That’s perfectly rational. It’s pretty classic Aristotelian logic.
Major Premise: We should not care if sluts get HPV
Minor Premise: The only women who get HPV are sluts.
therefore
Conclusion: We should not give woman the HPV vaccine.
You can disagree with either the major or minor premise, but the argument is perfectly logical, it’s factuality aside.
Because minimizing human suffering is a laudable goal because I am an animal that possesses empathy. If the vaccine were hugely expensive or moderately dangerous it would be different, but if it’s in line with the other vaccines we give, adding it is perfectly rational.
Because humans feel good when appreciating beautiful things. Humans have been singing since the dawn of our species. It is comforting. So it is rational to keep that skill set alive, and to identify at a young age the people with strong potential.
Humans aren’t robots, and as I said, human well-being isn’t 2400 calories and warm clothes. It’s a bunch of mental and emotional things as well.
I am undone!
I didn’t mean to imply that.
More this.
Regarding why you would want a music program, there are plenty of reasons beyond “i like it” Training the brain in different modes of thinking has plenty of uses and applications. Music has been demonstrated to have therapeutic value.
Does availability of the HPV increase or decrease the well being of conscious creatures?
Does producing the HPV vaccine increase or decrease the well being of conscious creatures? Seems to me that science can assist in answering that question. What else are you going to use?
Isn’t it logical to allow people freedom of expression if freedom of expression proves to increase well being?
Perhaps someone could do a research how much musical enjoyment enriches the well being.
OK, so if there isn’t private demand, musical programs should not be at the top of the list for public funding. Maybe they shouldn’t be on the list at all, and money would better increase well being if spent on curing cancer. How should we decide?
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Humans aren’t robots, and as I said, human well-being isn’t 2400 calories and warm clothes. It’s a bunch of mental and emotional things as well.
[/QUOTE]
Well yes…exactly. Which is why trying to run a society that is based purely on logic, reason and science would be as bad an idea as trying to run one based on collectivism, or one based on pure individualism. It would suck.
I’d assume increase it (I’m also assuming you mean the HPV vaccine. HPV decreases the well being of conscious creatures). A syllogism that states:
Major Premise: We should increase the well being of conscious creatures.
Minor Premise: Giving women the HPV vaccine would increase the well being of conscious creatures.
Therefore
Conclusion: We should give women the HPV vaccine.
is also a valid syllogism, the factuality of the major and minor premises aside.
That’s quibbling on terms. What is the ethical goal of a society, if not to provide the most happiness and/or prosperity to its members ?
But game theory incorporates that. Strategies that feature (or at least factor) empathy and human emotions generally work better than those that don’t.
The Pinto example is an excellent proof of that : per cold, mathemathical drone-logic, you sell the Pinto as-is, spontaneous explosions and all, for cost-effectiveness reasons. In the real world, the public is outraged, Ford loses a ton of PR capital over the revealed cold calculations, and they have to recall the pieces of shit anyway at great cost. In retrospect, the “empathetic” solution of a pre-emptive recall would have been a better strategy.
But again, you’re starting with the axiom that increasing the well being of conscious creatures is a good thing. And that’s something that can’t be proved logically or scientifically, because it’s an axiom.
I could start with the belief that “Causing suffering is good.”, and use science and logic to find ways to maximize suffering, and there’s no way for science or reason to judge between us. There’s no rational reason that increasing the well being of conscious creatures is good and decreasing the well being of conscious creatures is bad. It’s just a belief. And once you have that belief, you can use reason to develop your behavior so that it promotes the belief. But you can’t get to that belief with reason. You have to start with assumptions, and then you can use reason to give those assumptions a framework.
[QUOTE=Kable]
Does producing the HPV vaccine increase or decrease the well being of conscious creatures? Seems to me that science can assist in answering that question. What else are you going to use?
[/QUOTE]
Why is increasing or decreasing the well being of a conscious creature necessary? Maybe it is, or maybe it isn’t, but whether or not a logical society would choose to expend it’s resources on it would break down to maximum benefit verse those costs. Perhaps we would make the vaccine but it would only be available to some. Perhaps instead of a vaccine mandatory prophylactics would be used…or perhaps it would simply be better to prevent high risk sex. Perhaps we would make it and it would be available to all, but something else wouldn’t be that is today. We might stop research and development on diseases that only affect a few, and maybe diseases with genetic markers would warrant sterilization or even euthanasia to prevent them.
Sure, but it might not be logical for society to PAY for it (like, in a music program).
Sure, someone might, and maybe music would be a program well supported, but something else would then not be. That’s the thing…you’d have to take the good with the bad, and the decisions wouldn’t be based on what you LIKE, but on what the unemotional and logical leaders determine we should HAVE.
WE wouldn’t, since WE are the ‘feelies’…the public that makes decisions and our desires felt through feeling. That’s the whole premise of the OP, that we’d be run by pure logic and science, disconnected with feelings and emotion. Cost to benefit ratios and all that. I’ve dealt with scientist types enough to know exactly how it would work out with them in charge. Which is why on most of the programs I’ve been involved in, the scientists AREN’T in charge, and there are administrators, because frankly, scientists suck at running things IMHO. Now, ENGINEERS…
Societies develop their own ethical goals. What was the ethical goal of the society of the Belgian Congo? That wasn’t to provide the most happiness to its members. It was to enrich the King of Belgium. We, rightly, I think, condemn the actions of the Belgian Congo, or American slaveholders, or the French nobility before the Revolution, but we do so for emotional reasons. Their actions shock us, they disgust us, they horrify us. But that’s because we have the moral principle that there are rights and that we shouldn’t oppress others. But moral principles aren’t statements of fact, like that the earth revolves around the sun. There’s no science that can find moral principles. You can’t see a moral principal with a telescope or a microscope. You have to believe it or not.
Not really. In fact, those societies justified their existence using faulty or fraudulent logic. Whether we’re talking of the divine right of kings, the absence of the black man’s soul or the divine providence guaranteeing the right to fuck over the Native Americans, you can’t find those with a microscope either.
I suppose so, but then again neither a microscope nor a telescope can give a valid justification for abusing Congo for the benefit of Belgium, either.
And since the end result of the rape of Congo, the French monarchy OR the institution of slavery were bloody revolts and wars - which I would posit run against the concept of maximum well-being among the revolted against, not to mention the simple continued existence of the societies in question - science and game theory would suggest that these societies were, in fact and if I may use a technical term, kinda fucked up. One might even qualify them as standing on the wrong side of ethical ;).
post 84
post 84
just for clarification
The OP has already said that your interpretation is incorrect, so pretty much every post you’ve made in this thread is against a strawman.
Science does not disregard emotion, unless you want to claim that rigorous psychology is not a science. Using science to determine the best way of maximizing various factors, such as life span and happiness (which can be measured) is very different from ignoring science and proposing a strategy because it feels good to one, or because one thinks that his God wants it.
If you think engineers are good at running things you should have met my old boss at Intel. Or check into IEEE politics.
Then I’ll bow out, as to me it seems like selective bias. We want science and logic unless we want emotion, then it’s ok…or something. To me, that’s just a circle jerk of folks who want it both ways, as long as both ways are THEIR way, because obviously their way is the right way, etc etc. Sorry for the strawman hijack.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
If you think engineers are good at running things you should have met my old boss at Intel. Or check into IEEE politics.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it was a joke. Engineers suck at running things as well, for different reasons…and I can say that as an engineer. 
Anyway, ado…have fun with the discussion.
Couldn’t you do scientific tests between moral principles, to see which ones perform better?
Okay, sure; I see the problem. “Better” in what regard? But, at a very ground-level approach, how about survival? Isn’t it valid, at very least, to say that if an ethical principle inevitably leads to the extinction of the society that embraces it, it is a flawed principle?
I think you might be able to bootstrap some higher-level conclusions by building on this foundation.
OK, lets talk about that using reason and rationality. What’s a better thing than well being?
Sure and you could start out the the belief that vomiting all the time is healthy. You would be just as mistaken.
People don’t want well being, not even for themselves?
No? People like to decrease their well being?
You don’t think it’s reasonable for people to work towards universal beliefs? What was your alternative strategy again?
Why assume when you can talk to people and find out what they want. Generally you will find they think increasing well being is good and decreasing it is bad.
That’s my point. I’m not justifying them. I’m saying that they started with assumptions and then built up their society around them.