Moral Algebra

[Panjandrum]

Most people would agree that only an action can be judged as moral or immoral. Since there is no way to know what is in another's mind, it makes no sense to talk or purely 'mental' morality. Given this, to what extent do someones good actions outway its evil ones? For instance, if I were to volunteer at a soup kitchen, would such a 'moral' act outway my stealing some money from a 'friend'? Remember, it makes no difference that I volunteered soley to improve my public image. Whether I give a shit about them, the homeless dross will still get their soup because of me. My action, for them, is highly moral.

If I could demonstrate that on average, I do more of these 'moral' actions than I do immoral ones, would I be able to legitimately claim to be a moral person? If not, why not? If so, would it not be immoral to send me to prison for my crimes, knowing that will end my 'moral' activities too?

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Most people would agree that only an action can be judged as moral or immoral. Since there is no way to know what is in another's mind, it makes no sense to talk or purely 'mental' morality. Given this, to what extent do someones good actions outway its evil ones? For instance, if I were to volunteer at a soup kitchen, would such a 'moral' act outway my stealing some money from a 'friend'? Remember, it makes no difference that I volunteered soley to improve my public image. Whether I give a shit about them, the homeless dross will still get their soup because of me. My action, for them, is highly moral.

If I could demonstrate that on average, I do more of these 'moral' actions than I do immoral ones, would I be able to legitimately claim to be a moral person? If not, why not? If so, would it not be immoral to send me to prison for my crimes, knowing that will end my 'moral' activities too?

No matter how good you are 99% of the time, if you commit crime the other 1% of the time you are liable for that commision.

Think of it like a plate of food. I serve you the plate of food. 99% is delicious. 1% is my own feces someplace where you won't find it until you tase it. Am I a great cook or a criminal? Is the taste of the non-tainted food enough to get over the fact that I am feeding you my own crap?

Bill

[Panjandrum]

I dont entierly accept your analogy. It would be more accurate to ask, if I cooked perfect meals for 99 people and fed my own shit to one unlucky guy, would that make me a good chef? Those 99 would vouch for me. And if I was banned from cooking because that one guy got fed shit, wouldnt that be unfair on the 99 who get great food from me?

[pgrmdave]

I think that it is not the number, but the degree of severity of moral or immoral acts that counts. Feeding somebody great food, or feeding a lot of people great food, does not outweigh being malicious and feeding somebody something which will harm them and disgust them.

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

I dont entierly accept your analogy. It would be more accurate to ask, if I cooked perfect meals for 99 people and fed my own shit to one unlucky guy, would that make me a good chef? Those 99 would vouch for me. And if I was banned from cooking because that one guy got fed shit, wouldnt that be unfair on the 99 who get great food from me?

Which is why I stay away from Taco Bell!

Good question, but we need a better Analogy...
pgrmdave is making more sense, and I agree with his last post.

If you walk by one hundred people on the street, and Smiled and said "Hello - Good Day " to 99 of them,
But stopped and said "Hey M*ther F%#@! and Slugged the dude ... would that make you a nice guy or a bad guy?

Moral or Immoral?
Mostly moral, but there is an immoral tendency on occasion...1% being the value placed on this analogy and the food analogy.
Does that 1% outweigh the 99%??
It would in the analogies given so far.

[Panjandrum]

Who is to judge the moral weight of the actions? If I feed a fat greedy pig who has just eaten, is that of lesser moral weight than if I feed a starving man? Does it make any diffrence if I dont know that one is greedy and one is starving?

That is to say, can the same action have diffrent worth depending on its subject. A kindly gesture to one person can seem an insult to another, am I to be held responsible for thier reactions, or merely for my own action?

Since my intent cannot be taken into account, I would say there is no way to distinguish the relative 'goodness' or 'badness' of an action, all actions that can be considered moral must be considered to be equally moral, similarly with immoral actions. Which still leaves the question, does an immoral act counter a moral one, or are they apples and oranges?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Who is to judge the moral weight of the actions?

If we are to approach the question scientifically (yes, this is the Philosophy and Humanities forum, but these are science forums!), “judgment” shouldn’t be used, but “measurement”. The consequences of actions should be measured against there effect on measurable quantities – either objective physical quantities, or subjective, statistical ones.

Which and what kinds of quantities should be measured, and how they should be aggregated, is far from simple or obvious, which is why moral philosophy is a less formal discipline than bridge building. Nonetheless, at least one simple quantity appears a good candidate for judging the “morality” – right or wrong – of actions: the total number of living human beings (population).

Few, I think, would seriously argue that an action that reduces the human population to zero is right. Inversely, then, one can argue that an action that increase the human population is right.

With this metric, we can answer various questions posed:

If I feed a fat greedy pig who has just eaten, is that of lesser moral weight than if I feed a starving man?

Yes, it is of wrong. Feeding the satiated man instead of the starving man reduces the human population by 1 in the short term, by the number of the starving man’s eventual descendents in the long.

Does it make any diffrence if I dont know that one is greedy and one is starving? That is to say, can the same action have diffrent worth depending on its subject. A kindly gesture to one person can seem an insult to another, am I to be held responsible for thier reactions, or merely for my own action?

No. Your knowledge enables you to make right decisions. Your lack of knowledge does not make any wrong decisions you make less wrong. To make right decisions in which another’s reaction is significant, one must have sufficient knowledge to accurately predict how that other will react.

Which still leaves the question, does an immoral act counter a moral one, or are they apples and oranges?

”Moral algebra” is, I think, more complicated than this question implies. For example, nationalistic aggression in the early 20th century resulted in great wars costing millions of human lives. Many of the individuals involved performed greatly more wrong acts than right – reduced the population much more than increased it – yet, in the long term, their actions resulted in technologies that today enable acts of greater rightness than would have been possible without the wrong acts, resulting in a greater population than would have resulted without the short term loss of population. These wars, and the “hot” and “cold” wars that followed them resulted in spaceflight technology with the potential to increase the human population by orders of magnitude that, without these wars might not have developed for centuries. At the same time, this and other war-promoted technology, such as nuclear explosives, have the potential to substantially reduce the population, or even, in the remote extreme, reduce it to zero.

Acts of great humanitarianism have allowed large short-term increases in population, but these increases have led in places to social disorder with the potential to greatly reduce the long-term population.

Without waiting for millennia to pass to see the long-term effects of these actions, it is difficult, and arguably impossible, to determine with reasonable confidence their rightness or wrongness. Best guesses can and are nonetheless made. These guesses are left as an exercise to the reader.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CraigD:

If we are to approach the question scientifically (yes, this is the Philosophy and Humanities forum, but these are science forums!), “judgment” shouldn’t be used, but “measurement”. The consequences of actions should be measured against there effect on measurable quantities – either objective physical quantities, or subjective, statistical ones.

Hmmm. In my view you do not have to apologize for asking that the humanities be scientific or based upon reason. I think that philosophy is supposed to lay the groundwork for the sciences, in other words, it should be the most reasonable of all intellectual pursuits.
The relationship between philosophy and science is extremely important and those who think the two are not connected or should not be connected are very much mistaken.
And perhaps, if we are really, really lucky, maybe someday we'll see that morality should be defined by philosophy and science instead of religion.
When that happens, we will see the rebirth of humanity.

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by CraigD

If we are to approach the question scientifically (yes, this is the Philosophy and Humanities forum, but these are science forums!), “judgment” shouldn’t be used, but “measurement”. The consequences of actions should be measured against there effect on measurable quantities – either objective physical quantities, or subjective, statistical ones.

Agreed. I used the term judge, but in the realm of the humanties, I think this is broadly synonymous with measure.

Originally Posted by CraigD

Nonetheless, at least one simple quantity appears a good candidate for judging the “morality” – right or wrong – of actions: the total number of living human beings (population).

Few, I think, would seriously argue that an action that reduces the human population to zero is right. Inversely, then, one can argue that an action that increase the human population is right.

This does not follow. Just because x is bad, it does not necessarily mean -x is good. The enemy of my enemy may or may not be my friend, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Originally Posted by CraigD

Your lack of knowledge does not make any wrong decisions you make less wrong. To make right decisions in which another’s reaction is significant, one must have sufficient knowledge to accurately predict how that other will react.

I disagree strongly. I cannot be held accountable for the opionions of others! It is simmialr to the fallacy of the 'sin of ommision': only my actions can be used to judge my moralism.

Originally Posted by CraigD

Without waiting for millennia to pass to see the long-term effects of these actions, it is difficult, and arguably impossible, to determine with reasonable confidence their rightness or wrongness. Best guesses can and are nonetheless made. These guesses are left as an exercise to the reader.

But by this reasoning, morality is not only entierly arbitrary, it is also utterly meaningless. Eventually, all human life will become extinct. While no single action of a human may lead directly to this, the tangled nature of causality means that human actions will nonetheless be involved, rendering all actions untimately 'bad'. For morality to have any meaning, it must be possible to assign a judgment to an action when it is taken. A morally good action remains so, even if its ultimate effect is evil. That is, the means justify the ends.

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Who is to judge the moral weight of the actions? If I feed a fat greedy pig who has just eaten,

Since my intent cannot be taken into account, I would say there is no way to distinguish the relative 'goodness' or 'badness' of an action,

Dude.
You make 0 sense. Your points are pointless.
Why Bother?

Your intent is the whole purpose of "moral" or not.

What the F*ck are you trying to say???