wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (07/12/83)
From: Doug Alan
I see nothing wrong with whipping the masochist. Some people
watch TV and some people like to be whipped.
But I do! I find it a disgusting activity, only slightly comparable to
watching TV. And therefore, I find it objectionable that I should be
*required* (by morality) to whip this person. In fact, it would make me
sick to my stomach to do so. Remember, we are speaking here of using
the Golden Rule as a basis for morality.
About the addict: I'm sure that the addict has conflicting desires.
He wants the drugs, but he also wants to stay alive and healthy.
How are you so sure? I know people who are addicted to many things, and
have no such conflicting desires. Nicotine is a prime example. You cannot
just say that you are "sure" of what any other person's desires are,
unless you can produce evidence of such desires. I feel certain I can
produce evidence of addicts risking their lives (often in foolish ways)
in order to satisfy their craving.
The good thing to do would probably be to help him satisfy his
desire to stay alive and healthy rather than his desire to do
drugs, because his desire to live and be healthy seems more
important, even if it seems less urgent to him at the moment.
How do you come to that conclusion? Even assuming that such a desire for
life exists on his part, how have you decided that such a desire for life
is more important than a desire to do drugs? And even if I go so far as
to grant that such a desire IS more important, by what law do you tell me
that it is "good" to satisfy this desire of his to live?
(A quote by Doug Alan from one of my earlier articles:)
Imagine, if you will, a group of perfect altruists: for each
of them, the best that they can do is satisfying the desires
of another of them. BUT, all of them are in the same
position; all desire to fulfill the desires of another. But
none of them have any desires of their own! This leads us
to the conclusion (which I beleive is inevitable) that there
can be no moral goods if there are no non-moral goods before
them.
(To which he replied:)
I see no problem here. It's obvious that the world is already in
pretty good shape. There must not be any hunger, thirst, or exposure,
or just by the physical nature of man, there would be desires to be
satisfied.
By what logic do you deduce that the world is in good shape? I have said
nothing about the state of their environment, and in fact, it is irrelevant
to the crux of my argument (which you obviously missed; see below).
There just is no good to be done here. The state of the
world in this situation must have the highest goodness rating possible
This is another fun one. "Highest goodness rating"? By what standard?
How can you say that the "state of the world" can have ANY goodness rating,
let alone a quantifiable one? Have you ever heard of the 'best of all
possible worlds' argument?
Or shall we try another tack: let us assume that Heaven exists exactly as
stated in the bible. It is by definition, the best of all possible worlds.
It has "the highest goodness rating possible." All this is obvious. Now,
the people who inhabit this world (angels) are perfect altruists, just as
in my original example. NOW, please explain to me how "there is just no good
to be done here"!! Angels not able to do any good!?! (Pardon the sarcasm;
I'll clean up the drippings in a minute.)
(for a world in which everyone is stupid and has no
imagination -- if they weren't stupid or had some
imagination, they'd all think of something they want to do).
But they're NOT stupid. They've all thought that the thing they want most
to do is be altruists!! Surely you're not going to tell me that altruists
are stupid.
You left out the most important point, although your "state of the world"
address (:-)) made reference to it. Hunger and the associated physical
needs are are (I maintain) NON-MORAL goods; the question is, "How can we
say that morality has a hold on someone who does not care about these
survival goods, since non-moral goods must exist in order for moral
goods to be established?" I'm still waiting for an answer.
--Alan Wexelblat
decvax!ucbvax!ittvax!wex