NationStates Jolt Archive

Say I'm a robot who has been programmed to kill all humans, and I do it. Am I evil? Many people might say that I'm not.

The same would probably be true if I'm a normal person, but someone holds a gun to my head and makes me do something bad, like rape someone.

If I do something bad by accident, because I didn't know any better, then generally that's not considered evil as such either.

But if I did these things of my own free will, then I would be an evil person, wouldn't I?

So if we had a totalitarian society in which nobody could do anything but what the government commands them to, would that be a good, evil or morally neutral society? Why? Would it depend on what exactly the government makes people do?

You were on about this is the other thread, and yet you fled the responses you got.

Such as position as you have is anti-reality because is systematically ignores the innate solidarity of human civilization, and our natural inclination towards unity, cooperation, community and unanimity. The individual is nothing and can accomplish basically nothing continuous within the labor of humans both in his past and present. I for one don't need an intellectual excuse not to use social skills.

I don't think the robot and gun-to-the-head are equivalent examples.

Moralism doesn't apply to the robot. It's like asking "is a brick evil if it falls on someone?". It's silly to even ask. But it might apply to who programmed the robot, or dropped the brick.

The guy with the gun to the head is a different matter. He may have a gun to his head but he still has a choice. You always have a choice. If "it's the law" or "he was going to hurt me" seem like valid excuses to betray your moral compass - i'd doubt you have much of a moral compass to start with.

you are only morally neutral to the extent that you dont have a choice.

such situations are rare.

in the case of a totalitarian society SOMEONE is making the decisions. if those decisions are immoral, its immoral.

Say I'm a robot who has been programmed to kill all humans, and I do it. Am I evil? Many people might say that I'm not.
Agreed, robot is not immoral.

The same would probably be true if I'm a normal person, but someone holds a gun to my head and makes me do something bad, like rape someone.
Disagree, (not talking about just your rape scenario) choosing to allow oneself to be shot rather than be immoral is always an option.

If I do something bad by accident, because I didn't know any better, then generally that's not considered evil as such either.
Animalistic instincts of humans is far harder to judge, but I could go either way. Immoral is more than simply learned (IMO) and controlling 'animalistic' instincts is what makes one moral or not. Perhaps we can't judge this situation, but that doesn't mean it can't be judged.

But if I did these things of my own free will, then I would be an evil person, wouldn't I?
Perhaps, and maybe even likely.

So if we had a totalitarian society in which nobody could do anything but what the government commands them to, would that be a good, evil or morally neutral society? Why? Would it depend on what exactly the government makes people do?
Because I said no the gun to the head question, I don't think the government totalitarian society relieves guilt or grants pardon.

Just my 2 cents

I post this link (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html) almost every time the subject comes up, I think it has interesting things to say about it.

I personally believe that being moral means you have the capacity to do bad and good, and choose the latter. Things that cannot choose, such as robots, or tigers, or hurricanes, cannot and normally are not considered evil, and I think the same applies to humans: if you can't choose, you can't be moral. You can't really be immoral, either.

If people really could only do what the government commanded, then it would be a morally neutral society, although I would consider those who had the power of choice to be immoral because they are enslaving their populace. However, this situation never arises in the real world, people always have a choice, even if it goes against the laws of the land.

Humans always have a choice. You may have 2 horrible choices, but they are still choices. You can choose to die, in your example.

If there truly is no choice, such as your robot, then no. But what does it matter? It is purely a thought exercise, it has no real world relevance.

'Free will' is a misleading terms because it leans towards a conclusion of an absolute right to free action without consequences. Social forces of determination, such as morality and law of what is 'right', always naturally determine the actions and behavior of individuals according to the shared moral framework of the 'community'. Because naturally do not want to be different, they naturally conform. The 'totalitarianism' NL talks about is less an outside force determining what is 'right', but instead a shared unanimity and solidarity.

The same would probably be true if I'm a normal person, but someone holds a gun to my head and makes me do something bad, like rape someone.

Actually, no. Certainly someone holding a gun to your head is a heavily mitigating factor, but it does not excuse your action. A strong case could be made that you are morally obligated to refuse to rape someone even if a gun is held to your head.

So if we had a totalitarian society in which nobody could do anything but what the government commands them to

Of course they could. They just would suffer from the consequences.

'Free will' is a misleading terms because it leans towards a conclusion of an absolute right to free action without consequences.

Free will is not normative. It doesn't tell us anything about "right."

Social forces of determination, such as morality and law of what is 'right', always naturally determine the actions and behavior of individuals according to the shared moral framework of the 'community'.

Um, no, they don't. That's transparently false. Plenty of people have rejected the "shared moral framework of the 'community.'"

Because naturally do not want to be different

Nonsense. Plenty of people naturally want what most people do not want.

'Free will' is a misleading terms because it leans towards a conclusion of an absolute right to free action without consequences. Social forces of determination, such as morality and law of what is 'right', always naturally determine the actions and behavior of individuals according to the shared moral framework of the 'community'. Because naturally do not want to be different, they naturally conform. The 'totalitarianism' NL talks about is less an outside force determining what is 'right', but instead a shared unanimity and solidarity.

Where are you getting this? Socialism for Dummies: College Student Edition? :p Free will in the context of ethics ordinarily means simple volition.

Soheran using anti-social minorities as your point isn't very good, if anything it shows that they are just aberrations from the general trend.

You were on about this is the other thread, and yet you fled the responses you got.
I didn't flee them, I thought the discussion was derailing the other thread, so I moved it here. So here we go:

You see, I believe that goodness is a quality inherent in the action, not the agent.
But in so far as morality is a code that exists to guide our behaviour - if there is nothing to guide, why would morality exist?

I mean, the thing that you consider utilitarianism is a way of ranking outcomes, but is it actually a code of morality?

Like most of Objectivism, that's meaningless rhetoric without any substantive meaning at all.

"The destruction of individuals is the destruction of moral choice"--well, maybe, if by "destruction of individuals" you mean, say, mass murder. So mass murder is bad. What does that prove about socialism?
It's not particularly about socialism. It's about the use of force to try and take away the choice to act either way from an individual. When Kilobugya says he wants to minimise the damage I can do by taking away my ability to earn money and do with it more or less as I please, then that's a way of limiting my choices to be moral or not.

So that brings up a question about what exactly morality is, and whether an action can indeed be good if there is no one to take it and make that decision according to some moral code.

I didn't flee them, I thought the discussion was derailing the other thread, so I moved it here. So here we go:


But in so far as morality is a code that exists to guide our behaviour - if there is nothing to guide, why would morality exist?

I mean, the thing that you consider utilitarianism is a way of ranking outcomes, but is it actually a code of morality?


It's not particularly about socialism. It's about the use of force to try and take away the choice to act either way from an individual. When Kilobugya says he wants to minimise the damage I can do by taking away my ability to earn money and do with it more or less as I please, then that's a way of limiting my choices to be moral or not.

So that brings up a question about what exactly morality is, and whether an action can indeed be good if there is no one to take it and make that decision according to some moral code.

Morality comes from the end of a gun.

A strong case could be made that you are morally obligated to refuse to rape someone even if a gun is held to your head.
It could be made, but the strength of the counterpoint depends again on whether or not the ability to make a choice (which would be taken from me if I'm dead) is in itself a moral value to some degree, or a prerequisite to moral values.

It could be made, but the strength of the counterpoint depends again on whether or not the ability to make a choice (which would be taken from me if I'm dead) is in itself a moral value to some degree, or a prerequisite to moral values.
I would argue that morality isn't 'imposed' or 'enforced' by a state as you (and the libertarian position) state, but that morality or what is right is innate. I mean did the ancient Hebrews honestly think before they got the 10 commandments that murder was a good thing? Honestly although sometimes you might have to drum it in a bit, children for example know intrinsically that killing someone is wrong. If anything it's the libertarians who are trying to impose their own individualist egotistical ideology unnaturally.

Morality comes from the end of a gun.
Hey, at least I own (lol) an original copy of the Red Book, printed in China and bought on Tiananmen Square.

It's not particularly about socialism. It's about the use of force to try and take away the choice to act either way from an individual. When Kilobugya says he wants to minimise the damage I can do by taking away my ability to earn money and do with it more or less as I please, then that's a way of limiting my choices to be moral or not.

So that brings up a question about what exactly morality is, and whether an action can indeed be good if there is no one to take it and make that decision according to some moral code.

wait. even assuming that moral choices are the ultimate good (which is silly), how does limiting the range of bad choices you can actualize even begin to relate to the question of whether there could be moral action if there were no moral actors?

It could be made, but the strength of the counterpoint depends again on whether or not the ability to make a choice (which would be taken from me if I'm dead) is in itself a moral value to some degree, or a prerequisite to moral values.

you would be making a very significant choice now. anyways, your system proposes that anything that allows me to go on making moral decisions in the future is right, even if they are uniformly ones that a real system of morality would declare to be bad or wrong. that's just dumb.

Morality comes from the end of a gun.

I would argue that morality isn't 'imposed' or 'enforced' by a state as you (and the libertarian position) state, but that morality or what is right is innate.

?

Hey, at least I own (lol) an original copy of the Red Book, printed in China and bought on Tiananmen Square.
Hey, that's pretty cool, fight against revisionism and all that, I wonder what happened to the 'communist torch' model.

wait. even assuming that moral choices are the ultimate good (which is silly), how does limiting the range of bad choices you can actualize even begin to relate to the question of whether there could be moral action if there were no moral actors?
Because taking away my ability to actualise a choice might make me something that is no longer a moral actor. That's the question.

anyways, your system proposes that anything that allows me to go on making moral decisions in the future is right, even if they are uniformly ones that a real system of morality would declare to be bad or wrong.
I don't think I've really proposed a system as such.

But think - why is murder actually bad? A utilitarian might say that murder isn't inherently bad, and that its moral value depends entirely on its effect on aggregate happiness. Anyone else has a question to answer, and I'm sorta trying to do that.

Because taking away my ability to actualise a choice might make me something that is no longer a moral actor. That's the question.

the fact that you are unable to actualize a hypothetical desire to kill all life on the planet makes you less of a moral actor than someone who does have that capability?

Hey, at least I own (lol) an original copy of the Red Book, printed in China and bought on Tiananmen Square.

You paid money for that junk?

the fact that you are unable to actualize a hypothetical desire to kill all life on the planet makes you less of a moral actor than someone who does have that capability?
Well yes, of course. If we take it that killing everything is a bad action, and I had at some point the choice between doing it and not doing it, then I chose the good option, and am therefore more of a good individual. If I never had that choice to make, then as far as describing me as a moral actor is concerned, there is nothing you could say. There's an absence of good, if you will.

You paid money for that junk?
Not a lot. And remember, those were the old days when I was 14 or 15 years old.

Morality is the decisions we make. Without choice, the entire concept becomes ludicrous.

If the people liked the totalitarian state, then yes, the society would be evil. If the people did not like the totalitarian state, but were unable to do anything about it, the society would not necessarily be evil. Intent matters.

I post this link (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html) almost every time the subject comes up, I think it has interesting things to say about it.

I personally believe that being moral means you have the capacity to do bad and good, and choose the latter. Things that cannot choose, such as robots, or tigers, or hurricanes, cannot and normally are not considered evil, and I think the same applies to humans: if you can't choose, you can't be moral. You can't really be immoral, either.

If people really could only do what the government commanded, then it would be a morally neutral society, although I would consider those who had the power of choice to be immoral because they are enslaving their populace. However, this situation never arises in the real world, people always have a choice, even if it goes against the laws of the land.

Just quoted this since it is a very interesting link... Really makes you think...


About the moral issue, first of all i have to agree with those whom already said that you still have a choice even when you are likely to be killed in the other way...
What doesn't comes forward is the question what determents whether an action is morally good or wrong. Consider following thing: I kill someone. Now it will seem like i am doing something morally wrong... But would it change when i killed that guy just before he was going to suicide bomb himself somewhere? Let us assume that that men would have killed 10 people. Would i then be the killer of one? Or the savior of 9 (when assuming that one person saved balances out for one killed...)

An other issue, knowing what you know now, would it be morally correct to kill lets say Hitler right after WW I, whom was at that day just a simple painter and a WW I "veteran" (if it would be possible that is...)

and now that you've answered, wouldn't that just make you a plain murderer if you did? Since that guy has done nothing notably wrong at that time... This would raise the issue as well that i could kill you now since i would have evidence that you would start a war in the future... Nobody would be capable to check whether that is true or not...


Yet an other issue, you are capable of making a train switch rails, and you do know that there is someone laying on the tracks the train is heading for. There is no way in saving the person, nor telling the machinist that there is laying someone, just you and the switch.

After you answered it, would you still do it even when you don't know if there is a train on that other set of rail, making the trains crash into each other when (there is one in the first place, since you don't know and you make the switch...)
What would now be the morally right thing to do now?

The point that i am trying to make is that moral is totally depended on the way you are raised. For example, i don't know if you would simply have said "yes pull the damn switch" before considering the fact that there might be an other train as well... but i would not have switched it, since that would have popped into my mind immediately. I do know however many people don't think of that option, simply because it isn't stated in the facts they have... So personally i would have let that poor whomever it might be, be crushed rather then to take the chance of killing more people by accident, and this would feel to me as the morally right thing to do. I know already that there will be people saying that i am an immoral b*sterd because i don't care about that single individual, but rather think about something that might as well not happen...
Well that ain't true either, i would care, but still not pull the switch...

Say I'm a robot who has been programmed to kill all humans, and I do it. Am I evil? Many people might say that I'm not.Some might even say you're good. Doing what it's told is a virtue of a robot; it is its function to follow it's programming. Even if it did have the capacity for reflection on its action, the virtuous robot would do what it's told.
But then, so would the virtuous slave :rolleyes: Virtue in the eyes of the ancient greeks was to act appropriately to your function; which was fairly objective. I'm not entirely sure what modern variants of virtue ethics would make of it; or if they'd even apply it to a robot.

Assuming we do want to apply moral considerations to a robot.
I think the utilitarian view would be clear; the act of killing is (most likely) wrong, it has bad consequences. The motivations of the actor don't matter, only the result.

For the Kantian view, we can assume the robot is a rational agent; even if it may not have a choice to disobey it's programming, it may still reflect on its action. Since it doesn't have a choice it can't be considered a moral issue that it kills; it would be irrational to make a maxim of the impossible. The only moral consideration will be how it commits the murders; does it kill them gruesomely, in their sleep, by inaction ;) etc

For contractarians the question would be whether the robot is part of their society or not (i.e. a party to the social contract). If it's not, then it has no moral obligation to them, least of all to not kill them all. If it is a part of society, then killing is wrong. I think it might be possible the robot does become part of society (for example, the directive to kill everyone may only activate years later, and not obstruct free choices by the robot before that; of course, is it really the same entity before and after?).

The question is loaded the way you asked it, Neu Leonstein. You asked if someone is good or evil when acting without free will. But for a person who believes, like me, that morality is inherent in the action and not the person, the question is whether an action is good or evil when done by an agent without free will.

So, for example, if a brick falls on your head and kills you, the brick is not evil, but the action of killing you still is.

But in so far as morality is a code that exists to guide our behaviour - if there is nothing to guide, why would morality exist?
If no one in the universe has free will, then you are right, morality is meaningless. But as long as there is at least one entity with free will in the universe, morality exists, and it does not depend on the number of free agents that exist.

Taking away someone's free will is not necessarily evil for the same reason that having a baby (and therefore creating a new human being with free will) is not necessarily good.

I mean, the thing that you consider utilitarianism is a way of ranking outcomes, but is it actually a code of morality?
To the extent that there is a least one entity who can choose between outcomes, yes. But there is nothing in utilitarianism to suggest that two free agents are necessarily better than one.

well obviously that depends on how you define morality, but the avoidance of causing suffering, which is how i define it, that would be possible without choice, if the nonchoice were of a nature that it didn't cause suffering.

now how you can have the absence of choice not itself causing suffering i don't know. but for an artifact totally without self awairness of course that would be possible.

i think the point here, is that our awairness IS our true selves, and not any of the rest of it we walk arround in.

so another part of op question was about judging the morality of awairnessless artifacts, and of course there is no moral question or implication about them, in and of themselves, but about the awairnessess responsible for designing them and the uses those awairnessess choose to put them to.

if on the other hand you have a machine, or some other life from, and it has that same kind of creative self awairness as we have, then you're talking about a person, just the same and just as much as if you were talking about you or me.

which is why, by the way, while i have no probalem with unknown and unseen awairnessess of unimaginable diversity, this bussiness of calling them angels and demons, this buissiness of preassumed alignment by birth of anything that is creatively self awaire, makes no sense what so ever.

=^^=
.../\...

Say I'm a robot who has been programmed to kill all humans, and I do it. Am I evil? Many people might say that I'm not.
agreed.


The same would probably be true if I'm a normal person, but someone holds a gun to my head and makes me do something bad, like rape someone.
Meh... sorta shade of grey zone. One could always refuse and let himself be killed... although I, at least, wouldn't blame one who chose his own life at the cost of raping someone else. I don't know what I would do - I'd like to picture myself as choosing death, but I really don't know.



So if we had a totalitarian society in which nobody could do anything but what the government commands them to, would that be a good, evil or morally neutral society? Why? Would it depend on what exactly the government makes people do?
Eh. Shades of grey, really.
Not rebelling to injustice for one's own quiet living isn't quite a "good" attitude. Understandable, but not justified.

So, for example, if a brick falls on your head and kills you, the brick is not evil, but the action of killing you still is.
Except if I'm unpopular.

Anyways, how can a brick falling be evil? I mean, regardless of where I look, "evil" seems to be defined as an act. But a falling brick isn't an act, because there is no one doing the acting. An action requires an agent, and if the word is to have any meaning, the agent must have a choice, doesn't it? Otherwise it's just an event, random stuff that happens.

If no one in the universe has free will, then you are right, morality is meaningless. But as long as there is at least one entity with free will in the universe, morality exists, and it does not depend on the number of free agents that exist.
In other words: no, morality is not possible without choice. This is just a claim that the ruler is superior to the ruled, so he gets to be the only person who can choose. Why? Because of aggregate happiness, which of course can't really be proven either way.

Well, I've gotta hand it to you. Your system is violent, destructive and unstable, but theoretically consistent. It's a little bit like fascism that way.

Taking away someone's free will is not necessarily evil for the same reason that having a baby (and therefore creating a new human being with free will) is not necessarily good.
But a person is a moral agent, which you then destroy to turn it into something else. That is an act of commission.

Failing to make a baby is an act of omission. Which brings us back to square one. :rolleyes:

But there is nothing in utilitarianism to suggest that two free agents are necessarily better than one.
There is nothing in utilitarianism to suggest anything. It's in effect a non-code.

That's the problem with it.

Most people are largely robots anyway.

And who cares about morality? You can make up all the rules for yourself you want, but if you can still kill someone without feeling anything, then you have a problem.
Morality is just rules. Morality/rules don't need to make objective sense.

Most people are nearly, if not just as mechanical, as the robot described.
Who cares if you weren't programed by a person? Programs are programs.
Most people do not "choose" their programs.
Most serial killers are just faulty machines.

Except if I'm unpopular.
I thought we had already established that being unpopular is not likely to be enough to justify death.

Your suffering from dying > any happiness that might be generated for the people who don't like you.

Anyways, how can a brick falling be evil?
Look at it this way: Is it good if someone prevents a brick from falling on your head? If so, then the brick falling on your head would have been an evil action (or evil event if you prefer).

If it's good to stop X from happening, then X is evil.

I mean, regardless of where I look, "evil" seems to be defined as an act. But a falling brick isn't an act, because there is no one doing the acting. An action requires an agent, and if the word is to have any meaning, the agent must have a choice, doesn't it? Otherwise it's just an event, random stuff that happens.
Events can be good or evil. Wouldn't you say that, for example, a plague epidemic is an evil event? If a meteor hits the Earth and destroys the human species, wouldn't that be an evil event, rather than just "random stuff that happens?"

Like I said above, anything that is good to prevent is an evil event, even if it's a natural occurence with no agent.

(Incidentally, on a slight tangent, do you deny the existence of natural evil, and thus forfeit your ability to use the argument from evil against the existence of God? I'd just like to know in case that ever comes up.)

In other words: no, morality is not possible without choice.
Again, do you deny the existence of natural evil? Malaria is not evil? Cancer is not evil?

This is just a claim that the ruler is superior to the ruled, so he gets to be the only person who can choose. Why? Because of aggregate happiness, which of course can't really be proven either way.
Actually no, the ruler is not superior to the ruled, since you are likely to be the best person to judge your own happiness. The ruled know best what they want and what makes them happy, so they should rule themselves.

Well, I've gotta hand it to you. Your system is violent, destructive and unstable, but theoretically consistent. It's a little bit like fascism that way.
Fascism isn't theoretically consistent. :p

But a person is a moral agent, which you then destroy to turn it into something else.
Actually, there is a strong argument that you can't destroy a person's moral agency through anything short of mind control. Even putting a gun to your head leaves you with at least two choices.

Besides, even if you think that having a choice you don't like is equivalent to having no choice at all (which is what you are saying), the fact remains that no political ideology - neither my own nor even the most totalitarian ideology in the world - advocates coercing anyone all the time. The point is that you should be denied some choices, not all choices.

There is nothing in utilitarianism to suggest anything. It's in effect a non-code.

That's the problem with it.
We went over this before. :rolleyes:

Wow NL, nice throwing the 'F' word around like a frisbee, I guess you have one thing in common with the left opportunists - you love the rhetoric.

I thought we had already established that being unpopular is not likely to be enough to justify death.
Unlikely isn't the same as impossible, which is the problem.

If it's good to stop X from happening, then X is evil.
No, I think failing to stop X is the evil act (assuming omission is actually an action as such). X is just an event, it carries no moral implications by itself.

(Incidentally, on a slight tangent, do you deny the existence of natural evil, and thus forfeit your ability to use the argument from evil against the existence of God? I'd just like to know in case that ever comes up.)

Well, I've never felt the need to talk about natural evil when it came to God. I was quite happy with the logical inconsistency associated with omnipotence and all that sort of stuff.

The question is whether an omnipotent God causes the plague, which would then be an evil action, God being the evil agent, the plague itself being just stuff that happens.

Actually no, the ruler is not superior to the ruled, since you are likely to be the best person to judge your own happiness. The ruled know best what they want and what makes them happy, so they should rule themselves.
Yeah, but then they'd be making moral choices, among other things. Indeed, if happiness and morality are as closely linked as they are in utilitarianism, pretty much any choice is a moral choice.

Nonetheless, you can't actually prove that it's better for individuals to rule themselves - afterall, you're one of those types who is likely to think that if people watch advertising and then buy stuff, they don't truly want the stuff, and it doesn't actually make them happy. And that's the start of taking choice away from them, violence being the only way that's possible.

Fascism isn't theoretically consistent. :p
I found that once you deny the individual and make the state the representation of society, and accept that states will have to fight for resources to survive and stay strong, fascism is the logical, pragmatic solution. Except maybe the idea that an individual happens to represent the state, I suppose.

The point is that you should be denied some choices, not all choices.
But that would be irrelevant once we accept that choice has some moral value in itself. You may well be happy to create pain if it is associated with an offsetting amount of pleasure, but other people may not be, and for them the answer to the OP matters.

Wow NL, nice throwing the 'F' word around like a frisbee, I guess you have one thing in common with the left opportunists - you love the rhetoric.
F-Word?

F-Word?
Fascism.

Fascism.
Hey, I wasn't calling him a fascist, I was merely pointing out that internal consistency doesn't necessarily make an ideology worthwhile.

Hey, I wasn't calling him a fascist, I was merely pointing out that internal consistency doesn't necessarily make an ideology worthwhile.
I agree, all 'ideology' imho is obsessed with creating a nice theoretical pattern and simplicity any common person could understand, and opportunistically takes things from religion or where ever depending on country and political/social situations.

Society should instead by based upon objective and scientific analysis of reality with no ideo-metaphysical interference. The ability is continue knocking over established truths is the only way a society can be progressively.

There is nothing in utilitarianism to suggest anything. It's in effect a non-code.

That's the problem with it.There are many kinds of utilitarianism, and they each have very strong suggestions on what basis you should act. While in general it may not be clear what measure of welfare/happiness one should choose, each specific utilitarian school has it's own suggestions. As well as ways to get around problems of limited rationality etc.

Look at it this way: Is it good if someone prevents a brick from falling on your head? If so, then the brick falling on your head would have been an evil action (or evil event if you prefer).

If it's good to stop X from happening, then X is evil.Err, no.
Good/evil as moral concepts and good/bad with respect to preferences/goals are not equal; although they may overlap.
While I might prefer that a brick wouldn't fall on my head, I wouldn't consider it evil. While I might prefer to get a million dollars, I wouldn't consider it morally good in itself.
It is a confusion of language.

At best you can say that if it's good to stop X from happening, then it's evil to make X happen. But even that might not be the case. It may simply be good not to be indecisive; either make X happen or prevent it, but get it over with.

Events can be good or evil. Wouldn't you say that, for example, a plague epidemic is an evil event? If a meteor hits the Earth and destroys the human species, wouldn't that be an evil event, rather than just "random stuff that happens?"It would be bad with regards to my preferences but neither evil nor good in a moral sense.

(Incidentally, on a slight tangent, do you deny the existence of natural evil, and thus forfeit your ability to use the argument from evil against the existence of God? I'd just like to know in case that ever comes up.)It wouldn't necessarily forfeit use of the argument; if the "existence of natural evil" is a position adherents of God take, then you can use it against them to show their position is inconsistent. It's perfectly valid to accept someones premises for the time being, just to show they lead to contradiction; you don't need to believe them.

Malaria is not evil? Cancer is not evil?No, just (preferentially-)bad.

Err, no.
Good/evil as moral concepts and good/bad with respect to preferences/goals are not equal; although they may overlap.
While I might prefer that a brick wouldn't fall on my head, I wouldn't consider it evil. While I might prefer to get a million dollars, I wouldn't consider it morally good in itself.
It is a confusion of language.

At best you can say that if it's good to stop X from happening, then it's evil to make X happen. But even that might not be the case. It may simply be good not to be indecisive; either make X happen or prevent it, but get it over with.

Well, if a person believes that everything in the universe was created by a conscious being, and if they believe that all which happens within the universe happens by the will of a conscious being, then it makes sense to identify a brick falling on somebody as "good" or "evil," because it occurs by the will of a conscious being. In essence, the brick is being dropped by that conscious being.

If I drop a brick on your head, that action can be judged as moral or immoral (I'd go with immoral). Likewise, if the brick is dropped by some other conscious entity, that action can be judged moral or immoral.

Indeed, if happiness and morality are as closely linked as they are in utilitarianism, pretty much any choice is a moral choice.In some cases it is; you would even have to account for future generation, and possibly chaotic effects (butterflies causing storms).
Suffice it to say, no utilitarian actually holds this position; and it's unlikely any ever did. A more effective form of utilitarianism is rule utilitarianism, where you use rules that will be overall most beneficial (according to some measure). It is much easier to see whether such a rule applies or not than to oversee all the consequences of your actions. And it is also easier to say whether one set of rule will have better overall results than an other, because random variation is canceled out.
I'm sure there's better and fairer accounts of the utilitarian position to be found; but in any case it's not as simple as it seems (to me) that you are thinking. (But admittedly I haven't read the whole thread)

You were on about this is the other thread, and yet you fled the responses you got.

Such as position as you have is anti-reality because is systematically ignores the innate solidarity of human civilization, and our natural inclination towards unity, cooperation, community and unanimity. The individual is nothing and can accomplish basically nothing continuous within the labor of humans both in his past and present. I for one don't need an intellectual excuse not to use social skills.

Oh, baloney. His totalitarian government scenario is completely reasonable. Aside from that, there are dogmatic moral issues that have nothing to do with "unity, cooperation, community and unanimity" that can be forced one way or the other.

The individual is nothing? Then logically society is a collection of nothing. 0 X 1,000,000 = 0. Shut your mouth.

Unlikely isn't the same as impossible, which is the problem.
For an individual utilitarian trying to decide how to handle the conflict between you and those other people, maybe.

But it's not a problem for legislation based on rule utilitarianism. Murder should be illegal because the number of cases where murder reduces total happiness is far, far greater than the number of cases where it might possibly be justified.

No, I think failing to stop X is the evil act (assuming omission is actually an action as such). X is just an event, it carries no moral implications by itself.
You did not answer my questions. If a meteor hits the Earth and destroys the human species, wouldn't that be an evil event, rather than just "random stuff that happens?"

Do you deny the existence of natural evil? Malaria is not evil? Cancer is not evil?

You talk about "evil acts," but it is not at all clear to me that your ethical position allows you to call an act inherently "evil," since you seem to believe that the same act can be either evil or not evil depending on whether it is done by a moral agent or not. You would consider your death to be evil if caused by another person, but the same death would be just morally neutral "random stuff that happens" if it occurs naturally?

I find it difficult to understand your notion of evil. If death itself is not evil, why is it evil for a person to cause death? If an event is not good or evil in itself, how can it be good or evil for someone to cause that event?

Well, I've never felt the need to talk about natural evil when it came to God. I was quite happy with the logical inconsistency associated with omnipotence and all that sort of stuff.
This is off-topic, but it is perfectly possible to postulate a few limitations on God's omnipotence that eliminate the inconsistency while still allowing God to do almost anything.

The question is whether an omnipotent God causes the plague, which would then be an evil action, God being the evil agent, the plague itself being just stuff that happens.
If the plague is just stuff that happens, why is it evil to cause it?

Yeah, but then they'd be making moral choices, among other things. Indeed, if happiness and morality are as closely linked as they are in utilitarianism, pretty much any choice is a moral choice.
Right. Of course people should be making moral choices. I never said we should reduce their ability to do so without reason. What I said was that they may choose to intentionally reduce each other's ability to make choices, for a number of good reasons. I am arguing that it is not necessarily good to maximize the number of moral choices available, and not necessarily bad to reduce that number.

In other words, the ability to make a moral choice can be good or bad, depending on the person and the situation. In many cases it is good. The disagreement between us stems from the fact that you think it is always good, while I think it is usually good. I allow exceptions and you do not. That is the only difference.

Nonetheless, you can't actually prove that it's better for individuals to rule themselves - afterall, you're one of those types who is likely to think that if people watch advertising and then buy stuff, they don't truly want the stuff, and it doesn't actually make them happy. And that's the start of taking choice away from them, violence being the only way that's possible.
No, that's the start of allowing them to take away their own choice - or each other's choice - if they deem it necessary. People may decide, for example, that advertising and consumerism makes them unhappy but they don't have the willpower to resist it by themselves, so there should be rules against it.

Were you never in a situation where you wanted to limit your own choices in the future because you knew you would be tempted to make the wrong choice? Here's an example: I like to use alarm clocks that cannot be easily turned off, because I know that when I wake up in the morning I'm likely to make the bad choice of turning off the alarm and going back to sleep. I would love to have a mechanism that would force me to wake up and deny me the choice to go back to sleep.

There are also Prisoner's Dilemma type situations where people need to set up an enforcement agency to make sure they reach a desirable outcome that everyone wants but that cannot be achieved by individual people making choices individually. We discussed that in another thread.

I found that once you deny the individual and make the state the representation of society, and accept that states will have to fight for resources to survive and stay strong, fascism is the logical, pragmatic solution. Except maybe the idea that an individual happens to represent the state, I suppose.
Meh. What do you even mean by "fascism?" It's one of the vaguest terms in politics and people generally use it mean "something I don't like."

Besides, your logic is flawed, because it relies on a sort of "us vs. them" mentality which is incompatible with the notion of equality between human beings and with the philosophy of utilitarianism. If all human beings are equal, then my society or my nation is not any more important than another society or nation, so I cannot advocate something that is in my nation's interest but harms another nation. And, of course, if the happiness of human beings is the measure of goodness, then war should be avoided whenever possible.

But that would be irrelevant once we accept that choice has some moral value in itself.
Except that choice does not have any moral value in itself.

You did not answer my questions. If a meteor hits the Earth and destroys the human species, wouldn't that be an evil event, rather than just "random stuff that happens?"

No.

It would suck for humanity, and for most other life on this planet probably, but it wouldn't be evil unless the meteor were intentionally shot at us by some conscious force. Even then, we'd have to know the motivations behind the action before we could judge it to be good or evil.


Do you deny the existence of natural evil? Malaria is not evil? Cancer is not evil?

No, malaria is not evil. No, cancer is not evil.


You talk about "evil acts," but it is not at all clear to me that your ethical position allows you to call an act inherently "evil," since you seem to believe that the same act can be either evil or not evil depending on whether it is done by a moral agent or not.

Yes.

And, more than that, an act committed by a moral agent can be either evil or not evil depending on the reason behind it.

If I walk up to you and shoot you in the face because I want to watch somebody die, that's fucking evil. If I shoot somebody in the face because he attacked me and was trying to kill me, that's not evil on my part. Same action (shooting somebody in the face) but in one situation it's evil and in one situation it's not evil.


You would consider your death to be evil if caused by another person, but the same death would be just morally neutral "random stuff that happens" if it occurs naturally?

No to both. I can think of reasons why a person might cause my death and yet their actions would not be evil. For instance, if I were terminally ill and in horrible pain and asked somebody to help me die with dignity, I would not feel that they were evil for honoring my request.

Death itself isn't evil at all.


I find it difficult to understand your notion of evil. If death itself is not evil, why is it evil for a person to cause death?

Well, for one thing it's NOT necessarily evil for a person to cause death.

But I think you meant specifically evil murders, rather than killings in general. In that case, I'll answer a question with a question: if sex is not evil, why is rape evil?

Good/evil as moral concepts and good/bad with respect to preferences/goals are not equal; although they may overlap.
While I might prefer that a brick wouldn't fall on my head, I wouldn't consider it evil. While I might prefer to get a million dollars, I wouldn't consider it morally good in itself.
It is a confusion of language.
Not from a utilitarian standpoint it isn't. If good = happiness, then good = the satisfaction of people's preferences.

It would be bad with regards to my preferences but neither evil nor good in a moral sense.
I think people's preferences are the only measure of good and evil. Which definition or measure of good and evil are you using?

I think the difference on utilitarianism with regard to libertarianism is that they are ideologically dogmatic to the point of literal absurdity. While those of other political persuasions, even Marxists such as myself, view the 'state' as a fundamentally imperfect institution, we still think it can be used 'utilitarianly' to achieve our perfect 'ideal' society and in the meantime to fundamentally improve the lives of the common people. Libertarians on the other hand, especially the ronbot variety, are so blindly dogmatic against the state that it blinds them to reality.

Libertarians more than any other ideology, are the worst abusers of political hucksterism in history, they are practically the equivalent of 'come over into my rusty car yard, what have you got to loose?' in politics. Like snake oil salesmen, they offer heavenly utopia tomorrow under the Christmas tree with no building period whatsoever. I think they should rename themselves the 'Holy Catholic Church' or something, that's about the height of the veracity of what they offer, treating 'individualism' as Ivory Tower and all the rest, makes me laugh.

Libertarianism - A mental disorder caused by naivety and intellectual vulnerability, causes dislocation from reality and an extreme form of cognitive dissonance. Cure = reality.

Oh, baloney. His totalitarian government scenario is completely reasonable. Aside from that, there are dogmatic moral issues that have nothing to do with "unity, cooperation, community and unanimity" that can be forced one way or the other.

The individual is nothing? Then logically society is a collection of nothing. 0 X 1,000,000 = 0. Shut your mouth.

Why, nice faux mathematical equation thar, my point is that the individual standing alone is useless unless coordinating with other individuals, my point is that the true expression of the individual is within the sphere of the community. Because it is within such interdependent labor that the individual finds meaning in coordinating his effects with others, all specializing in different yet essential areas, to complete a task which could not have been completed with only one individual alone.

Dignity in labor comes through accomplishment, individual accomplishment because you did a irreplaceable and essential part, yet collective accomplishment because it could not have been done without the interdependent labors of the others. The truest expression of the individual is by giving him the dignity of being the most productive to society, and he can achieve that via coordinating with others as I have described.

It is impossible to be either bad or good without choice. Rather, without choice you cease to be truly human, and more akin to a clockwork orange.

If the plague is just stuff that happens, why is it evil to cause it?Because things are as they are, but changing how they are is what matters. Once the plague has been cause the plague itself, the situation, is (still) not evil (though certainly undesirable); it is the act that created the situation that is evil.

Except that choice does not have any moral value in itself.I think choice does, on the whole, have value; perhaps not every choice, but in general.
Providing people with choices is something to strive (but overwhelming them with choices, not so much).

It would suck for humanity, and for most other life on this planet probably, but it wouldn't be evil unless the meteor were intentionally shot at us by some conscious force.

[...]

No, malaria is not evil. No, cancer is not evil.
Then we fundamentally disagree on the definition of good and evil.

And, more than that, an act committed by a moral agent can be either evil or not evil depending on the reason behind it.

If I walk up to you and shoot you in the face because I want to watch somebody die, that's fucking evil. If I shoot somebody in the face because he attacked me and was trying to kill me, that's not evil on my part. Same action (shooting somebody in the face) but in one situation it's evil and in one situation it's not evil.
No, it's evil in both cases, but in the second case it can be justified because it helped prevent an even greater evil.

No to both. I can think of reasons why a person might cause my death and yet their actions would not be evil. For instance, if I were terminally ill and in horrible pain and asked somebody to help me die with dignity, I would not feel that they were evil for honoring my request.
Again, killing you would still be evil, but it could be justified because it prevented an even greater evil (you suffering and dying later anyway).

But I think you meant specifically evil murders, rather than killings in general. In that case, I'll answer a question with a question: if sex is not evil, why is rape evil?
Because sex is pleasurable and rape is not.

But I don't think you made an adequate comparison. I was asking how it is possible for someone to be considered evil for taking an action if that action is not evil in itself.

So, for instance, if actions are not evil in themselves, then it is not inherently evil for a person's vagina or anus to be penetrated against their will (assuming it could possibly be done by a force of nature, which is unrealistic, but we have to use this scenario in order to make your rape comparison valid). In that case, why is rape evil?

Not from a utilitarian standpoint it isn't. If good = happiness, then good = the satisfaction of people's preferences.hmm..
For utilitarianism, I think, happiness = valuable & good = increasing happiness. Good relates to action. But you might just dismiss that as semantics.

I think people's preferences are the only measure of good and evil. Which definition or measure of good and evil are you using?Goodness = value after act minus value before act. (if I go by utilitarianism)
Since events that aren't consciously created aren't acts, this measure doesn't apply to it.

Because things are as they are, but changing how they are is what matters. Once the plague has been cause the plague itself, the situation, is (still) not evil (though certainly undesirable); it is the act that created the situation that is evil.
Well, no, things are not "as they are." Nature is not static. Things change all the time as the result of natural forces. Why is it evil for humans to make certain changes but it is not evil for those same changes to occur naturally?

hmm..
For utilitarianism, I think, happiness = valuable & good = increasing happiness. Good relates to action. But you might just dismiss that as semantics.

Goodness = value after act minus value before act. (if I go by utilitarianism)
Since events that aren't consciously created aren't acts, this measure doesn't apply to it.
Hmm, but naturally occurring events can increase or decrease happiness just as conscious acts can. So, if increasing happiness is good, then a natural event that increases happiness is good, no? And a natural event that reduces happiness is evil.

Then we fundamentally disagree on the definition of good and evil.

It would seem so.


No, it's evil in both cases, but in the second case it can be justified because it helped prevent an even greater evil.


Again, killing you would still be evil, but it could be justified because it prevented an even greater evil (you suffering and dying later anyway).

If it's justified, it's not evil.


Because sex is pleasurable and rape is not.

...

I hate to tell you this, dear, but sex often isn't pleasurable.

And I am very, very disturbed to have to tell you that rape isn't evil because of the lack of pleasure. Please, please tell me you actually know why rape is evil. Please?



But I don't think you made an adequate comparison. I was asking how it is possible for someone to be considered evil for taking an action if that action is not evil in itself.

Having sex is not evil. Raping somebody is. Physically, the acts can be identical. One is evil and one is not. Please tell me you can understand why. No, the answer is not "pleasure."


So, for instance, if actions are not evil in themselves, then it is not inherently evil for a person's vagina or anus to be penetrated against their will (assuming it could possibly be done by a force of nature, which is unrealistic, but we have to use this scenario in order to make your rape comparison valid). In that case, why is rape evil?
It appears you DO have the answer, after all.

It's the "AGAINST THEIR WILL" part. Penetrating somebody's vagina or anus is an action which can be good, evil, or neutral. What determines the "goodness" or "evilness" is related to the consciousness and the directed actions of the individuals involved.

Again, killing you would still be evil, but it could be justified because it prevented an even greater evil (you suffering and dying later anyway).Preventing future suffering would have to be considered good in the broad view on utilitarianism, because you decrease the total amount of suffering in human history (over past, present and future (most likely) ), without changing the amount of pleasure/happiness (assumedly).

But I don't think you made an adequate comparison. I was asking how it is possible for someone to be considered evil for taking an action if that action is not evil in itself.From a utilitarian standpoint, it can't be; because it's a consequentialist position. But many other moral frameworks allow for it; as long as they have motivation play a role (virtue ethics, deontic ethics, etc); in some cases they go as for to ignore consequence entirely in the moral judgment.
From a 'natural' moral judgment (ask-the-man-on-the-street-morality), it's inevitably a combination. What someone does is coloured by their motivations. If someone gave me cookies, and I found out (s)he did so because (s)he's hoping I develop diabetes and die, I would probably not want to interact with him/her again.

Well, no, things are not "as they are." Nature is not static.IT is a static 4 dimensional hole if we consider physics deterministic (or fairly so). Even factoring in random effects from quantum mechanics, we have a fixed probability distribution over a 4 dimensional state.
Of course, that poses a problem with putting humans outside of nature and physical reality (at least partly). So err.. well..

Things change all the time as the result of natural forces. Why is it evil for humans to make certain changes but it is not evil for those same changes to occur naturally?Because in one case they are acts which is something act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism have something to say on, and in the other case they are not acts.

Hmm, but naturally occurring events can increase or decrease happiness just as conscious acts can. So, if increasing happiness is good, then a natural event that increases happiness is good, no? And a natural event that reduces happiness is evil.If nature can be said to act, yes. But I'm not one to anthropomorphise Mother nature (ah dammit).

And I am very, very disturbed to have to tell you that rape isn't evil because of the lack of pleasure. Please, please tell me you actually know why rape is evil. Please?Bare in mind he's arguing from the point of view of utilitarianism, which measures the goodness of an act by how much it increases pleasure and/or diminishes pain/distress. And rape does cause distress (because it's against someone's will), so it's evil.

Of course that would still leave open the case were someone is raped but doesn't (or even can never) find out (e.g. because she's drugged). Worse of all, it may be considered good in a naive utilitarian approach, because it makes the rapist happy. There are ways to fix this problem (because I doubt anyone would want to adhere to a theory allowing this). For example you could note the distress over the possibility it is considered good; which, admittedly, is a really meh argument.

If it's justified, it's not evil.
Preventing future suffering would have to be considered good in the broad view on utilitarianism, because you decrease the total amount of suffering in human history (over past, present and future (most likely) ), without changing the amount of pleasure/happiness (assumedly).
Okay, I see the point you are both making. A justified evil act can be considered a good act. Alright then, the same act can be good or evil depending on its consequences, but not depending on the motivations of the agent.

I hate to tell you this, dear, but sex often isn't pleasurable.
I didn't just mean in the physical sense. Even when sex is not physically pleasurable, it helps develop an emotional bond. Or else it was done under the expectation that it would be physically pleasurable or help develop an emotional bond, even if those expectations failed to materialize.

And I am very, very disturbed to have to tell you that rape isn't evil because of the lack of pleasure. Please, please tell me you actually know why rape is evil. Please?

Having sex is not evil. Raping somebody is. Physically, the acts can be identical. One is evil and one is not. Please tell me you can understand why. No, the answer is not "pleasure."

It appears you DO have the answer, after all.

It's the "AGAINST THEIR WILL" part.
Ah, but why is it evil to do something to a person against their will? Because it makes them unhappy. In the case of rape, there are very serious emotional (and often physical) scars that can mark a person for a lifetime. As far as unhappiness goes, there are few things that can make a person suffer more than rape. That's why rape is one of the most evil acts one can perform.

From a utilitarian standpoint, it can't be; because it's a consequentialist position. But many other moral frameworks allow for it; as long as they have motivation play a role (virtue ethics, deontic ethics, etc); in some cases they go as for to ignore consequence entirely in the moral judgment.
I know. But I reject those other frameworks; the great thing about utilitarianism is that it is by definition what people want (since utilitarianism basically says that "good" is whatever satisfies people's wishes).

IT is a static 4 dimensional hole if we consider physics deterministic (or fairly so). Even factoring in random effects from quantum mechanics, we have a fixed probability distribution over a 4 dimensional state.
Of course, that poses a problem with putting humans outside of nature and physical reality (at least partly). So err.. well..
Well, yes... if the universe is deterministic, then human beings should also be deterministic - which means that there can be no real morality at all.

Of course that would still leave open the case were someone is raped but doesn't (or even can never) find out (e.g. because she's drugged).
No physical signs, no waking up naked in a strange place, no nightmares at night, no chronic depression afterwards? I doubt there's any drug that can completely and permanently erase your memory, erase any marks you might have on your body, and get you safely home in bed.

Besides, it's quite pointless to talk of "the perfect crime" scenario, because such a scenario leaves no evidence (by definition) and it is therefore impossible to do anything about it. If someone does something that leaves no trace, then there is no possible way to punish him for his actions, so whether or not they were evil is a moot point.

It's like asking "is a brick evil if it falls on someone?". are you familiar with B F Skinner? is a mind really evil if it's been conditioned from birth to do things labeled "evil"? there's a powerful school of psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_behaviorism) that doesn't especially believe in free will at all. people make choices because they have been conditioned to make them.

and it's perfectly possible that morality, in the sense that some actions can be judged expedient to a certain aim, can exist even without free will. it just means that there's not "right" and "wrong" so much as "good" and "bad". people just can't be judged as morally superior or morally inferior - but it's still perfectly reasonable to appeal to a sense of morality and to reinforce positive behavior and try to suppress negative behavior...which is all social morality ever really did in the first place.

Actually, no. Certainly someone holding a gun to your head is a heavily mitigating factor, but it does not excuse your action. A strong case could be made that you are morally obligated to refuse to rape someone even if a gun is held to your head.



Until such time as there actually is a real, live, loaded firearm being pressed against your temple by someone missing an empathic circuit or two. Then the situation changes dramatically.

No jury would convict a genuine "gun to the head" participant.

I know. But I reject those other frameworks; the great thing about utilitarianism is that it is by definition what people want (since utilitarianism basically says that "good" is whatever satisfies people's wishes).I think rejecting those frameworks is short-sighted, even from a utilitarian perspective. People may be much happier if everyone adheres to those frameworks (not least of all because it is closer to experience). I'm sure you're familiar with the hidden utilitarianism argument (which works out this point a lot further).
Utilitarian reasoning can be quite distressing to people in itself (which also shimmers through in some posts in this thread). It is important to people that people think things are right for the, in their eyes, correct reason; at least as far as important issues are concerned.

No physical signs, no waking up naked in a strange place, no nightmares at night, no chronic depression afterwards? I doubt there's any drug that can completely and permanently erase your memory, erase any marks you might have on your body, and get you safely home in bed.I was thinking more of the case of drugging someone before the rape. Someone doesn't need to be conscious for it to be rape. And if you use a condom and are careful and clean everything up, and there are no signs of breaking and entering etc, it seems a possibility.

Besides, it's quite pointless to talk of "the perfect crime" scenario, because such a scenario leaves no evidence (by definition) and it is therefore impossible to do anything about it. If someone does something that leaves no trace, then there is no possible way to punish him for his actions, so whether or not they were evil is a moot point.Not if the possibility of a perfect crime is something that weighs on people's minds. If people think other people might think it is okay to rape people, as long as they don't find out, it can seriously decrease their happiness in life. The less likely a perfect crime is (because normal people think it is wrong, regardless of the consequences, and would therefor never do it) the less worried people would be.

I find it difficult to understand your notion of evil. If death itself is not evil, why is it evil for a person to cause death? If an event is not good or evil in itself, how can it be good or evil for someone to cause that event?
.

Good and Evil are associated more with wishes and intentions rather than the actual outcome of event. Death is not evil, causing death is not evil, but you cross the line (usually) when you intend to cause death. Morally, we excuse causing death when we understand that the intent was good- a doctor who does everything he can to save a patient, but accidentally kills the patient because he was ignorant about some rare, hidden condition, we would not consider an evil person.

Same with Good- someone who means to do you serious harm, but accidentally ends up helping you, for example, you would not consider to be a Good person.

Good and Evil are states of Mind, not Nature, and so the state of mind of the participant is crucial.

Humanity was more on track with this thousands of years ago. Most "primitive" cultures have a strong taboo about wishing for bad things to happen, and emphasize wishing for good things to happen- this is the origin of cursing and praying. They understood that in judging the state of mind, the wish was as important as the event.

Sometimes I am grateful to have a strict moral code to follow - Jewish law. It makes answering moral questions easier. I'll contribute my two shekels to this debate:

In the case of the killer robot, said robot has no control over its actions, and bears no responsibility for said actions. However, during the robot's killer rampage, destroying said robot is a moral act, since as the robot is threatening the lives of others, it is classified as a pursuer. If the robot stops its rampage (with no indication said rampage might resume), then

Judaism has done a lot of thinking about where your life is threatened (whether by someone with a gun or a totalitarian government). First of all, you still have free will. However, your life is at stake, and Judaism considers the preservation of life to be an overriding concern. There are two factors that determine your actions:
Are you a Jew?
Is the action you are being compelled to do any of the following:
- Murder (of an innocent)
- Idolatry
- Sexual immorality (includes rape, incest, adultery, homosexuality [not getting into a discussion on that here])
- Chillul hashem (desecrating G-d's name, aka hurting His PR)

You are only evil for carrying out the action if the answers to BOTH questions are yes - unless there was a third option beyond die or commit potentially evil act (for instance, if given a gun, and told to shoot an innocent, you could shoot your oppressor instead).

If it makes you feel better, killing the oppressor after the fact is perfectly legal, given how he is likely to threaten others.

The good or evil of an action depends on the circumstances. Few actions are always good or evil. Many are one or the other most of the time.

As for Eureka Australis - an individual can achieve something on his own. A man can build a home on his own, provided he has tools and materials. That is something. And while individuals can achieve so much more in cooperation, individuals are still something on their own.

No jury would convict a genuine "gun to the head" participant.now, a hopeless poverty, systematic alienation, and perennial despair to-the-head participant...that's more most jurors' style.

Until such time as there actually is a real, live, loaded firearm being pressed against your temple by someone missing an empathic circuit or two. Then the situation changes dramatically.

No jury would convict a genuine "gun to the head" participant.

what do juries have to do with anything?

No.

It would suck for humanity, and for most other life on this planet probably, but it wouldn't be evil unless the meteor were intentionally shot at us by some conscious force. Even then, we'd have to know the motivations behind the action before we could judge it to be good or evil.

evil is a loaded term, but it seems to me that you've already accepted that it would be bad (= "would suck" for morally relevant entities), at least. and from that it seems that there is the good case that we, as moral actors, have a moral obligation to do what we can to mitigate against such bads.

Originally Posted by Mott Haven
No jury would convict a genuine "gun to the head" participant.

now, a hopeless poverty, systematic alienation, and perennial despair to-the-head participant...that's more most jurors' style.

Exactly, as these are things that are generally recognized as not being sufficient "threats" because the vast majority of people can handle them. Most of Bangladesh lives in hopeless poverty, for example, without being driven to murder, so that is clearly not a thing *most* people cannot deal with. No criminal ever orders people to "do exactly as I say or I will make you feel alienated!" Gun-to-the-head, on the other hand, is a thing people recognize that only a very few can deal with. "Do as I say or I will SHOOT you", now that gets results.

We also recognize that avoiding death, even when there is no gun to the head, is a general purpose acceptable excuse for otherwise bad behavior. The classic example: a starving purpose stealing bread. Most people would say "not evil".

That is why we recognize a person who accepts death over an immoral choice as a martyr, hero, etc- it is recognized widely as something the average Human is unable to do. The average Human is quite capable of overcoming alienation and despair without becoming a murderer, tho, so no gold stars or special consideration are given out there.

Human cultures tend to reward the exceptionally good, and punish the exceptionally bad*, and tolerate the middle.


Summary:

Humanly Acceptable Justification for Bad Act:
"Otherwise I (or someone else) would have DIED."

Not Acceptable:
"I felt really alienated."
"Other people have more stuff than I have."
"I was unhappy."
"He promised me ICE CREAM."


*typically more of the punishing than the rewarding, though, it's easier.

Because taking away my ability to actualise a choice might make me something that is no longer a moral actor. That's the question.
the fact that you are unable to actualize a hypothetical desire to kill all life on the planet makes you less of a moral actor than someone who does have that capability?
Well yes, of course. If we take it that killing everything is a bad action, and I had at some point the choice between doing it and not doing it, then I chose the good option, and am therefore more of a good individual. If I never had that choice to make, then as far as describing me as a moral actor is concerned, there is nothing you could say. There's an absence of good, if you will.

so basically only god (or whatever you wish to call an omnipotent being) is a moral actor. the rest of us, constrained as we are, are something less than moral actors.

what do juries have to do with anything?

Lots!

In the more enlightened societies, we accept that the best determination of "good" or "evil" in a difficult situation is the consensus evaluation by a number of randomly selected but emotionally uncomitted members of our society.

ie, when you come right down to it, Right and Wrong are defined by: (Take your pick)

A) the High Priest.
B) The toughest guy around

or
C) a group of average people.

Have you ever noticed that the self appointed guardians of right and wrong in societies seem to gravitate to requiring people to address them with titles that presume their superiority? "Your Exellency" "Your Honor" "Reverend" etc,* are all meant to reinforce the perception that "This person knows right and wrong better than you do, so accept it.". We are fortunate to have juries, that think differently, and by incredible non-coincidence are addressed only as "ladies and gentlemen of the jury".

Consider it: Our most brutal ethical questions end up getting resolved not by "His Most Gracious Wisdom" but by "Ladies and Gentlemen." Not a bad achievement for thinking hairless apes, no?

*Rule of thumb: typically, the more outlandish the official titles, the more despotic the ruler, thus we have Kim Jong Il with:

Supreme Commander at the Forefront of the Struggle Against Imperialism and the United States
Greatest Saint Who Rules with Extensive Magnanimity
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Best Leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Humankind’s Greatest Musical Genius
Guardian Deity of the Planet
Master of the Computer Who Surprised the World

and (Dear lord, I wish I was making this up!)
Eternal Bosom of Hot Love

Say I'm a robot who has been programmed to kill all humans, and I do it. Am I evil? Many people might say that I'm not.No. Morality requires choice.

The same would probably be true if I'm a normal person, but someone holds a gun to my head and makes me do something bad, like rape someone.Having a gun held to your head affects choice, but does not remove it.

So if we had a totalitarian society in which nobody could do anything but what the government commands them to, would that be a good, evil or morally neutral society? Why? Would it depend on what exactly the government makes people do?The government would be evil, not because they remove choice, but because totalitarianism is evil.
Moral choice is neither good nor evil in and of itself; it is a means to good and evil.

I think the difference on utilitarianism with regard to libertarianism is that they are ideologically dogmatic to the point of literal absurdity. While those of other political persuasions, even Marxists such as myself, view the 'state' as a fundamentally imperfect institution, we still think it can be used 'utilitarianly' to achieve our perfect 'ideal' society and in the meantime to fundamentally improve the lives of the common people. Libertarians on the other hand, especially the ronbot variety, are so blindly dogmatic against the state that it blinds them to reality. The reality is that you don't need to be a right-libertarian to oppose the state.

Because sex is pleasurable and rape is not.Rape is pleasurable for the rapist, usually even more so than ordinary sex is.

Lots!

In the more enlightened societies, we accept that the best determination of "good" or "evil" in a difficult situation is the consensus evaluation by a number of randomly selected but emotionally uncomitted members of our society.

no we don't. you are thinking of legal guilt and innocence. that's not the same at all.

No jury would convict a genuine "gun to the head" participant.

So? I already said that the circumstances heavily mitigate the wrong. But that does not mean that they make it other than a wrong.

We are only human. In extreme circumstances, it may be very difficult to fulfill our moral obligation, and as such it's probably unfair to punish us for that failure. But that does not mean that no such obligation exists.

Murder should be illegal because the number of cases where murder reduces total happiness is far, far greater than the number of cases where it might possibly be justified.
But how do you know?

You did not answer my questions. If a meteor hits the Earth and destroys the human species, wouldn't that be an evil event, rather than just "random stuff that happens?"

Do you deny the existence of natural evil? Malaria is not evil? Cancer is not evil?
No, yes, no, no.

You talk about "evil acts," but it is not at all clear to me that your ethical position allows you to call an act inherently "evil," since you seem to believe that the same act can be either evil or not evil depending on whether it is done by a moral agent or not.
Well, if it's not done by an agent, it's not an act.

Look, the real question I'm trying to answer is how we know that things like murder, rape or generally the initiation of violence are bad things. You avoid the issue by referring to an aggregate happiness you can't measure and just leaving it at that, but I can't take that luxury.

You would consider your death to be evil if caused by another person, but the same death would be just morally neutral "random stuff that happens" if it occurs naturally?
Yes, because events are morally neutral, while actions can be good or evil.

If an event is not good or evil in itself, how can it be good or evil for someone to cause that event?
An event can be bad, it can be pleasurable or associated with suffering. But for something to be good or evil, it must be an act that brings about the event. Good and evil are words associated with a moral code, and a moral code is a guide to behaviour - and a guide to behaviour implies some sort of choice.

This is off-topic, but it is perfectly possible to postulate a few limitations on God's omnipotence that eliminate the inconsistency while still allowing God to do almost anything.
Yeah, but then it wouldn't be omnipotence anymore.

If the plague is just stuff that happens, why is it evil to cause it?
Well, that's the question, isn't it. We know it will cause a lot of people to die and suffer. For you, that's enough, for me it needs to be associated with something else (for example the eradication of moral choice), because taking utilitarianism as a rule is no guarantee for anything.

I allow exceptions and you do not. That is the only difference.
But it is a vital one. A system of rights can't really allow exceptions, no moral code can do that.

You basically have no defense against you being the exception, and if you happened to be in government, you'd have nothing to hold you back from using the exception against me. Whether you consider an act independently or a rule as a whole makes no difference.

People may decide, for example, that advertising and consumerism makes them unhappy but they don't have the willpower to resist it by themselves, so there should be rules against it.
I really don't like when people try and make it look like people choose violence to be used against them.

Were you never in a situation where you wanted to limit your own choices in the future because you knew you would be tempted to make the wrong choice?
Not to the point to which I would agree to someone beating the crap out of me, or throwing me in jail, if I made a certain choice. I'm rather proud of the fact that I'm not an animal, and I am in fact capable of controlling my urges and actions quite successfully.

I would love to have a mechanism that would force me to wake up and deny me the choice to go back to sleep.
Wanna bet that you really wouldn't?

Meh. What do you even mean by "fascism?" It's one of the vaguest terms in politics and people generally use it mean "something I don't like."
I try to keep it real as much as possible, so when I talk about fascism, I mean the real thing, as scribbled down by Mussolini and his friends.

Besides, your logic is flawed, because it relies on a sort of "us vs. them" mentality which is incompatible with the notion of equality between human beings and with the philosophy of utilitarianism.
I didn't say that fascism was particularly utilitarian, just that it's internally consistent.

Except that choice does not have any moral value in itself.
That's the question. Even you admitted that for utilitarianism to work and therefore something to be declared good or evil, at least one person must have a free will and serve as the observer and decision maker. So even for you choice is the prerequisite for the existence of "good".

It's also the prerequisite for the existence of "evil" of course, but the idea of a moral code as I see it is to maximise good, not minimise evil. I strive to increase the number of times people choose good rather than evil, instead of aiming for a zero value.

Since roboethics is a rather important issue to me (somebody has to make sure we get friendly seed AI rather than Skynet), I'll address that question according to my own views.

Morality is only possible if you're capable of making conscious decisions in regard to it. If that robot were not self aware, and did not comprehend the morality of their actions, they could not possibly be held responsible for the outcome; it would be no different than trying to blame a gun for murder...it would be the person using the gun or the robot's programmer that would be guilty of the crime.

If the robot were self-aware, he/she/it would not be able to escape complete culpability; even if they were programmed to do so, it would be similar to a person brainwashed to kill...they're still responsible to a degree, even if their morality has been subdued or restricted by conditioning. Self-awareness contains a degree of moral responsibility that cannot easily be removed by psychological constraints; that's one big reason why insanity is not a very effective means of escaping full conviction for a murder or other serious crime.

Say I'm a robot who has been programmed to kill all humans, and I do it. Am I evil? Many people might say that I'm not.

The same would probably be true if I'm a normal person, but someone holds a gun to my head and makes me do something bad, like rape someone.

If I do something bad by accident, because I didn't know any better, then generally that's not considered evil as such either.

But if I did these things of my own free will, then I would be an evil person, wouldn't I?

So if we had a totalitarian society in which nobody could do anything but what the government commands them to, would that be a good, evil or morally neutral society? Why? Would it depend on what exactly the government makes people do?

No. Morality is based on being able to choose right and wrong.