charlie@cca.UUCP (07/05/83)
I disagree with the "human life as the basis of good" argument in a different way from most contributors. I believe that there can be no good in the absense of human-like life (a distinction for another essay), but neither can there be evil. Life is the medium in which the distinction exists but is not shaded either way by itself. I prefer to define good in terms of human happiness. That which causes people to be happy is good. That which causes them to be unhappy is bad. That which has mixed effects is the subject of all interesting problems. This system has some interesting side effects. To murder someone is not to commit a crime against them. The crime is against their survivors (who suffer their loss) and society at large (who live in greater fear that they may be murdered at any time). The "victim" will not hold it against you. It means that in the abortion debate, I see no evil in the loss of a fetus, but see plenty in the suffering it inflicts on the "right to life" people. If it happened in secret, it would lose ill-effects. Finally, if the arms race reached the point where the entire human race could be destroyed in a single painless instant (the death star?), I do not think it would be the ultimate disaster. I would like to think the human race could do better, but I know it could do worse. I'm presenting my views here because I believe they truly are different from those of most people. As we discuss whether there can be legitimate differences of opinion on moral issues, I thought a concrete example of a foreign value basis might help.
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/06/83)
This letter is in response to the previously posted utilitarian article
by Charlie Kaufman expressing the opinion that "good" is whatever causes
people to become happy.
Would you then say that the ultimate "good" thing to do would be to
permanently plug everyone in the world into a machine that maximally
stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain -- even if many people do
not want to be plugged into this machine?
I do not agree with Charlie's opinion, but I believe in an ethical
system that is somewhat similar. I believe that the "good" thing is
whatever causes people's desires to be satisfied. This is almost the
same, but not quite, since what people desire is not necessarily what
will make them the most happy. Basically this ethical theory is just
the golden rule.
--
Doug Alan
decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!nessus
Nessus@MIT-MCnessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (07/06/83)
Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site wjh12.UUCP
Posting-Version:version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path:wjh12!genrad!mit-eddie!nessus
Message-ID:<403@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date:Wed, 6-Jul-83 12:45:49 EDT
Organization:MIT, Cambridge, MA
This letter is in response to the previously posted utilitarian article
by Charlie Kaufman expressing the opinion that "good" is whatever causes
people to become happy.
Would you then say that the ultimate "good" thing to do would be to
permanently plug everyone in the world into a machine that maximally
stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain -- even if many people do
not want to be plugged into this machine?
I do not agree with Charlie's opinion, but I believe in an ethical
system that is somewhat similar. I believe that the "good" thing is
whatever causes people's desires to be satisfied. This is almost the
same, but not quite, since what people desire is not necessarily what
will make them the most happy. Basically this ethical theory is just
the golden rule.
--
Doug Alan
decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!nessus
Nessus@MIT-MCsample@ubc-visi.UUCP (07/07/83)
Concerning happiness as the basis of good, Doug Alan says:
Would you then say that the ultimate "good" thing to do would be to
permanently plug everyone in the world into a machine that maximally
stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain -- even if many people do
not want to be plugged into this machine?
He equates happiness with pleasure, which is not the usual definition
of happiness. It seems to me that if one defines good using happiness,
one has merely shifted the problem to the definition of happiness.
I believe Aristotle was the first to use this sort of an argument,
except that it is not clear that the word he used (evdemonia (sp?)) can
be directly translated as "happiness".
Rick Sample