Star Trek Ques. (Sort Of): Purely Logical Ethical System--Possible?

Great Debates
21

It is possible to use logic to create a self-consistent system of ethics/morals, from a given list of ethical postulates. But it isn’t really possible to use logic to chose those postulates, except to keep those postulates logically consistent. So Spock might take as a postulate the utilitarian concept that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. But WHY? Well, so that the most people are the most happy. But why is that good? How do we know that the most people being the least happy isn’t the best thing? We just have to take it as a postulate.

Logically, we can also try to create a satisfactory ethical system with the least number of postulates, if we take as a postulate that simpler non-contradictory ethical systems are better.

22

Quick plug for Richard Hanley’s The Metaphysics of Star Trek, which does address this question. If you ever wanted to hear a philosophy professor cover a wide host of issues using Star Trek examples as starting points, it’s a dream come true.

FTR, Hanley comes down basically where people in this thread have gone: emotions are necessary to determine our goals, logic is how we pursue them and choose between them. His opinion is that not only did Spock and all Vulcans have emotions, but also Cmdr. Data even before he acquired the emotion chip from Lore would have had to possess some emotions. Without them, even had Dr. Soong programmed prefab motivations and desires into Data, those would never have been sufficiently flexible to function in a complex being in real world scenarios.

23

You’re incorrect, Lemur866: the postulates can indeed be logically determined. This is accomplished by considering the function of ethical systems and applying the resulting conclusions to an ecosystem or environment.

Ultimately, morality can only be determined by the universe itself. The logical course of action is therefore to observe the universe.

24

No, he is correct. Logic cannot not, in and of itself, determine the value of the symbols that it manipulates.

Logic can be used to conduct a utilitarian system analysis, but in order to label one result “good” and another result “bad” one must go beyond logic.

I am not at all certain how you turn the Universe into a moral agent, but I can almost guarantee that if you explain what you mean I will disagree with you.

25

Oh brother.

If the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ have meaning, it can be logically determined if the assignment of states to these concepts is correct, just like any other concept.

26

Oh, brother.

It is assigning meanings to the concepts of “good” and “evil” that we are talking about. That would be the “value of the symbols” being manipulated by a logical analysis of an ethical question.

27

But TVAA, the meaning of “good” and “evil” are determined outside of the system or accepted axiomatically.

Emotions and desires (including the desire to fit within a code of behavior appropriate for society and the desire for personal satisfaction of hedonistic desires … ie superego and id both) are ways to assign relative values to different goals within an intelligent agent. There is no reason to presume that they are the only ways to assign those relative values. An artificial intelligent agent could have values assigned and adjusted according to state satisfaction without resorting the experience of emotion. They could still motivate behaviors and drive a system of ethics. But those values are ultimately not determined by the system itself; they are accepted by the system.

Even if one accepts that the ultimate determining force for developing systems of ethics is evolution, rather than the concept of some universal “good” and “evil”, one accepts axiomatically that behaviors which result in their own propagation are the desired “good.” Or that that which is inevitable is “right.”

28

You do not seem capable of understanding that things do not need to be assigned properties by an interpretive agent in order to have properties.

Regardless of whether there are agents capable of assigning words to characteristics, the characteristics are there.

If “good” and “evil” have any meaning beyond “whatever people choose to label with the word-sounds ‘good’ and ‘evil’”, they’re objective properties not dependent on human interpretation.

29

Configurations whose values lead to their propagation persist; thus, those things that they value are indeed the desired “good”. They’re good because they’re desired, and they’re desired because they are consistent with continuation in this universe (regardless of whether the agents in question recognize this or not).

30

Yes, but WHY are values that lead to the propagation of those values “good”? Look, evolution has designed us human beings to want to live, to want to reproduce, to want to have fun, etc. These are all nice things, and I am certainly in favor of them. But an ethical system based on postulates given to us by evolution is still an ethical system based on postulates.

Why is reproduction good? We consider it good because we are designed by evolution to consider it good. Entities which did not act to reproduce failed to reproduce. Only those entities which act to reproduce are represented in the next generation of entities. But does that mean that the entities that reproduced were “good” and the entities that failed to reproduce were “evil”? No, of course not.

The point is, we want what we want. But we can’t choose to want what we want. We are given our wants by evolution, and we must accept them as postulates. There is nothing outside of ourselves that labels those wants as good. No, we label it good ourselves, as “self-evidently” good. But it is only self-evident within our human context. Logic can help us identify what might make human beings happy. But we have to take as a postulate that making people happy is good.

31

The problem is that people consider their inborn preferences and desires to be “self-evident”, when they’re really not self-evident at all.

I agree that there’s no fundamental evaluator that labels things as being ‘good’. The universe doesn’t require labels to function: it is. It doesn’t matter to the universe what claims humans make.

What is the definition of ‘good’? Either it’s an arbitrary category and has no general definition, or it has an objective meaning that may still be difficult to accurately determine.

32

You do not seem capable of separating one thread from another. (Link added for those curious as to the source of TVAA’s antipathy.) If you are having such a hard time gettign over our disagreement over the implications of GIT and proper scope of Turing-Church, then perhaps you should vent your spleen in a PIT thread. Or ressurect that one and make a secific argument instead of simply hurling insults.

In this thread you made an assertion that logic by itself can determine postulates for what is good and what is evil. That assertion is not correct. Now, if you want to argue that “good” and “evil” are objective properties you are certainly free to do so. I disagree, but that has nothing at all to do with the question of whether logic by itself can determine what/where/how those properties are expressed/found/realized.

Regardless of whether they are “there” or not, they do not exist in a logical analysis until someone inserts the meanings into the symbols. Logic manipulates symbols. The meanings of those symbols, apart from teh symbols that represent logical structures and operations, comes from outside logic.

Whether they have objective meaning is unimportant. Whatever meaning they have must be inserted into the argument from outside of logic.

An excellent example. This is a statement about what is good. It does not derive from logic. It derives from “values”. How those values are obtained, you do not specify. But I can guarantee ou that they do not derive independently from the structures of logic.

So, are you arguing that desire is objective? Or are you saying that objects/situations have a nigh-infinite list of properties that include “desired/not desired by TVAA”, desired/not desired by Spiritus Mundi", . . . Then again, you also subordinate “desire” to a utilitarian evaluation (consistent with continuation). That makes no sense to me, since we generally don’t use the word “desire” to indicate only those things that will lead to “continuation”.

Still, as I mentioned above that is a different discussion entirely. The point is: logic does not demand that any particular set of states/conditions/decisions/values be called “good”. You are making that judgment outside of logic and then applying those meanings to a logical analysis.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. That’s how a logical analysis of an ethical question works. You just shouldn’t fool yourself into thinking that logic is determining what is “good” and what is “evil”. You are making that decision. Logic is just helping you to explore the deductive consequences of that value system.

33

Logic does not demand that any particular set of conditions be called ‘good’ only if ‘good’ has no definition.

I agree that the word-sound ‘good’ is arbitrary: we could use ‘grafnoinkel’ instead if we wished. The important thing is not which symbol we use to refer to a concept, but the nature of the concept itself.

If we say that something is good, we could mean one of two different things: one, that we’re using a property of the thing to help define the meaning of ‘good’; two, that we’re claiming that the properties of the thing put it within the category referred to as ‘good’.

34

Organs were not (as far as we can determine) designed by any intelligence. Nevertheless, we find it useful to speak of their “design” when we consider their function. Given certain aspects of an organism’s biology and ecology, we can logically determine the approximate nature, function, and (occasionally) structure of its organs.

While we don’t currently understand the ways in which neurological structures manifest computation (we don’t know how to interpret the “circuit boards” of the brain), we still know that ethical strictures have a certain function. Like everything else, ethics that persist tend to accumulate.

The evolutionary forces that act on ethical creatures (including interactions with other ethical beings) determine what ethics become – it’s a complex web of feedback and adaptation.

If you want to resolve this debate, Spiritus, tell us what the definitions of good and of evil are. We will then see if we can logically determine whether something is good or evil.

35

::raises hand from back of the classroom::

But how will that support your assertion that “the postulates [which Lemur866 might use to create a self-consistent system of ethics/morals] can indeed be logically determined”, which I thought was the bone of contention?

36

Yes, of course I agree with you that our instinctive ethical systems are designed to help us survive as a social species. Helping out your buddy, feeding your kids, being nice to people…all those things are instinctive, because human beings have evolved to live in social groups with each other, and if we started attacking our neighbors at random or eating our own children then our species would go extinct.

I don’t want our species to go extinct, so therefore I think those social/ethical instincts are good.

But would it really be bad for our species to go extinct? I instinctively feel that it would be bad, of course. But why? I just do. If the earth fell into the sun tomorrow, would it really make a difference? I FEEL it would make a difference, but why are my feelings important? I am an evolution designed survival/reproduction machine. Those goals are important to me. But we could imagine an organism designed by some other process than evolution…say deliberate design. Such an entity wouldn’t neccesarily have to have the desire to live. It could have no emotions at all about its own extinction.

We might feel that creating an entity like that would be immoral…that the entity would be missing something important. But we only feel that way because we have the natures that we have. There is nothing about the universe that says that survival and reproduction is a good thing.

TVAA, your definition of “good” is tautological. We humans have instincts that tell us what is good and what is evil, yes. But why do we feel that our instincts are correct? Our instincts SEEM correct, of course, that’s why we have them. But by what objective standard are they correct? You say that ethical instincts are essential for our species survival, and that therefore they are “good”. But that requires that you postulate that our species survival is good. WHY is our species survival good? It just is, there is no reason for it.

So there you have the first postulate of your ethical system, an assertion that cannot be justified and just IS. I happen to share that postulate. It is self-evidently true, but only to an evolution designed survival/reproduction machine like a human being, not in a universal sense.

37

Spiritus claims that it’s not possible. I claim that it is possible.

Consider the case of vampire bats. Vampire bats are small, warm-blooded creatures that fly; as a result, they require significant amounts of food to survive. Studies have demonstrated that a vampire bat who doesn’t manage to get a full meal for about three or four days will become too weak to find food and will starve.

Studies have also shown that vampire bats will donate some of their food to other bats who haven’t managed to find any that night. The question is: why do individual bats act altruistically? Why do they increase their vulnerability by giving up some of their blood-meals to assist other bats?

Biologists have examined the feeding patterns of the bats and drawn the following conclusions: if the bats didn’t share food, the overall mortality rate of the group would be much higher. Although giving up some blood would seem to make it more likely that an individual would starve, when surrounded by similarly-inclined bats, the individual bat is actually less likely to die over the long run.

Groups of bats who aren’t altruistic perform on average less well than groups of bats who do. Over time, the population of altruistic bats outcompetes the population of selfish bats.

Altruism is the logical result of the forces acting on the bat population, just as a sphere is the natural shape for a bubble to take. As we can understand the nature of surface tension and air pressure and deduce that a region of air surrounded by water will take a spherical shape, we can deduce the values that living things will have.

People have no insight into the reasons they think and feel things. Their design doesn’t allow for that – can you determine what your nervous system does when you want to pick something up, or are you merely aware of your desire and the movement of your body?

The beautiful thing about evolution is that it can produce goals without having them itself. Logic allows us to predict (with reasonable accuracy) what goals living things will have and the reasons for why they have them.

38

Lemur866: I think we may agree more than either of us realized.

And yes, my definition is indeed tautological. Why does this mean it’s wrong?

Given a set of axioms, all of the proofs of the true statements in the system are tautological: they can be no other way. “Given A and B, C follows” is necessarily true. If we were smart enough, we would see that instantly – the only reason we need to generate proofs is that we can’t carry out long chains of reasoning in our minds. Short chains of reasoning are possible – and that’s why simple tautologies are obvious.

Claiming that categories rely only on human opinion and experience is equally problematic – it’s good because it’s felt to be good, and evil because it’s felt to be evil. But this is only necessary if we don’t specify what “good” means.

What is the definition of “good”? I don’t see how this is any different from asking what the definition of “acidic” or “consistent” is…

39

Not necessarily. I don’t think that you can make the implication biconditional. It is certainly true that if “good” has no definition then logic cannot tell you what is good. However, it is entirely possible for good to have a definition that does not admit to logical analysis. (Or perhaps just not one or another method of logical analysis.)

Again, this is somewhat of a side issue since your claim was tha tlogic could determine the postulates for axiomatizing an ethical system. In other words, you have said that logic itself can derive the definition of good.

There is no dispute on this point. You are misunderstanding if you imagine that I am saying anything about the specific symbol chosen to represent the concept “good”.

And are you saying that survival is the ultimate measure of an ethic? How does logic, by itself, derive that conclusion?

Um . . . no. That would not resolve this debate at all. that would be me supplying the values for good and evil from outside of logic.

If you want to resolve this debate, TVAA, then demonstrate how pure logic can derive values for “good” and “evil”. I say that you cannot. You say that you can. So do it.

There are several contending explanations for the persistence of altruism among evolving species. Some might point to these particular studies and argue that overall mortality rate is a specious measure of genetic fitness. Sociobiologists carry the analysis further and attempt to find evolutionary benefits for altruism in specific genome distribution patterns. This is fascinating stuff.

It doesn’t have much to do with the issue under contention, though. My guess is that you are working toward some postulation along the lines of: that which aids survival is good., perhaps with some restrictions upon whose survival and duration of advantage, etc. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, though, so why don’t you just come right out and offer the system of ethical postulates that you feel can be derived entirely from the application of logic.

:confused: How is this more beautiful than evolution being able to produce farts without farting itself?

Actually, our confidence in incomplete induction allows us to predict what goals other living things might have, though we often use logic to examine the implication of our induced patterns. Our tendency to anthopomorphize (or generalize from personal experience, in the case of other people) allows us to hypothesize about why they have them. Evolutionary analysis just helps us to understand why living things with certain behaviors might thrive under certain environmantal conditions.

I suppose that “because it offered an evolutionary advantage in the past” is one way to answer the quesiton “why”, but I am not sure it is the best answer when discussing ethics. Then again, that itself is an ethical decision so perhaps it will all be explaine by your logical postulates.

And do you think that logic can derive the postulates for “what is acidic?” or “what is consistent?” Logic can manipulate definitions, but the meanings for symbols must always come from outside.

You disagree, of course. So, please list some postulates/definitions for good and evil that can be derived entirely from logic.

40

Only if you throw out the concept of “definition”.

Sure, if a concept doesn’t need to have any way to operationally verify that it’s used properly, and it doesn’t have to be able to be explained or put into other words, then concepts can exist that aren’t vulnerable to logical analysis.

I claimed that ‘good’ is not an arbitrary or subjective concept, and that logic can determine what the objective meaning of ‘good’.

Lemur866 holds that an individual can construct any arbitrary system of ethics by using a set number of basic assumptions. I agree. He then said that there’s no way logic can determine which ethical postulates can be used – this is incorrect. Logic applied to observation can indicate which postulates are correct in the same way that logic applied to observation can indicate which postulates in physics are correct. Ethical models can be inconsistent with the observed world.

We wouldn’t say that every set of ideas about the way the world works is equally correct or valid – does anyone really want to suggest that alchemy or Aristotelian thought are as valid as modern chemistry and physics?

I’m not saying anything about the symbol chosen to represent any concept. I’m saying something about the concept, and anything that can act as the embodiment of the concept in a language.

If “good” is determined by subjective opinion, whatever determines those opinions ultimately defines it. As time passes, certain opinions are shown to be more compatible with existence than others; these persist and accumulate. If no one holds an opinion, it therefore becomes wrong. The nature of the evolutionary environment in which a group of ethical-opinion-bearing creatures lives ultimately determines what “good” is.

Or we can take the opposite assumption, that “good” is not determined by subjective opinion – in which case, it should be determinable in the same way we can learn anything else about the external, objective world – by looking at the world, generating models of it, and checking to see if those models are compatible with observation.

“Good” is the set or sets of principles espoused by the final steady-state configuration of living things. “Evil” is the set or sets of principles that aren’t.

Are you familiar with the computer models of the Prisoner’s Dilemma? There’s a reason Tit For Tat always wins in certain types of games… and a reason Generous Tit For Tat always wins in others.

I’m tired of responding to your constant misrepresentations/misunderstandings of my and others’ arguments, Spiritus. If you want to continue this, start a thread here or in the Pit. Let’s return this thread to the OP.