I have officially changed my position on the liberal arts in universities

[Elok]

Eh. I agree that morality of any kind is pretty well unjustifiable without some supernatural component, but every time I say so on Poly some dingbat accuses me of saying all atheists are immoral, that religious people are always more moral than unbelievers, or some other cretin thing I never said. Inevitably somebody brings up the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and similar irrelevant atrocities. So, while I'm sure BK won't take my advice, I'd advise him to drop it. Also, Aggie is an advocate of book-burning, I don't think he has anything useful to contribute to a discussion of morality.

Anyway, here's an interesting scenario I read; apparently it's used as an example by a very popular professor at Harvard for his intro to ethics class. An American squad operating behind enemy lines in Afghanistan stumbles across a lone shepherd. They're pretty sure--almost positive--that, if released, the shepherd will notify the Taliban of their presence and get them all killed. Taking and keeping him prisoner is simply not practical. Should they kill an innocent man, or let him live and in all likelihood get them all killed?

[giblets]

The question is not so much, "is it wrong", but "why". You argue society derives no benefit from you amassing more money then you had previous, but that society does derive a benefit from a more equitable distribution. Both positions assume a zero sum game. What if I invested the money and then made myself and others wealthier than we were before?

Economics isn't a zero sum, but I have to go so I'll be back tonight.

Since money is just a medium of exchange, killing someone and amassing money in the process doesn't imply that the amount of actual wealth has increased. I thought the scenario you proposed was something analogous to killing someone who has a life insurance policy that would give you money, then getting someone else framed for it.

[BeBMan]

Given this war has the US vs mostly tribal warriors and ideological/religious fanatics and poor guys that need to fight for stuff who all in all - despite 9-11 - are hardly in the position to wipe the US from the map I'd assume the US military has other options, so let him go and try something else. Now if that was some overly dramatic Jack Bauer scenario like "there are umpteen nukes going off in our cities if we don't do something badass" I'd reconsider.

edit: x-post

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is that there are zero negative consequences to you. The money is all in cash or negotiable bonds. Nothing that could be traced back to you or to the crime scene. There exists a suspect with both motivation and opportunity to perform the deed. You know that you will not be caught in the act, ie you have the combination for the safe and the key. The owner is away on vacation and you've never met the owner personally.

How would consequentialism come to the conclusion that my action was wrong?

[giblets]

The point is that there are zero negative consequences to you. The money is all in cash or negotiable bonds. Nothing that could be traced back to you or to the crime scene. There exists a suspect with both motivation and opportunity to perform the deed. You know that you will not be caught in the act, ie you have the combination for the safe and the key. The owner is away on vacation and you've never met the owner personally.

How would consequentialism come to the conclusion that my action was wrong?

The suspect goes to prison, which has a negative value because they suffer. The owner loses stuff, which also has a negative value because they're less happy. Although I guess that in theory you can justify any action under consequentialism if it makes you so much happier that the harm it causes is offset.

[Elok]

Gribbler, I believe BK is disregarding the consequences to others, effectively making this less an argument about consequentialism than about the idea of morality itself.

Given this war has the US vs mostly tribal warriors and ideological/religious fanatics and poor guys that need to fight for stuff who all in all - despite 9-11 - are hardly in the position to wipe the US from the map I'd assume the US military has other options, so let him go and try something else. Now if that was some overly dramatic Jack Bauer scenario like "there are umpteen nukes going off in our cities if we don't do something badass" I'd reconsider.

What other options do you think they had? As it happens, this scenario actually occurred; I read about it in the Economist. The squad leader ultimately decided to release the guy on moral grounds. The story didn't mention the details, but apparently several people died, including some crew on the helicopter sent to extract them.

[BeBMan]

What other options do you think they had? As it happens, this scenario actually occurred; I read about it in the Economist. The squad leader ultimately decided to release the guy on moral grounds. The story didn't mention the details, but apparently several people died, including some crew on the helicopter sent to extract them.

I read in your post before taking him with them was not "practical" - sounds to me that it was not "impossible". From there I meant they should just have abandoned the ops, and taken the guy with them if needed. Of course, if the situation was such that this would have killed them as well this is no solution (we would need more details - was killing him the only way to get out safely, etc.).

I'm assuming that whatever mission they had, it was not something which would have dramatic consequences if not accomplished.

edit: as for other options - I meant to do what the specops teams was tasked for, either by other means (like drone strike, if feasible), or by making another attempt with ground forces etc..

[Elok]

Unfortunately, I don't have more details, I just read it in a review of the professor's book...

[C0ckney]

As for defining good and evil, why do you continue to ask questions you know to be unanswerable? Do you do it because you're a pompous ass who thinks he's setting a trap for a simpleton, or do you do it because you genuinely do not understand it's not an answerable question?

yes it is, and it's answerable using a scientific method. just ask mikeh.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, while I'm sure BK won't take my advice, I'd advise him to drop it.

Agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm trying not to turn an intelligent discussion into a religion vs atheism war. All I'm trying to say is that if Kuci looking for a specific feature about morality, that you'll best find it in religion. That's it. They have answers for these questions because they see them as important questions. Other systems of ethics don't regard the question as significant, of any meaningful value, etc.

As for Agathon, this is his field. It's like asking Asher about a programming question. I'm sure he has something intelligent to contribute.

[Ben Kenobi]

Although I guess that in theory you can justify any action under consequentialism if it makes you so much happier that the harm it causes is offset.

Plato came to the same conclusion. This is one of the reasons why morals need to have meaning in and of themselves, beyond simple profit and loss.

Gribbler, if you haven't already check out the story in the 2nd book of Plato's Republic.

[Al B. Sure!]

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings

The SEAL team, led by LT Michael P. Murphy and consisting of petty officers Matthew Axelson, Danny Dietz and Marcus Luttrell, were on a mission to kill or capture Ahmad Shah, a Taliban leader who commanded a group of insurgents known as the "Mountain Tigers,"[2] west of Asadabad.[6][7]
After an initially successful infiltration, local goat herders stumbled upon the SEALs' hiding place. Unable to verify any hostile intent from the herders,[8] Murphy asked the team what should be done with them. Axelson reportedly voted to kill the Afghans, and Dietz didn't offer an opinion, causing Murphy to state that he would vote the same as Luttrell, who said the herders should be set free. Luttrell later wrote, "It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lame brained decision I ever made in my life. I must have been out of my mind. I had actually cast a vote which I knew could sign our death warrant. I’d turned into a f--ing liberal, a half-assed, no-logic nitwit, all heart, no brain, and the judgment of a jackrabbit." [6]
Shortly after the goat herders disappeared over the mountain ridge, the SEALs were confronted by a force of Afghan fighters, estimated between 50-200 strong,[2] causing Luttrell to believe that the released herders had given away their position.[9][10]
The insurgents set up a "well organized, three-sided attack", which forced the SEALs to begin running down the slope.[2][11] After 45 minutes of fighting, Murphy moved into the open, after noting the team's radio transmitters weren't functioning properly in the mountains, and placed the emergency call for support from his cell phone. He was shot in the abdomen during the conversation.[2][10] Nevertheless he returned to his cover after the call and continued to battle.
After two hours of fighting, only Luttrell remained alive, although he was lying unconscious behind a ridge where he had been knocked out by the blast of a rocket-propelled grenade.[2][11]

The film Lone Survivor is in production and will be a telling of the incident.

[BeBMan]

Seems it comes down to the question "should we kill random guys because we aren't sure of their intentions". Well, it is difficult to argue against a case where it clearly turned out bad for the team involved, but the alternative would be to start killing people based on pure suspicion (and in the end you can never be absolutely sure about other people's intentions). Then it would be simpler to move the troops out and nuke the region alltogether. Of course that sounds always like a great thing to do on internet fora these days, but it's contrary to the entire rationale of being American, the USA, or the West, or whatever in a similar line, so it's absurd.

[Al B. Sure!]

How about Luttrell? You got to feel so can't put it in words to know that you made the call that got your fellow men killed and you're the one that made it out alive. Luttrell calls himself an idiot and a ****ing liberal but that's probably the guilt. He made the right call regardless of what happened.

[Heraclitus]

Why wouldn't an empirical examination of our moral senses be best carried out not through mathematical modelling but instead by observation of human beings and our evolutionary kin, since our moral senses are not derived logically, but emotionally?

1) In practice, it is.

2) Our emotions are the object of study; more precisely, our moral sentiments. We're trying to find the simplest set of rules that explains them best. Hell, look at the practice of conducting thought experiments: these are genuine experiments! We hypothesize a rule determining "what we ought to do", then come up with a situation and ask if that rule produces something that agrees with our sentiments or disagrees with them. If a rule says we should do something that we feel strongly is wrong, then that is evidence against the rule.

Do you think we will ever come up with a good enough utility function that won't make us wince too much?