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the
science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace,
or ought to live in peace, with each other.
"These conditions are simply these: viz., first, that each man shall do,
towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that
he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its
owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the
person or property of another.
"The second condition is, that each man shall abstain from doing to another,
anything which justice forbids him to do; as, for example, that he shall
abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime
against the person or property of another.
"So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to
remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is
violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice
is re-established.
"Through all time, so far as history informs us, wherever mankind have
attempted to live in peace with each other, both the natural instincts, and the
collective wisdom of the human race, have acknowledged and prescribed, as an
indispensable condition, obedience to this one only universal obligation: viz.,
that each should live honestly towards every other.
"The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man's legal duty to his fellow men to be
simply this: "to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due."
"This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly;
since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.
"Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed
the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect
the defenceless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are
simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each
particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform
them. But of his legal duty---that is, of his duty to live honestly towards his
fellow men---his fellow men not only may judge, but, for their own protection,
must judge. And, if need be, they may rightfully compel him to perform it. They
may do this, acting singly, or in concert. They may do it on the instant, as
the necessity arises, or deliberately and systematically, if they prefer to do
so, and the exigency will admit of it."
"Natural Law,"
Lysander Spooner.
|
|
The reason you can rightfully compel a person to perform his legal duty is
because if he does not, you are consequently at war with him. In other words,
his failure to perform his legal duty constitutes compulsion on his part which
reduces your relationship with him to a natural conflict just as your
relationship with a mother bear is reduced to a natural conflict when she
decides you are too close to her cubs and fails to perform her legal duty, that
is, she attacks and tries to kill you.
(SG)
Sadly, this is reserved for the intelligent because it is the study of
philosophy - why we are here, how we should live. To understand philosophy
requires a concerted effort of your rational and discriminating mind - it is
not a plaything. We are having a philosophical discussion now, regarding this
puzzle. The arguments are tricky. They require concentration. You need to
remain rational and focused. Emotions play no part here, neither do crazy
beliefs or religious exhortations. This is the realm of the mind - man's
greatest faculty.
(desertrat)
Pompous pr***. Were I a religious person, I'd say a prayer now to the effect,
"God save us from those who are wise in their own eyes and yet are so stupid
they can't comprehend what even the most simple-minded of fools can
understand."
|
|
"Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law at a very early age.
Thus they very early understand that one child must not, without just cause,
strike or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not assume any arbitrary
control or domination over another; that one child must not, either by force,
deceit, or stealth, obtain possession of anything that belongs to another; that
if one child commits any of these wrongs against another, it is not only the
right of the injured child to resist, and, if need be, punish the wrongdoer,
and compel him to make reparation, but that it is also the right, and the moral
duty, of all other children, and all other persons, to assist the injured party
in defending his rights, and redressing his wrongs. These are fundamental
principles of natural law, which govern the most important transactions of man
with man. Yet children learn them earlier than they learn that three and three
are six, or five and five ten. Their childish plays, even, could not be carried
on without a constant regard to them; and it is equally impossible for persons
of any age to live together in peace on any other conditions."
"Natural Law,"
Ibid.
|
|
Emotions, crazy beliefs, religious exhortations, these are the things that
personal morals are made of regardless of how "coherent and integrated" they
might be. This quote, the source of which I dare not mention because it is
religious, that "man is that he might have joy," is a truism. This joy in
animals other than humans is restricted to the seeking of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain. In humans it is a bit more involved since the human mind is
capable of conceiving of pleasures and pains, both imaginary and real, in a
more distant future and will often "sacrifice" what might be more immediately
pleasant for what is more distant but apparently greater.
This is to say, man seeks happiness above all. Happiness is an emotion. The
very idea of "good" and "evil" is emotional, that is to say, "good" is what
increases happiness and "evil" is what diminishes it. Furthermore, since man
looks to the future when attempting to determine what will make him happy and
since the future is unknown to everyone, the idea of "good" and "evil" also
depend upon beliefs, both rational and "crazy."
|
|
"To know what actions are virtuous, and what vicious - in other words, to know
what actions tend, on the whole, to happiness, and what to unhappiness - in the
case of each and every man, in each and all the conditions in which they may
severally be placed, is the profoundest and most complex study to which the
greatest human mind ever has been, or ever can be, directed. It is,
nevertheless, the constant study to which each and every man - the humblest in
intellect as well as the greatest - is necessarily driven by the desires and
necessities of his own existence. It is also the study in which each and every
person, from his cradle to his grave, must necessarily form his own
conclusions; because no one else knows or feels, or can know or feel, as he
knows and feels, the desires and necessities, the hopes, and fears, and
impulses of his own nature, or the pressure of his own circumstances.
"Vices Are Not Crimes,"
Lysander Spooner
|
|
(SG)
My next book will be devoted entirely to the discussion of a rational and
coherent philosophy to guide your life.
(desertrat)
Not MY life, thank you very much! You don't know how I feel, how I live, how
I've lived, what I like, what I don't like, what makes me happy. Before you
write your book, I think you should do a bit more reading.
(SG)
This will be the very hardest thing I have ever undertaken in my life. I cannot
therefore give this entire philosophy to you on one sheet of A4 paper! If it's
OK with you, I will just take a quick look at each of the characters and make a
few brief comments regarding their actions. This will allow you to get a
glimpse of the type of thinking I use.
(desertrat)
Why should we be interested in your "thinking" if what makes you happy is
different from what makes us happy?
(SG)
My answer is not 'the solution' to the puzzle. There is one solution for every
person! However, unlike 99.9% (literally!) of people, I did not just pluck my
answer out of the air. I did not have a 'gut' feeling. I did not respond
emotionally.
(desertrat)
I beg to differ. I'll point out what things were "plucked out of the air,"
where their was a "gut feeling" involved or perhaps a "crazy belief."
(SG)
(there is nothing wrong with emotions, but they are NOT tools of cognition).
Given a similar or even totally different puzzle, my solutions to the two
puzzles would not be conflicting.
(desertrat)
As if emotions and 'gut' feelings invariably lead to conflict, though I agree,
emotions may not be tools of cognition, they are the construction materials and
the end product. We use the tool of reason in order to avoid unpleasant
emotions and to obtain pleasant ones.
(SG)
Anyway, for your interest only, here are my thoughts.
Part 2. The Stranger and the Boatman
|
|
Get your own
Free Home Page