Yeah, that’s why I’d want to minimize my suffering, but that is not what the post I was responding to said. “Human suffering” is not “my suffering”.
Sure it is- even if it doesn’t bother you with bad feelings to see people suffer, you must recognize that, in general, you are in less personal danger of suffering if the people around you (and in the world in general) are not suffering. Happy people are less likely to hurt and kill you. It’s to all of our benefit to minimize everyone’s suffering, purely for selfish reasons. You might argue that you, personally, are better off spending your resources in some specific way (like fortifying your dwelling), and that’s debatable, but it’s pretty clear that minimizing everyone’s suffering also reduces your chances of suffering.
Not really. It’s easier to kill at least a portion of those people and get them out of the way rather than worrying about minimizing their suffering. I might want to minimize the suffering of My Tribe, but math and science tell me that I’m going to be better off killing at least some of The Other Tribes rather than making sure they are all comfy and cozy.
NM.
Something tells me that you trying to kill a portion of these people would actually result in lots and lots of suffering for you. And if Your Tribe tries to kill off the Other Tribe, there’s a good chance that will result in lots of suffering all around. A peaceful solution (a merger, resource sharing, etc) is far more likely to minimize suffering, for Your Tribe and the Other Tribe.
It depends on the asymmetry of the weapons involved. With the appropriate weapons, we can wipe out some of The Other Tribes very easily. We might make peace, but we might not. There are going to be circumstances all over the map, and “one size fits all” is unlikely to be be the logical outcome.
Can you foresee any selfish consequences to that strategy?
So we can use logic and reason (and science) to try and solve this. For example- we might conclude that, with such a wide variety of scenarios and possibilities, we might have the best chance to minimize our chances of suffering by instituting a relatively simple common moral code with a tendency towards non-violence and peaceful behavior. This might give us the best chance to minimize our own suffering, and unless we get pleasure out of carnage, maximize our own happiness.
Also, I think by looking at history, it can be reasonably and logically stated that peaceful solutions tend to result in far less suffering on both sides of a conflict (in the short and long term) then violent solutions.
Why is your model of rationality the philosophy of a mad scientist in a crappy 1950s movie?
Given that non-rational dictators do exactly what you propose - that is live the high life even when their people are starving and kill anyone who complains - you seem to be saying that this is justified by any philosophical position.
Now if any one person or tribe was more powerful than all potential enemies combined what you propose might be rational. Given that this is unlikely, that there can be alliances against the big guy, it actually isn’t. Even in science people looking at the same evidence come to different conclusions rationally. So that someone might rationally be the bully you suggest doesn’t disprove the OP’s point. You need to demonstrate that they must reach this conclusion. I think all the OP is saying (and he can correct me if I’m wrong) is that such a world is likely to be better than a feelie driven one.
I am failing to understand what “rational, science based ideals” are, or can be.
I am failing to understand how science can be used to construct an ideal in the first place. Could you try to explain that for me? Thanks in advance.
Aren’t value judgments based not only on facts, but also on, y’know, values? You must have values to make a value judgment, no? If so: Have can science be used to figure out the moral value of a thing?
Can you show where I have proposed that? You are reading more into my model than is there. I clearly stated that we are trying to keep My Tribe living quite will, and that is more than just the leaders. I also clearly stated that My Tribe and Your Tribe might very well form an alliance. But we might not. I can’t see why it is always going to be better to form an alliance than just wipe Your Tribe out. Unless Your Tribe has something specific to offer that we can’t get without just taking it from you, we’ll take it from you.
It’s actually what we see in what we call “The West” today. So, not only is it likely, it is actually.
I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say “rational, science based ideals” but I’m go ahead and say things that promote the well being of conscious creatures is good, and those that promote suffering are bad. Science can help parse that out. You’re alternative was what?
We could use scientific polling of peoples opinions. We could have Gallup call 1000 people and ask them if they prefer to feel good or they prefer to suffer. We could ask follow up questions too to better fill in the details.
Examples?
Can’t “The East” just take you out as well?
Please re-read the OP. This is the exact term he uses. “Rational, science based ideals.” So yeah, that’s what we’re discussing here.
You mention that “science can help parse” out that “things that promote the well being of conscious creatures is good, and those that promote suffering are bad.” How, exactly, does science parse that out? Using science and science alone, how can you make a moral judgment about whether the well being of conscious creatures is a good thing or a bad thing?
And that way, you’ll get the majority view. You’ll get the most common, and the most popular view. But that’s not really what the scientific method tells you to do, now is it? “Figure out how the majority feels about something and do that”?
Sure. Capital punishment, abortion, gay marriage, torture. On all these subjects, science can not, by itself, tell you whether they are morally right or wrong. You need values for that.
I wasn’t attacking your post. I was building from it.
The problem is that if you eliminate “feelings” you can make radical change. If you simply add in reason and rationality to feelings, you’ll get basically what we have, now. A lot of reasonable laws with a few tangents of an insane degree. So, we have to remove the “Feelings” to be left with only reason and rationality. I chose a simple guideline of “The most favorable outcome for the most people.” and extrapolated from there.
Thus, if you get an incurable disease, you simply end everyone who gets it (After some reasonable cutoff of research time. Maybe.) What’s better? Disrupting the economy on a fruitless research quest that may never end or simply destroying the need for the research?
What’s best: Destroy a neighborhood known to have terrorists in it or have even one public bomb go off and disrupt more life than what was ended in that neighborhood?
Okay, a harder one, what’s best: Terminate the underachievers in school for the betterment of the social construct or teach to the lowest common denominator and leave the social construct less advanced overall? (Studies have shown that completing relativistic physics before second grade creates a more fruitful innovator, after all. [Dr Fagan, et al. 2497])
Remember: To teach two separate classes, one dumb and one smart, would drain resources for other things (Infrastructure, advanced 14D pornography media, etc) that would make more people happy or increase their standard of living.
Or, how about doing away with education for most people altogether? The leader/technician classes are the only ones that need to be educated. Everyone else could be left ignorant and happy, after all.
People pose these sorts of questions go “Hey, wouldn’t we be better off if we didn’t have this innate human frailty” of whatever item they consider a shortcoming. Problem is, we are no longer in the same position once we lose that frailty and that’s why these always spiral to places considered “too extreme”. But it’s not extreme if you no longer posses that specified facet of being human.
To illustrate the difference: Is it extreme, right here right now, to build wheel chairs for every man, woman and child on the earth? Yes.
Would it be extreme if everyone woke up tomorrow without legs? Well, no. That idea suddenly has merit.
Science and logic, per the OP.
OK, I guess I would like to see him define to know exactly what he means by it. I would guess ideals that are based on real facts, rather than just tradition, religion, obedience.
A lot of ways. Science might look at nutritional factors that promote well being and those that promote suffering, look at pollution, exercise, all sorts of things.
Why would I want to use science alone?
Polling and questioning people is part of science.
What’s your principle value? And why are you always talking about science “by itself?”
To what end?
Me too!
Possibly. But then, what are “ideals based on facts”? How does one base an ideal on a fact?
Sure, science can certainly be used in order to increase (as well as decrease) well being.
You probably wouldn’t, which is my point.
You would need core values, moral judgment, and all those much-dreaded “Feelies,” in order to figure out which goals you want to reach in the first place. Then, of course, you can (as mentioned) use science in order to try to reach that goal.
My own personal principle value? “Well being is da bomb”, more or less. But I admit that I reached that principle value not through “Scientific methodology, reason, and rationality”, but rather through “the Feelies.”
Only because the OP spoke about “rational, science based ideals” (as opposed to “the Feelies”). Which, to me, indicated that he believed that “ideals” (as in moral, social or political ideals) can be reached through science in and by itself - a concept I can’t quite wrap my head around.