I have the ability to quench desires to emulate actual instances PHYSICALLY.
I am only able to quench these desires MENTALLY so much as I can create an entirely new event on the basis of an older memory.
Separate note: Should credibility exist for authors of ethical issues or applications? Can one become better at describing/analyzing ethics? Or does one simply become better at describing and analyzing?
Ethics
Is personal utility (satisfaction, pleasure) not the ultimate guiding factor when deciding to apply any ethical theory?
In other words, if I presented the question, "why is the divine command theory the best method of applying morals to an ethical view?" Wouldn't the answer unequivocally be, regardless of the previous theory questioned, that it will predictably increase the chance of any random chosen person's satisfaction more than another theory?
It would seem that utilitarianism, as addressed on page 17 of Houlgate's "Morals, Marriage, and Parenthood" comes close to supporting that idea. However, there are two major criticisms I can find in Mill's writings that leave holes in utilitarian application. To clarify how utilitarianism relates to a sense of personal utility, though, I'd like to first challenge Ross' criticism. Ross contends that even if a "utility score" is equal in helping two people - a stranger, and a family member - we "ought to" help the family member. First of all, this is hardly supported by any kind of reasoning, so I can still ask "why?" Also, I can contend that it is typical that helping someone with whom you have a close relationship will raise your satisfaction more than helping a stranger (for a few reasons), which would still be the utilitarian decision.
This brings me to a discrepancy, however. Utilitarianism is still only the most viable ethical theory IF it increases the chance of any random person's satisfaction level being higher (and therefore the chance of mine being higher raises as well.) The second criticism then, is that rather than being a moral "obligation" - it is more a personal decision to try and increase the overall satisfaction of one's life - the inherent sense of personal utility.
In other words, if I presented the question, "why is the divine command theory the best method of applying morals to an ethical view?" Wouldn't the answer unequivocally be, regardless of the previous theory questioned, that it will predictably increase the chance of any random chosen person's satisfaction more than another theory?
It would seem that utilitarianism, as addressed on page 17 of Houlgate's "Morals, Marriage, and Parenthood" comes close to supporting that idea. However, there are two major criticisms I can find in Mill's writings that leave holes in utilitarian application. To clarify how utilitarianism relates to a sense of personal utility, though, I'd like to first challenge Ross' criticism. Ross contends that even if a "utility score" is equal in helping two people - a stranger, and a family member - we "ought to" help the family member. First of all, this is hardly supported by any kind of reasoning, so I can still ask "why?" Also, I can contend that it is typical that helping someone with whom you have a close relationship will raise your satisfaction more than helping a stranger (for a few reasons), which would still be the utilitarian decision.
This brings me to a discrepancy, however. Utilitarianism is still only the most viable ethical theory IF it increases the chance of any random person's satisfaction level being higher (and therefore the chance of mine being higher raises as well.) The second criticism then, is that rather than being a moral "obligation" - it is more a personal decision to try and increase the overall satisfaction of one's life - the inherent sense of personal utility.
"Explicit" vs "Implicit" desires
After a recent debate, I realized something. In any conversation of "moral" action - one which includes the ability to make decisions - there needs to be a point where "should" and "should not" can be directly applied as far as potential for action. I'll include a sample conversation to further the idea -
A - "Do not talk about cooking as the action "talking about cooking" bothers me, and you are willingly doing so."
B - "My motivation towards "talking about cooking" is able to be influenced, it now has, and I will no longer do so, even though I like to talk about cooking - because if I maximize your satisfaction I will also naturally feel better in that you will likely care to maximize mine."
A - "On second thought, it also bothers me that you like to talk about cooking, whether or not you actually partake in it. My satisfaction will increase if you stop."
B - " I cannot stop as I do not decide my preferences."
A - "However, you can stop talking about it, though it wasn't a real "decision" to talk about it in the first place? What is the difference?"
In order to explain this discrepancy, let's single out the most conflicting factors.
In order of appearance: "spark" Interest | Desire | Action
-no motivation- -motivated by-
----------
Before I go any further with this idea, I want to clarify something essentially unrelated so that I do not forget.
Reality as we agree upon is built on a number of conditional statements. I'd like to take the idea "reality as we agree upon" and conform it to mean "reality". The knowledge of all that isn't can only be progressive in that it reveals what we agree "is". But, we have to agree, for my satisfaction hinges on the idea that others can utilize the information and apply it as well. In this way, my desires are flawed in that they are not solely independent (in which case I also have faith in my own ability to directly increase my own satisfaction more so than dependence.) Everything should be clear and concise. This is the route to agreement, and with the same information, we should all agree, dependent on the original conditional statements I referred to. It would be interesting to lay them out, but I won't, for some reasons. Just keep in mind that I would use quotes over every word if it didn't inhibit the impact of quotes over words that are especially context dependent. (also tiring)
--------
So, back to the idea from before the interruption. Basically, what I'm trying to clarify is that a preference, belief, or thought, is not in itself quenching a motivated desire to have itself. Because it is not desire based, there is no action presented that creates it, it is solely considered a reaction.
An action is what we'll consider something that is quenching a desire. There is a motivation.
A - "Do not talk about cooking as the action "talking about cooking" bothers me, and you are willingly doing so."
B - "My motivation towards "talking about cooking" is able to be influenced, it now has, and I will no longer do so, even though I like to talk about cooking - because if I maximize your satisfaction I will also naturally feel better in that you will likely care to maximize mine."
A - "On second thought, it also bothers me that you like to talk about cooking, whether or not you actually partake in it. My satisfaction will increase if you stop."
B - " I cannot stop as I do not decide my preferences."
A - "However, you can stop talking about it, though it wasn't a real "decision" to talk about it in the first place? What is the difference?"
In order to explain this discrepancy, let's single out the most conflicting factors.
In order of appearance: "spark" Interest | Desire | Action
-no motivation- -motivated by-
----------
Before I go any further with this idea, I want to clarify something essentially unrelated so that I do not forget.
Reality as we agree upon is built on a number of conditional statements. I'd like to take the idea "reality as we agree upon" and conform it to mean "reality". The knowledge of all that isn't can only be progressive in that it reveals what we agree "is". But, we have to agree, for my satisfaction hinges on the idea that others can utilize the information and apply it as well. In this way, my desires are flawed in that they are not solely independent (in which case I also have faith in my own ability to directly increase my own satisfaction more so than dependence.) Everything should be clear and concise. This is the route to agreement, and with the same information, we should all agree, dependent on the original conditional statements I referred to. It would be interesting to lay them out, but I won't, for some reasons. Just keep in mind that I would use quotes over every word if it didn't inhibit the impact of quotes over words that are especially context dependent. (also tiring)
--------
So, back to the idea from before the interruption. Basically, what I'm trying to clarify is that a preference, belief, or thought, is not in itself quenching a motivated desire to have itself. Because it is not desire based, there is no action presented that creates it, it is solely considered a reaction.
An action is what we'll consider something that is quenching a desire. There is a motivation.
Priority Voting in reference to a Utilitarian Government
Some years ago, I was considering ways in which a government could be more personally utilitarian. What I concluded is that the idea of a majority vote is very flawed. It does not take satisfaction or priority into account. In other words, if 51% of people would be only slightly satisfied that something is being passed, compared to the 49% who would have a much larger decrease in satisfaction, then, this is very limiting. However, there is a solution that will leave the randomly chosen person (RCP) with a higher chance of being satisfied at any given -moment. I call it "priority voting" -
This method would allow voters to assign numbers (-2,-1,0,1,2) to policies or issues, with respect to predicted satisfaction, each one on a limited basis. This forces the voter to prioritize their wants, resulting in a greater chance for satisfaction for all.
As I mentioned, the RCP plays a large role in the idea of Randomly Chosen Person utilitarianism. This encompasses a moral or ethical view of the world. Because satisfaction is the main driving factor of all actions, it should be readily acceptable that the best world is one in which you as an individual are satisfied. Even if everyone else is dissatisfied, yet you feel satisfied, then you are feeling good about life. This isn't to say that you are a good or bad person, only that you are in a favorable situation. So, as a personal utilitarian, your chance of being satisfied is increased so long as the chance for the RCP to be satisfied at any given moment is higher. This results in all kinds of conclusions. For instance, it provides that you should help other people achieve satisfaction (or what would typically be referred to as a "good" person) - because it would result in a higher RCP satisfaction rate.
This also supports the idea of priority voting.
This method would allow voters to assign numbers (-2,-1,0,1,2) to policies or issues, with respect to predicted satisfaction, each one on a limited basis. This forces the voter to prioritize their wants, resulting in a greater chance for satisfaction for all.
As I mentioned, the RCP plays a large role in the idea of Randomly Chosen Person utilitarianism. This encompasses a moral or ethical view of the world. Because satisfaction is the main driving factor of all actions, it should be readily acceptable that the best world is one in which you as an individual are satisfied. Even if everyone else is dissatisfied, yet you feel satisfied, then you are feeling good about life. This isn't to say that you are a good or bad person, only that you are in a favorable situation. So, as a personal utilitarian, your chance of being satisfied is increased so long as the chance for the RCP to be satisfied at any given moment is higher. This results in all kinds of conclusions. For instance, it provides that you should help other people achieve satisfaction (or what would typically be referred to as a "good" person) - because it would result in a higher RCP satisfaction rate.
This also supports the idea of priority voting.
Quick note on argument
The other day I was debating with a friend about the importance of semantics (word use & definition) regarding any argument. This lead me to the following conclusion:
The only legitimate discrepancy in any argument is solely a lack of evidence for the likelihood of a specific event, at its smallest level.
More on this later -
The only legitimate discrepancy in any argument is solely a lack of evidence for the likelihood of a specific event, at its smallest level.
Guilt & Society
In the previous post, I attempted to establish the idea that choice is essentially an oxymoron and that we are forced into every specific action based entirely on what our brain conceives is the most satisfying one.
Because I realize that the maximization of satisfaction is the ultimate goal for all people, the idea that philosophy should be "practical" and immediately applicable is favorable to me. (More like Spinoza, less like Nietzsche) So I will now demonstrate a way that we can benefit from the acceptance of our absence of choice.
Part of achieving the goal of maximized satisfaction includes avoiding (or isolating) all "feelings" that reduce your satisfaction. I would say that "guilt" is generally one of these feelings. However, "guilt" and "regret" are flawed as concepts because of the illusion of choice. I'll explain:
At the time of choice, we have no real decision to make, other than to follow our unavoidable immediate desire quenching. Because there is no real decision, the person has actually done nothing to choose this action or outcome, and therefore can not be "blamed". This gets tricky - because you are still physically responsible as a cause of the responding events. However, it is not your "choice" to have maximized satisfaction in the particular action, so it is really not you that has caused this to happen, it is a number of external factors that caused you to find maximized satisfaction in a particular outlet. Take a murderer for instance:
The murderer feels most satisfied when he kills someone. If he doesn't kill someone, he doesn't feel as satisfied. He never decided what satisfies him the most, throughout his entire life, external factors shaped his desire complexes. In essence, it is not his fault that he kills people, it is the fault of everything ever that lead him to find most satisfaction in killing. HOWEVER, this is not to say that he should not be punished - which leads me to my next point.
The best situation for any society is maximized satisfaction for all peoples in the society. While "GUILT" and "BLAME" don't exist as far as personal responsibility, "PUNISHMENT" must still exist in order to come closer to achieving this ultimate goal. Let's say the murderer is caught and found to be physically responsible for what we consider to be a "crime". This is what I would essentially be saying to them:
"I understand that it is not your fault that you find most satisfaction in killing. In fact, you are simply a vessel acting to quench desires and experience the resulting emotions. Unfortunately for you, our society also understands that allowance of these events and the knowledge that your free existence hinders a specified amount of potential satisfaction, it is in our best interest that you (insert supportive punishment here)."
This is just one applicable consequence of the realization of a lack of a choice. Eventually I'll likely clarify what it means to be a "personal utilitarian", what I consider to be the simplest and most honest world view, that also is a very key idea in almost any moral consideration.
Because I realize that the maximization of satisfaction is the ultimate goal for all people, the idea that philosophy should be "practical" and immediately applicable is favorable to me. (More like Spinoza, less like Nietzsche) So I will now demonstrate a way that we can benefit from the acceptance of our absence of choice.
Part of achieving the goal of maximized satisfaction includes avoiding (or isolating) all "feelings" that reduce your satisfaction. I would say that "guilt" is generally one of these feelings. However, "guilt" and "regret" are flawed as concepts because of the illusion of choice. I'll explain:
At the time of choice, we have no real decision to make, other than to follow our unavoidable immediate desire quenching. Because there is no real decision, the person has actually done nothing to choose this action or outcome, and therefore can not be "blamed". This gets tricky - because you are still physically responsible as a cause of the responding events. However, it is not your "choice" to have maximized satisfaction in the particular action, so it is really not you that has caused this to happen, it is a number of external factors that caused you to find maximized satisfaction in a particular outlet. Take a murderer for instance:
The murderer feels most satisfied when he kills someone. If he doesn't kill someone, he doesn't feel as satisfied. He never decided what satisfies him the most, throughout his entire life, external factors shaped his desire complexes. In essence, it is not his fault that he kills people, it is the fault of everything ever that lead him to find most satisfaction in killing. HOWEVER, this is not to say that he should not be punished - which leads me to my next point.
The best situation for any society is maximized satisfaction for all peoples in the society. While "GUILT" and "BLAME" don't exist as far as personal responsibility, "PUNISHMENT" must still exist in order to come closer to achieving this ultimate goal. Let's say the murderer is caught and found to be physically responsible for what we consider to be a "crime". This is what I would essentially be saying to them:
"I understand that it is not your fault that you find most satisfaction in killing. In fact, you are simply a vessel acting to quench desires and experience the resulting emotions. Unfortunately for you, our society also understands that allowance of these events and the knowledge that your free existence hinders a specified amount of potential satisfaction, it is in our best interest that you (insert supportive punishment here)."
This is just one applicable consequence of the realization of a lack of a choice. Eventually I'll likely clarify what it means to be a "personal utilitarian", what I consider to be the simplest and most honest world view, that also is a very key idea in almost any moral consideration.
Introduction
There are two principles that apply not only to the majority of my conclusions but to what I have realized to be every action of both humans and society.
I. The popular concept of "choice" doesn't exist. We are essentially continuously satisfying desires that are beyond our control. Bottom line: We can't to decide to decide something. More on this:
Every action we take - every step, every word we say, every slight movement of our right hand, is the exact and only action that your brain is convinced to be the most satisfying action. If we believed anything else to be a more satisfying action, we would take that action instead. Also, we don't decide that this is the most satisfying action for our brain. Even if you worked out that somehow you "decided" that it was the most satisfying action, you can't decide to decide that. It just "happens" to you. The trail of motivation starts somewhere without our control. So, we don't have what is considered to be a "say" in any of our actions. We're essentially robots following our own inbred commands - which were mainly created by a large group of experiences and how our genetics have interacted with them.
I have found that this principle, along with the next, can lead to some very useful and applicable conclusions which I will go over later.
II. What I call "satisfaction" is the ultimate motivating factor in all humans and societies. It is essentially the quenching of any desire. It's existence implies the lack of desire for change - essentially, it is the embodiment of attraction.
While this may seem simple to some, it is widely overlooked and hardly ever applied in a way that leads to practical inferences (in my experiences). I don't like to use the term "happiness" because I believe people sometimes find satisfaction in experiencing other emotions as well. Still, in general, it is very comparable to the idea of happiness.
Here is an example of a conclusion reached from the combination of these two ideas:
We are all entirely "selfish"
I've had success opening up people to this concept of selfishness by making the following claim: Mother Teresa is 100% selfish.
I can say this because if Mother Teresa wouldn't have helped others, she wouldn't have been as satisfied. She was working purely to satisfy her "desire complex". We are all constantly taking every action specifically to satisfy ourselves. Even if you think you are sacrificing your own happiness to make someone else feel good, you are only doing it because you feel most satisfied taking that action, otherwise you would have done something else. So remember, we don't choose what desires guide us. We are essentially selfish robots.
Don't let the negative preconceived notions you likely have influence your understanding of this. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, and it is impossible to overcome, simply an observation. In fact, I am obeying it now with every word I type. I just can't avoid it.
For many people, these concepts are simple, or they may have already came to these conclusions. In this case, further observations should tend to be very agreeable. However, I have met plenty of criticisms. I assure you that this is a sound idea, but will be open to further deliberation in the future.
I. The popular concept of "choice" doesn't exist. We are essentially continuously satisfying desires that are beyond our control. Bottom line: We can't to decide to decide something. More on this:
Every action we take - every step, every word we say, every slight movement of our right hand, is the exact and only action that your brain is convinced to be the most satisfying action. If we believed anything else to be a more satisfying action, we would take that action instead. Also, we don't decide that this is the most satisfying action for our brain. Even if you worked out that somehow you "decided" that it was the most satisfying action, you can't decide to decide that. It just "happens" to you. The trail of motivation starts somewhere without our control. So, we don't have what is considered to be a "say" in any of our actions. We're essentially robots following our own inbred commands - which were mainly created by a large group of experiences and how our genetics have interacted with them.
I have found that this principle, along with the next, can lead to some very useful and applicable conclusions which I will go over later.
II. What I call "satisfaction" is the ultimate motivating factor in all humans and societies. It is essentially the quenching of any desire. It's existence implies the lack of desire for change - essentially, it is the embodiment of attraction.
While this may seem simple to some, it is widely overlooked and hardly ever applied in a way that leads to practical inferences (in my experiences). I don't like to use the term "happiness" because I believe people sometimes find satisfaction in experiencing other emotions as well. Still, in general, it is very comparable to the idea of happiness.
Here is an example of a conclusion reached from the combination of these two ideas:
We are all entirely "selfish"
I've had success opening up people to this concept of selfishness by making the following claim: Mother Teresa is 100% selfish.
I can say this because if Mother Teresa wouldn't have helped others, she wouldn't have been as satisfied. She was working purely to satisfy her "desire complex". We are all constantly taking every action specifically to satisfy ourselves. Even if you think you are sacrificing your own happiness to make someone else feel good, you are only doing it because you feel most satisfied taking that action, otherwise you would have done something else. So remember, we don't choose what desires guide us. We are essentially selfish robots.
Don't let the negative preconceived notions you likely have influence your understanding of this. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, and it is impossible to overcome, simply an observation. In fact, I am obeying it now with every word I type. I just can't avoid it.
For many people, these concepts are simple, or they may have already came to these conclusions. In this case, further observations should tend to be very agreeable. However, I have met plenty of criticisms. I assure you that this is a sound idea, but will be open to further deliberation in the future.
Subjective Objectivity in regards to Identity
In eliminating all self and external biases, one can come closer to achieving what I consider an "objective" state of mind. To make any further implications, first we must classify the term "bias" in this context. For this, we shall consider a "bias" any natural "favorings" of a person, in which one finds satisfaction. The act of "favoring" can be closely tied in with things like "tastes" and opinions.
In this case, "biases" are more than likely what a person would consider to create their personality: the things they gravitate toward, skewing their reactions and actions as well.
This can clarify that on the path to enabling as many objective thoughts as possible, one must be able to ignore the things that make up what is being considered "personality" at the time of thought.
In this sense, a person who acts (successfully) generally "objective" also acts generally without what is being considered "personality".
If we assume that a loss of personality is undesirable (which will eventually be explained), and also conclude that it is implicit that acting objective is motivated by its ability to increase satisfaction, then we can then answer this question: At what point should one stop attempting to rid themselves of biases? The answer:
Rid yourself of biases in order to enable objective reasoning until the amount of satisfaction gained by the reasoning itself or by solely quenching the desire to act objective does not exceed the satisfaction lost in the loss of personality.
The purpose of this post was to clarify one discrepancy I have with the above idea: Can objective reasoning be favored? Or can you say that the original bias is favoring the truth, in which objective reasoning serves as a vessel for that bias?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)