#consequentialism

[the-sad-tree]

Consequentialism in The Hunger Games

In the 74th Hunger Games, it's been speculated that Peeta wanted Katniss to live not because he loved her so much, but because more people would be devasted if she died. He thought her life was worth more than his.

Katniss decided to keep "faking" her love for Peeta during the Victory Tour despite it hurting him because she didn't want a rebellion. She was thinking of how it would affect all of Panem and didn't want to upset the "peace".

Katniss' justification for wanting Peeta to live through the Third Quarter Quell was that she was already slated for death and that Peeta might still be able to have a happy life. So instead of piling the resources onto her so that she survives the arena and dies from an "accident" arranged by the Capitol, Peeta survives and lives a happy life.

In MockingJay, Gale justified burying the Nut by considering the entirety of District 2 an enemy. He thought it would lead to the greatest advantage for the rebellion, more like a "rip the bandaid off fast" kind of thing. Let's not talk about his bombs targeting first responders.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I've often wondered whether fewer lives would have been lost if the games had continued and the rebellion never happened. It just felt like the losses from the rebellion were so great compared to what was gained, at least before the epilogue.

[weevil-mastermind]

There’s a weird thing about consequentialist ethics where the morality of an action is dependent on how people respond to it.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Longtermism calls on us to safeguard humanity’s future in a manner that both diverts attention from current misery and leaves harmful socioeconomic structures critically unexamined. As a movement, it has enjoyed stunning financial success and clout. But its success is not due to the quality of its conception of morality, which builds questionably on EA’s. Rather, it is due to longtermism’s compatibility with the very socioeconomic arrangements that have led us to the brink of the kinds of catastrophes it claims to be staving off. At issue is not only an especially dangerous, future-facing variation on ideologies, like EA, that thwart struggles for liberating change with suggestions of the cure-all properties of existing economic tools. It is a variation lacking any plausible rationale, since many of these struggles have long contributed to the area longtermism wrongly represents as its innovation – fighting for a just and livable future.

[existentialcatholic]

The above quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., points out an alarming trend in human behavior: specifically, that matters of right and wrong have become a matter of majority rule. This phenomenon is natural. Psychological studies have shown that the existence of litter in an environment predicts the littering of other individuals. In a generation of AI use, students have increasingly used AI to plagiarize assignments and are more likely to do so when they know that other students are doing it. On the most extreme level, media portrayals of abortions as an option frequently needed and taken can influence the media consumer to agree that abortions should remain widely available.

Catholic theology defies the societal trend of morality becoming a decision of the majority. As Catholics, we maintain that moral absolutes exist and rely on these absolutes, as given to us in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) and analyzed further in Church teachings. Moral absolutes specify “intrinsically evil acts” and point to what is right by indicating what actions are wrong. In this post, I will answer why moral absolutes are important for Catholic theology. I will also examine why some people reject the idea of moral absolutes, and why this rejection cannot be maintained consistently.

Why are moral absolutes important for Catholic morality and why do some people reject the idea of moral absolutes?

Catholic theology recognizes activity as “morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason” (VS 72). This quote from Veritatis Splendor tells us several features of the Catholic understanding of morality. First, moral good is voluntary. Without the freedom to act, there is no morality. Second, moral good is aligned with a person’s ultimate end. In Catholicism, we understand this ultimate end to be union with G-d. Moral actions contribute to our journey toward this end. Third, moral good consists in concrete actions. In other words, morality is a lived experience and not just an intellectual exercise. Fourth, moral good exists in conformity with the value of reason. When we perform morally good actions, our reason and our will align in pursuit of the good. With a well-formed reason, doing the good makes sense.

In addition to recognizing, encouraging, and applauding morally good activity, Catholic theology recognizes and condemns morally bad activity through moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are one aspect of the Catholic moral framework that contribute to moral good. They provide negative definitions of the tenets of Catholic morality; that is, they tell us what is right by telling us what not to do in order to achieve the right and the good. Though negative, moral absolutes “allow human persons to keep themselves open to be fully the beings they are meant to be” (May, 162).

Moral Absolutes and Catholic Morality

May defines moral absolutes as “moral norms identifying certain types of action, which are possible objects of human choice, as always morally bad, and specifying these types of action without employing in their description any morally evaluative terms” (May, 142). They prohibit “acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object” (RP, 17). Moral absolutes are important for Catholic morality because all judgments require a standard, and moral absolutes provide a standard for the judgments of Catholic morality. Moreover, the absolutes of Catholic morality have a Divine source, which provides secure authority for its teachings.

Catholic theology has moral absolutes because moral absolutes protect and promote what is good. They do so because moral absolutes function as standards of how failure to achieve moral good looks. Like danger signs, they tell us which actions and spiritual “places” or states to avoid. According to May, “They remind us that some kinds of human choices and actions, although responsive to some aspects of human good, make us persons whose hearts are closed to the full range of human goods and to the persons in whom these goods are meant to exist” (May, 162).

Conscience relies on the existence of moral absolutes. One definition of conscience is “one’s personal awareness of basic moral principles or truths” (May, 59). This awareness, called synderesis in the medieval tradition, refers to “our habitual awareness of the first principles of practical reasoning and of morality” (May, 59). Synderesis requires that principles of practical reasoning and morality exist in the first place. However, another level of conscience exists which refers to “mode of self-awareness whereby we are aware of ourselves as moral beings, summoned to give to ourselves the dignity to which we are called as intelligent and free beings” (May, 60). On this level as well, which tradition has referred to as conscientia, we require moral absolutes. Moral absolutes benefit conscientia by showing the standard to which we are called. Avoid lying to others or harming them. Do not dishonor G-d or one’s neighbor.

On the Rejection of Moral Absolutes

People who reject moral absolutes may fall into the camp of teleological ethical theory, which includes proportionalism and consequentialism. The proportionalist would weigh the “good” and “bad” effects of a moral choice and judge as right any moral decision that the actor perceived as producing more “good” effects than “bad.” The consequentialist would judge an act as right that had the relatively “best” consequences, no matter how one reached those consequences. Both of these moral theologies are called “teleological” because proponents place all focus and emphasis on the end, or telos, of human action.

A charitable proposal for why people may reject moral absolutes is because they get lost in the details of moral situations. For instance, committing credit card fraud is wrong. However, the reasons that one commits it or the details of why someone makes the decision could lead someone to call the action right. One could easily identify as wrong someone who commits credit card fraud to buy the newest smartphone. Committing said fraud to feed oneself or one’s children is still wrong, but the proportionalist would argue that the good of feeding someone outweighs the wrong of credit card fraud. The consequentialist would argue that the good end justifies the evil means.

To look at it from a simpler point of view, people may reject moral absolutes because they want to rationalize actions that are wrong. For instance, I used to be pro-choice. I took a teological viewpoint and argued that allowing free access to abortion would produce the most beneficial consequences for those who were “in need” of abortion, be it due to financial, health, or relational reasons. As a pro-choicer, I argued erroneously that taking the life of an infant through abortion was a justifiable means to avoiding poverty, the potential negative health consequences of pregnancy, and the relational vulnerability of being a mother who had to take care of a newborn (especially for survivors of rape and incest). I rightly understood that extending permission to abort these pregnancies meant doing so for potentially all pregnancies, as well as all reasons to end those pregnancies. Even as the examples in my arguments did not necessarily require abortions, I knew that the emotional charge of the examples gave me the best chance at convincing someone to allow exceptions. As soon as I got someone to allow those exceptions, I would accuse the person of opposing abortion situationally, not on principle, and argue that there was no longer reason to restrict abortion on principle. I knew and know that abortion is wrong, but I went through this exercise in mental gymnastics to convince myself that it was excusable. Now, however, I know and acknowledge the constancy of moral absolutes.

Conclusion

As I stated above, moral absolutes are necessary for this framework of morality because absolutes give the judgments of Catholic morality their standard. As Canavan states, “if there are no absolutes, reasoning collapses into incoherence and yields no conclusions” (Canavan, 93). Without the standard of morality that the Decalogue provides, the claims of Catholic morality hold no more sway than the teachings of other ethical systems. The high standards set by Catholic morality, which we can only reach with the help of grace, would repel many from the ethical system. However, with the established moral absolutes that Catholic morality sets forward, the individual can value and strive to maintain the standards for behavior that the framework sets.

Moral absolutes help us understand our ultimate end of union with G-d in heaven. For one to achieve this union with our Creator, it stands to reason that one must exist in accordance with His plan. After all, the only way to become fit for union with Him is to become like Him. Recognizing the validity of moral absolutes is a vital part of living in accordance with G-d’s plan because appreciating and respecting His work in the universe involves acknowledging and following the laws that He put in place for its functioning. These laws are explained well in the Decalogue but spread out to further applications and specifications elsewhere in Church teaching.

-Esther

---

Canavan, Francis. “A Horror of the Absolute.” The Human Life Review 23, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 91-97.

John Paul II. Reconciliation and Penance. December 2, 1984. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html.

John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor. August 6, 1993. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html.

May, William E. An Introduction to Moral Theology. Second edition. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1994.

[transmascxielian]

i do think studying consequentialist philosophy was a bit of a lifeline for my obsessions and intrusive thoughts. like every time i think i'm an awful person with disgusting thoughts the ghost of john stuart mill floats up to me and says 'the tangible outcomes of your actions are the things with moral value'. idk but it helps

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How (and why) Biden should overcome the Supreme Court to end the debt showdown

’m coming to the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in HAY-ON-WYE with my novel Red Team Blues:

Sun (May 28), 1130AM: The AI Enigma

Mon (May 29), 12PM: Danger and Desire at the Frontier

I’m at OXFORD’s Blackwell’s on May 29 at 7:30PM with Tim Harford.

Then it’s Nottingham, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, and Berlin!

Is it legal for Congress to default on the US national debt? It depends on who you ask. There are a ton of good legal arguments for and against, so perhaps it comes down to what the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, partisan) Supreme Court says?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/biden-administration-debt-republican.html

Put in those terms, it seems like the game was over before it began. Biden should just surrender, hand the most extreme wing of the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, authoritarian) Republican Party whatever it wants, even if doing so will push Biden’s approval rating even lower, dangerously close to the next federal election.

In this telling, the Republicans have already won. The decision to let the GOP steal three Supreme Court seats, combined with the decision not to end the debt ceiling charade when Dems had the majorities to do so, means that from now on, we live in the GOP’s shithole country, where the only “freedoms” that matter are the freedom to control others’ bodily autonomy and gender expression; the freedom to exploit labor; the freedom to censor ideas that challenge white nationalist, imperialist messages; and the freedom to menace with open-carry assault weapons:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/opinion/republican-legislatures-abortion-trangender-education.html

In other words, we’re screwed. Might as well dig a hole, climb inside, and pull the dirt in on top of us.

Fuck that.

There are clear majorities in support of the Build Back Better agenda, and even for the watered down Machin Synematic Universe version we got through the Infrastructure Bill. If the Dems could mobilize voters — by convincing them that they were committed to doing things rather than capitulating — they could win strong majorities in 2024. Even in the gerrymandered, antimajoritarian America, electoral wins are possible — they just require overwhelming turnout, rather than the 50.00001% “victories” favored by “data-driven” Democratic consultants (victories that leave the party incapable of governing, and let monsters like Joe Manchin hold the entire nation hostage).

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe doing things won’t mobilize voters. But if we’re already going to stipulate that without significant majorities, the real President of the United States is the three-headed monster (Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts), and the billionaires who yank their chains, then what do we have to lose?

There are a lot of things that Biden could try to get through the debt ceiling crisis without giving up on the promises he made to the American people and the programs the American Congress passed. Here’s a couple interesting ones, courtesy of Brad DeLong:

“The Federal Reserve might simply record a negative balance in the Treasury account,” then create an “overdraft” account and pay the US’s obligations out of it;

The Fed could tell retail banks trying to clear government checks that the checks didn’t clear, and the banks could tell their depositors, “ your Treasury check has bounced, but do not worry, we have credited your account, anyway, and will handle this, and please be very grateful to us.”

https://braddelong.substack.com/p/debt-ceiling-what-are-e-fallback

Of course, there are lots of other possibilities: Biden could issue an Executive Order to the effect that the Debt Ceiling violates the 14th Amendment. Or that it violates the Contracts Clause. Or he could order the Treasury to start issuing coupon-free bonds. Or he could just mint the coin:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/23/23734654/government-debt-default-trillion-dollar-platinum-coin

Yes, each of these would end up in front of the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, partisan) Supreme Court, who would very likely strike them down.

But writing for The American Prospect, Ryan Cooper argues that this could still be sound tactics:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-05-25-democrats-fear-supreme-court/

If Biden does something about the debt default, and the Supremes block it, then the default is their fault. What’s more, it’s a mess they absolutely do not want to get into, like deciding which of the US’s creditors will and won’t get paid when they sue over the default. And if the court won’t do it, will they give the president the power to “just pick and choose what gets paid? That would give him a de facto line-item veto over the entire budget, and the Court has already ruled that a law explicitly giving him that power is unconstitutional”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Basically, if the Supreme Court kills Biden’s attempt to resolve the budget crisis, then it becomes the Supreme Court’s problem, as everyone owed a federal payment “say, Social Security beneficiaries or military contractors,” brings a case — “There would be tens of millions of such potential litigants.”

So what should Biden do?

Call their bluff.

First, mint the coin. If the court strikes that down, issue coupon-free bonds. If the court strikes that down, declare debt ceilings to violate the 14th Amendment. If the court strikes that down, declare it to violate the Contracts Clause. Keep doing it. Throw in every solution including the kitchen sink — but never give into the GOP’s demand for Biden to violate his promise to the American people and unilaterally tear up laws establishing programs that make our lives better.

This is what Lincoln did when the Supreme Court blocked his attempts to end slavery. It’s what FDR did when they blocked the New Deal. The court doesn’t have an army, it can’t force its decisions on the American people. It doesn’t have a bureaucratic workforce and it can’t take over the administrative branch — hell, they don’t even have the keys to the office buildings.

The Supreme Court’s power comes from its legitimacy, not force of arms, and while they may not act like it, the Supremes know in their bones that without legitimacy, they are nothing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes

The justices in stolen seats have made it clear that they consider themselves to be “a de facto super-legislature that rules in favor of its own partisan policy objectives based on tendentious up-is-down reasoning or no reasoning at all.” This is an illegitimate proposition.

The Supreme Court can’t get any less legitimate. If Biden were to ignore the Supremes and make good law in the teeth of their pronouncements, it couldn’t make the situation any worse than it is today. The Supremes have set themselves against labor law, against climate resiliency, against bodily autonomy, against political accountability, against the rule of law itself. We should not — we must not — cede the power to overrule democratically elected lawmakers and the will of the people.

As Cooper says, Biden should tell the Supremes to go pound sand and then “raise holy hell in speeches and the press to make clear the grotesque irresponsibility of what is happening”:

Here’s an institution trying to cause a completely pointless national default, destroying untold jobs, businesses, and the credit rating of the country, whose elite members are all unelected, where five members of the majority were appointed by a president who took office after losing the popular vote, and one of whom occupies a blatantly stolen seat. Here’s an institution that has struck down anti-corruption laws by the bushel and is openly rolling in oligarch graft like Scrooge McDuck, while declaring itself to be immune from oversight. All that would add to the political pressure on the justices.

If Biden can’t do well for the American people they they will not turn out in the massive majorities that Democrats need to get minimal majorities. If Biden can’t do well for the American people, then Biden — who would lose an election to either Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump if it were called today — will turn America’s predators loose on its people for at least four more years:

https://jacobin.com/2023/05/2024-presidential-election-2016-donald-trump-joe-biden/

And let’s face it, it’ll be Trump. DeSantis is dead in the water. The GOP is the party of out-of-control, swivel-eyed loons who’ve been whipped into a terrorized frenzy by an evil, crapulent senescent Australian billionaire and his freak henchmen, like the taint-tanning frozen food failson. They aren’t going to elect “smart Trump.” They like “stupid Trump” (AKA “Trump”) too much.

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Hay-on-Wye, Oxford, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

[Image ID: A kitchen sink. The Supreme Court building protrudes from it. Behind the sink is a window. Joe Biden grins from the other side of the window.]

Image: Joe Ravi (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Praise and Blame

The philosophy of praise and blame explores the ethical, psychological, and social dimensions of attributing moral responsibility to individuals for their actions. Praise and blame are fundamental aspects of moral judgment, where praise is the approval or commendation of a person for their good actions, and blame is the disapproval or criticism of someone for their bad actions. Philosophers investigate the conditions under which praise and blame are justified, the implications of these judgments for moral agency, and their role in shaping human behavior and social norms.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Praise and Blame:

Moral Responsibility:

Attribution of Responsibility: Praise and blame are closely tied to the concept of moral responsibility. Philosophers debate what it means to hold someone morally responsible for their actions and under what conditions this is appropriate. This involves questions about free will, intentionality, and knowledge.

Free Will and Determinism: One of the central issues is whether individuals have free will and thus can be justifiably praised or blamed for their actions. If determinism is true, and all actions are the result of prior causes, the basis for moral responsibility—and hence praise and blame—may be called into question.

Conditions for Praise and Blame:

Intentionality: For praise or blame to be appropriate, the action in question typically needs to be intentional. Accidental actions or actions taken under compulsion may not warrant praise or blame in the same way.

Knowledge and Understanding: The agent’s knowledge of the consequences of their actions and their understanding of the moral principles involved are also important. Ignorance or misunderstanding might mitigate blame or enhance praise depending on the circumstances.

Praise:

Recognition of Virtue: Praise is often seen as a way of recognizing and encouraging virtue or morally good behavior. It can reinforce positive actions and promote the development of good character traits.

Social and Psychological Effects: Praise can have significant social and psychological effects, fostering self-esteem and motivating individuals to continue acting in morally commendable ways. It also strengthens social bonds and reinforces communal values.

Blame:

Moral Censure: Blame serves as a form of moral censure, signaling that a person’s actions have violated ethical standards. It can be a way of holding people accountable and deterring future wrongdoing.

Blame and Punishment: In some philosophical traditions, blame is linked to the justification of punishment. If someone is to be blamed for an action, it may be argued that they deserve to be punished in proportion to the harm they have caused.

The Ethics of Praise and Blame:

Fairness and Proportionality: Philosophers debate the fairness of praise and blame, particularly whether they are proportionate to the actions being judged. There is also discussion about whether praise and blame should be distributed equally among all those responsible for a collective action or unequally based on individual contributions.

Moral Luck: The concept of moral luck complicates the ethics of praise and blame, as it raises questions about whether individuals should be praised or blamed for actions influenced by factors beyond their control.

Philosophical Theories:

Consequentialism: In consequentialist ethics, praise and blame are often viewed in terms of their effects on future behavior. Actions that lead to good consequences may be praised to encourage repetition, while those leading to bad outcomes are blamed to discourage them.

Deontological Ethics: In deontological theories, such as Kantian ethics, praise and blame are more focused on the agent’s intentions and adherence to moral duties, regardless of the consequences.

Virtue Ethics: From the perspective of virtue ethics, praise and blame are tools for cultivating virtuous character traits. Praising good actions and blaming bad ones help individuals develop virtues and avoid vices.

Social and Cultural Contexts:

Cultural Relativism: The criteria for praise and blame can vary significantly across cultures. What is considered praiseworthy in one culture might be neutral or even blameworthy in another, leading to questions about the universality of moral standards.

Collective Praise and Blame: In social and political contexts, entire groups or communities may be praised or blamed for collective actions. This raises ethical questions about the fairness of attributing responsibility to individuals for the actions of the group.

Criticisms and Limitations:

Overemphasis on Moral Judgment: Some philosophers argue that too much focus on praise and blame can lead to an overly judgmental society, where individuals are constantly evaluated rather than understood.

Blame and Shame: The relationship between blame and shame is also a topic of discussion, particularly how blame can lead to destructive feelings of shame, which may not contribute to moral improvement.

The philosophy of praise and blame is central to understanding moral responsibility and ethical behavior. These practices play crucial roles in shaping human actions, reinforcing social norms, and cultivating moral character. Philosophical inquiry into praise and blame involves examining the conditions under which they are justified, their ethical implications, and their impact on individuals and society. By exploring these concepts, philosophers aim to illuminate the ways in which moral judgments influence our lives and our relationships with others.

[hecho-a-mano]

sometimes i feel like a lot of virtue and deontological ethics infused takes get a lot of traction in social media and it strikes me as very unhelpful for our political movements. I feel like appeals to emotion can only get you so far. Nothing matters more than achieving the desired goals we've set for our society.

[sophia-epistemia]

yeah so actually i got my answer to that:

pleasure.

mine and everyone's. i'm a Hedonist, in the sense that the value of the world is the amount of pleasure happening over its existence, therefore i have dedicated my life to making more pleasure happen. and in other senses too.

(tho ok practicing the oldest of all the jobs is kind of a trad job but then again i don't get enough work to live off of it and require unemployment money to survive so uh, nuance ig)

but besides that. there's even simpler. what's the purpose of staying alive? well, being alive. living on is its own purpose. (if that's unsatisfying to you, try pleasure. worked for me!)

and, to finally get to an actual retort. what's the purpose of letting me die? would the asker kill me with their hands? action and inaction with the same consequences are morally equivalent!

Not having a traditional job or plans to get an education will have people asking you things like so what is the purpose of you staying alive?

[crowns-of-violets-and-roses]

Once every few months I imagine Alastair Norcross standing on the ramparts of the University of Colorado Boulder declaiming that his morality had transcended our obsolete notions of right and wrong and then cackling madly as lightning flashes in the background

[kurtbennett]

Virtuism and the Jesus Follower vs. Consequentialism (and the dark places it leads to)--Acts 23-24

St. Maximilian Kolbe via Jude Tarrant, Creative Commons God Running is a place for anyone who wants to (or even anyone who wants to want to) love Jesus more deeply, follow Jesus more closely, and love people the way Jesus wants us to. Continue reading Virtuism and the Jesus Follower vs. Consequentialism (and the dark places it leads to)–Acts 23-24

[ask-asexual-crystal-gems]

@galaxy--ace seems to want to discuss morality. I’m not claiming to be any philosophical expert, but consequentialism holds that anything that results in (or may result in?) more harm is immoral.

If a policeman puts a dog in danger, for example, he’s doing something more immoral (if you hold that a dog ain’t got no business getting shot for human constructed problems, that’s unfair to the animal) than if he’s just having it do a relatively tranquil task like drug sniffing.

Now, ofc, philosophically speaking, as I understand it, most religious fundies are operating on some version of deontology. As in, an action in and of itself is bad no matter whether it’s risking or causing more harm or not. To me that’s silly.

(btw the last sentence in your post sounds like an empirical claim, so I’m going to need some citation if I’m going to bore my readers with the textwalls that seem largely irrelevant to the point I’m making. And yeah, OP said nothing about poly relationships, that was a reblogger named WhereSerpentsWalk. That topic necessitates a discussion about STDs and the downplaying that gets done. Which you are also doing. Another reason why I don’t wanna host stuff containing perpetuation of harmful attitudes my blog. No offense. /gen)

So, if putting others in harm’s way is an immoral act (no matter if the dog actually gets shot or not) then risking harm to one partner by pursuing a second or third or fourth potential vector of infection, especially in open poly relationships or even just if you’re having one night stands with multiple people, is immoral towards them.

(and towards everyone else involved as well.)

Consent to that harm isn’t as important as recognizing the notion that you’re consciously choosing to put others in harm’s way.

You’re still free to do it, just like somebody is free to not donate to charity and buy some capitalist whatever doodad while somebody else does a more morally optimal action.

It is suboptimal. Morally.

imho

Religious people make it just about who is good and evil, which is a toddler way of looking at the universe. A more realistic lens is just a sliding scale, a spectrum of morality, and people shouldn’t get butthurt about being factually identified as getting an A- at life instead of an A+. 

People who sleep around, but do safe sex are getting a B. People in open poly relationships probably get a B-. People who sleep around without doing safe sex get an F. Frequency of doing so plays a part in the sliding scale as well. Is this making sense?

This is not even getting into the potential hurt feelings ofc. One survey I recall vaguely said around 50% of people going into one night stands hoped it evolved into something else. That’s a whole lot of playing roulette with other peoples’ hearts if you’re unaffected. As an aro person, I feel it’s my responsibility to point out that if you lean that way, or experience attraction without much romance, just bc the other person puts on a brave face, doesn’t mean your actions haven’t had neg util, as they say in the formal debate circles. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a gender disparity in who came out of it bruised, either.

Lines of thought that seem Normal but are actually rooted in extreme puritanism:

-Seeing the nude human body is inherently traumatic -Sex scenes in art are pointless -Wearing kink-related clothing in public is the similar to performing a sex scene in front of unwilling participants -Depicting female characters expressing sexuality is always degrading -People's sexual fantasies are always an endorsement of the behavior they want to see in real life -Sex work is more traumatic and coercive than other types of work The goal is to treat sex as just another thing people do. That is a much healthier attitude than hiding it! It's not uniquely traumatic, it's not weird to talk about it or include it in society.

[jeremy-ken-anderson]

I feel like discussions of deontology vs consequentialism get bogged down in the details of the scenarios presented. You could call this the Trolley Mechanic Issue.

Presented with the Trolley Problem, people will often point out all kinds of things. They will point out that many poor decisions must already have been made to reach this point. That other choices besides the two presented are always possible in a vast and confusing universe. And that once you're presented with the choice, not pulling the lever is as much a decision you make as pulling it, which means you might be fully in the deontology - "some actions are right or wrong regardless of their eventual consequences" - camp, and still choose to pull the lever, because you consider "inaction that will apparently lead to more death than action" an action that is wrong.

It seems like the reality of life is that these two worldviews aren't as directly in conflict in actual practice as they seem when one puts a "vs" in between them. I actually think MOST people consider "inaction in the face of evil" to be a moral wrong, even if they disagree about what 'evil' is exactly. But this means we're always looking ahead, trying to make plans to prevent bad things from happening by advancing what we think is good, and generally weighing the morality of our current actions against the morality of not having done enough to stop something worse.

There is a certain amount of the future that we can reasonably predict, and be right about 99%+ of the time. This has to be true in order for us to function. If you don't believe your kitchen will be there when you walk down the hall, or that your legs will support you when you walk, or that the parent you spoke to will still be alive when you call them again...You can't live your life. It's possible that any of these things will not be true. But you can't live properly, constantly questioning the existence of the rest of your house, or the continued survival of all your friends and family members. Those are serious neuroses, and they're diagnosed as such because they ruin your ability to function within and enjoy life.

If one considers "inaction in the face of evil" to be a moral wrong in itself, the moral difference between deontology and consequentialism's "the ends justify the means" worldview becomes much more one of how much belief one has in one's ability to predict outcomes, and how heavily one is willing to weight bad actions against the data or beliefs supporting those predictions.

For an extreme example, if one looks at cultists who think they can - indeed, should - murder certain groups of people in order to 'purify the world' because they believe those murdered will experience a joyful afterlife and the process will bring goodness and bliss to all... A pure consequentialist view of this would be, "Well, if they're correct about what will happen, then they're morally justified." And the argument against it isn't deontological, but a more practical "But they aren't correct. They're deranged, their beliefs aren't supported by anything, and it seems increasingly likely that the head of the whole thing invented it in order to collect tithes and live in a big house."

Another way to put this is, someone who swings more toward the deontology camp might look at an "ends justify the means" plan, and say, "But the only part of the 'ends' we know for sure right now is that the innocent guy you're about to shoot to get this done will be dead."

[omegaphilosophia]

Demandingness in Ethics

Demandingness in ethics refers to the extent to which a moral theory or ethical principle requires individuals to make sacrifices, take on burdens, or go to great lengths to fulfill their moral obligations. It is a measure of how much a moral theory demands from individuals in terms of actions, resources, or personal well-being.

Key Aspects of Demandingness in Ethics:

Sacrifice and Burden:

A moral theory is considered demanding if it requires individuals to make significant sacrifices, such as giving up substantial amounts of time, money, or comfort to help others or to adhere to moral principles.

For example, utilitarianism can be seen as highly demanding because it might require individuals to maximize overall happiness even if it means considerable personal loss.

Scope of Moral Obligations:

Demandingness often relates to the scope of moral obligations. If a theory holds that we have extensive duties to others, including distant strangers or future generations, it can be seen as more demanding.

Theories like effective altruism, which emphasize significant personal sacrifice for the greater good, highlight the demanding nature of some ethical approaches.

Practical Feasibility:

The demandingness of an ethical theory raises questions about the practical feasibility of its principles. If a moral theory is too demanding, some argue it may be unreasonable or unrealistic to expect individuals to consistently live up to its standards.

Critics of highly demanding theories might argue that such demands could lead to burnout or moral paralysis, where individuals feel overwhelmed and thus do nothing.

Moral vs. Supererogatory Actions:

A distinction is often made between what is morally required (demanding) and what is supererogatory (going above and beyond moral duty). An ethical theory that collapses this distinction, treating all morally good actions as obligatory, is generally seen as more demanding.

For example, giving to charity is often seen as supererogatory, but a highly demanding moral theory might consider it a duty to give until doing so would cause significant harm to oneself.

Balance and Reasonableness:

Some ethicists argue for a balance between demandingness and reasonableness, suggesting that a moral theory should not demand so much that it becomes practically impossible for people to follow.

Theories like moderate consequentialism or certain forms of virtue ethics attempt to strike this balance by acknowledging moral obligations while also considering human limitations and personal well-being.

The Demandingness Objection:

The "demandingness objection" is a common critique of certain ethical theories, particularly consequentialist theories like utilitarianism. It argues that if a theory is too demanding, it might be unfair or unrealistic to expect people to live according to its principles, and thus it might be flawed or need revision.

Demandingness in ethics is a crucial concept that reflects the tension between moral ideals and practical human limitations. It prompts important discussions about how much we can reasonably expect from individuals in the pursuit of moral good and how to balance ethical principles with the realities of human life.

[ogaborus]

Reluctant leadership and authenticity

Photo by George Hodan, Alone Boy. Someone recently asked me a seemingly simple question: “Have you considered the effects on your team’s members when you present yourself as a reluctant leader?” The question didn’t challenge the authenticity of the approach. It was expressed rather in this context: yes, you are a reluctant leader, but how might this be perceived by your colleagues? What is the…

[biblioflyer]

Is Star Trek Insurrection anti-progress?

In which I take a stab at trying to be generous towards one of the Star Trek takes that annoys me the most.

This is a continuation of a series analyzing Discovery’s finale and the different worldviews in the Star Trek fandom. This is also, in part, a reaction and analysis of a discussion about conflicting values behind Trek between Michael Heaton and Tim Sandefur on the Political Orphanage podcast. For more like this, use the Star Trek ethics tag.

In the last post, I focused on the fandom skepticism of the geopolitical assumptions of The Next Generation. Another key complaint Sandefur raises is that Next Generation seems to have turned its back on techno optimism in favor of neo-pastoralism, my words not his.

Neo-pastoralism being the vague notion that not only was the pre-industrial world more ecologically sustainable, to some degree life was better for humans under those conditions. By virtue of being more ecologically sustainable, preindustrial pastoralism is morally superior to the way society would be organized at any point from the industrial revolution onward. 

I’m painting with an extremely broad brush and am almost certainly guilty of caricaturing both Sandefur’s objections to TNG’s relationship with technology and also the beliefs of people who would prefer pre-industrial ways of life for aesthetic, moral, or practical reasons.

Let's set aside the obvious contradiction that TNG takes place on a spaceship outfitted with technological doodads that render industrial scale agriculture if not obsolete, then much less necessary. That’s a point well worth litigating but the savvy thinker recognizes that these are backdrop elements intended to be observed and then quickly taken for granted until they become plot relevant.

The setting’s philosophy of technology and the intrinsic goodness of progress, in the material sense, is found in how characters react to plot devices. The MacGuffins and scenarios that warrant scrutiny by the characters and audiences rather than disappearing into the background.

I’ve got to be honest, I’ve forgotten most of Sandefur’s argument on this point, except that he really, really didn’t like Star Trek Insurrection and had nothing but contempt for the Baku or the idea that anyone would feel sentimental about taking away their unnaturally long lives to maybe confer superior medical care to people offworld, and destroy the planet’s ecology in the process.

I suppose if I was going to steelman this, there are times where it is judged that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Imminent domain laws in the US are sometimes used to break a stalemate between the representatives of the many, i.e. the state, and individuals or small groups of people who are standing in the way of a major development that theoretically would improve the lives of the many. It would stand to reason that Sandefur would be unsentimental about mountaintop removal mining as long as humans aren’t directly exposed to any pollutants that result.

I guess he sort of has a point?

Except that I think it's pretty clear that Insurrection is a metaphor for the forced removal of people from their land for the purposes of exploiting their natural resources under the assumption that the more materially powerful and numerous society has more of a right to those resources than the people who are not utilizing them “properly.” Furthermore, any resistance to resettlement and “fair compensation” is characterized as irrational sentimentality. 

Although I wonder how many people who think more in terms of whether resources are being properly exploited would be in favor of demolishing the Washington Monument to build a Walmart or dynamiting Mount Rushmore to get at a newly discovered vein of platinum? Are there proponents of forcibly resettling the Baku who oppose resettling the Federation colonists who found themselves on the Cardassian side of the new borders?

Reviewing some of his recent work just to make sure that I wasn’t name-dropping someone who had undergone a massively problematic character arc since the original recording, I do find that in the present Sandefur actually has strong beliefs about private property protections. So I wonder what the threshold is at which private property rights are overridden by collective benefit.

Ultimately, I think Insurrection largely invalidates the arguments of the pro-Baku removal side. Even Admiral Dougherty’s appeal to people with chronic illness only moderately softens the overall impact of seizing the metaphasic radiation. Especially since it's depicted as a natural phenomena. An exotic one to be sure, but anything of nature ought to be something that the Federation can throw its best minds at and eventually replicate in a lab rather than having a finite quantity of whatever charged particles emit the radiation to ration. Of course to give credit to Dougherty and Sandefur, this may not be easy, timely, or even possible in the long term and many lives will be lost from chronic illness while the effort is underway.

This is where its worth talking about virtue ethics vs consequentialism. Because I do believe that TNG definitely leans more towards virtue ethics than consequentialism, but its all contextual. In the context of the Baku removal, Picard opposes it because he believes in his core its wrong. Even though the applications of the metaphasic radiation would presumably help many more people than the 600 people on the Baku planet, the removal of the Baku against their will represents a moral violation of a sort that, under virtue ethics, undermines the habit of disciplined commitment to ethical behavior and invites easier rationalizations of would otherwise be deemed unethical behavior. This is of course, something a consequentialist would likely describe as a slippery slope fallacy.

Ironically, while this is depicted as an example of TNG era Trek being all in on environmentalism to a fault and “anti-progress”, that this seems like something that could ultimately be whipped up in a lab and ultimately being deployed as a resource without practical limit seems pretty consistent with established Treknology and doesn’t seem like a reach. 

So where I end up is feeling that it's just kind of weird and icky to hate on this movie for reasons other than it not being particularly cinematic, it being another cliched “badmiral” story, or the way it utilized particular characters: Data’s emotion chip was disabled and thus his growth as a character reset, Worf was just comic relief and muscle, Beverly was in that movie too I think.