Does the end justify the means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

I beg to ask, if a moral theory tells you to do what seems obviously wrong, what is that theory really worth, should it not be rectified? In the end, our moral theories are based on our intuitions and will end with our intuitions.

---

Hopefully not. Our intuitions evolved in order to make us survive and reproduce, not in order to perfectly judge ethical situations. Trolley problem surveys have shown that things like 'race of the to-be-killed' affects the choices, so much for intuition..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

Hopefully not. Our intuitions evolved in order to make us survive and reproduce, not in order to perfectly judge ethical situations. Trolley problem surveys have shown that things like 'race of the to-be-killed' affects the choices, so much for intuition..

---

Our moral intuitions are probably a result of our genes and our conditioning, not just our genes.

At any rate, there is no measure to determine whether or not something is unconditionally good. This is for the same reason that there is no test to determine positive truth. We must subject the test to itself, which renders it circular, logically inconsistent and thus meaningless.

Since there is no measure of unconditional goodness, goodness (and therefore morality) must be measured by subjective intuitions. Of course, one can define an objective measure, such as "the overall well-being of the human race," but this definition is only assumed because it conforms with ones prescribed intuition of goodness. In other words, the objective measure is still contingent on intuitions. One can suppose that if an alien race came to our planet, they might not share the same measure of goodness that we do.

With that said, I do think one can argue that one intuition is more consistent (not logically but with the rest of the intuitions one has) than another, and assuming that we all share a base set of intuitions, in this way the human race can achieve some level of moral unification. But nevertheless, morals and goodness still start with intuitions and end with them.

Dodo25 have you read the Moral Landscape by Sam Harris?

Some of your ideas remind me of it.

I also wonder if there's any definite answers about morality that we can find through neuroscientific research. Personally, I think we can.

Like Harris says, there is no ONE right food, but that doesn't mean that the question of nutrition is purely subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

So who decides how many virtue points are assigned to the ends and to the means? It's still measured by intuitions, which vary from person to person. Seems like you're just trying to use numbers as "virtue points" to give your "virtue" facile or ostensible objectivity, which you have not established. Of course you can assert that there is objective goodness, but without adequately defining it and giving a sufficient proof for it, what you've said is meaningless.

---

I was using numbers to draw a parallel with the concept of expected value in probability. By virtue points I mean the "amount of utility." Of course it is somewhat silly to make this quantitative and do calculations, and of course the assessment of utility is subjective. My only point is to emphasize that any bad things occuring as part of the "means" phase of some project need to be taken into account in deciding whether it is the right thing to do. For example, what if killing 1 million animals would ultimately result in the perfection of lipstick? Lipstick that lasted all day, looked great, etc. If the ends justified the means, then we should embark on this project. Saying "The ends justify the means" without qualification is effectively saying that, provided the end has even marginal utility, any means are justified, even ones with tremendous negative utility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberbob

Dodo25 have you read the Moral Landscape by Sam Harris?

Some of your ideas remind me of it.

I also wonder if there's any definite answers about morality that we can find through neuroscientific research. Personally, I think we can.

Like Harris says, there is no ONE right food, but that doesn't mean that the question of nutrition is purely subjective.

---

Good point. Yeah I've read it, I think I even recommended it somewhere in this thread. I like Harris' approach a lot. Yet the most important book on ethics still remains Singer's 'Practical Ethics', mostly because it makes a lot of actual suggestions, unlike Harris' book which is quite general and doesn't really tell you 'what to do' after all.