Philosophical Vegan Forum

The following is how I think about moral questions to draw ethical conclusions. Trying to keep an objective point of view while keeping it practical to follow. Reasonable critiques wanted. Critiques are wanted as I plan on presenting this logic in small upcoming debates.

WHATS MORAL
PREMISES

• 1. Good and bad only exist in regards to goals. If your goal is BLANK than actions that increase the chance of BLANK are good, while actions that decrease the chance of BLANK are bad.

• 2. An interest is an expression of a goal. Saying one has an interest in BLANK is to say they have BLANK as a goal.

CONCLUSION 1

• It follows that the ethical thing to do is the thing that increases the chance of beings fulfilling their interests, or meeting their goals. We call this value utility.

PREMISES

• 3. Beings tend to have a greater interest in issues related to negatives rather than positives. The interest in continued life is greater than the interest in astatic pleasure.

CONCLUSION 2

• It follows that issues involving loss should be given more weight than issues regarding gaining or sustaining wealth or pleasure. So the item with the most utility is the item with the maximal number of beings meeting their interests in regards to avoiding negatives.

PREMISES

• 4. A decrease in pleasure is not an increase in suffering.

CONCLUSION 3

• Decreasing ones pleasure is not worth as much moral consideration as avoiding there negatives.

[/color]

RULES AND LAWS
PREMISES

• 5. When governing a society rules should be made based on what generally has the highest utility.

CONCLUSION 4

• Rules or laws should be based upon increasing the overall utility.

PREMISES

• 6. Introducing laws that most members in society disagree with generally leads to lower overall utility through the illegal breaking of these laws often on industrious levels, the black market/drugs.

CONCLUSION 5

• Laws intended to increase the overall utility should not be put in place if society disagrees with such laws.

MORAL EXCUSABILITY
PREMISES

• 7. Beings invest a greater interest in some beings, such as one’s self, family members, romantic relations, friends, and members of their own species. We call this value love.

• 8. To invest an interest in a being is to invest an interest in the interests of that being.

CONCLUSION 6

• People are more likely to support their loved ones than strangers. One could continue to assert that one’s doing so is not grounds for harsh moral judgement but rather leniency or excitability.

PREMISES

• • 9. Loved one’s is a subjective experience of a being.

CONCLUSION 7

• It follows that rules and laws should not be built upon excusability

[/color]

It follows that the ethical thing to do is the thing that increases the chance of beings fulfilling their interests, or meeting their goals. We call this value utility.

Say Hitler has a goal of eradicating all Jewish people. Does it follow that the ethical thing for Hitler to do is the thing that increases the chances of him fulfilling that interest, that goal?

It follows that issues involving loss should be given more weight than issues regarding gaining or sustaining wealth or pleasure. So the item with the most utility is the item with the maximal number of beings meeting their interests in regards to avoiding negatives.

This is called negative utilitarianism, and I have no arguments against it since I agree. Minimizing pain is the primary moral goal, above maximizing pleasure.

Rules or laws should be based upon increasing the overall utility.

Since this statement is rather basic, nothing can really be said about it. That laws should benefit the governed is a pretty simple and well-accepted axiom.

People are more likely to support their loved ones than strangers.

I don't think there is any ethical way to change this fact about humans, so it probably should be left out of the moral debate. That people should also care, at least minimally, about strangers is important. Caring about our loved ones does not negate the ability to care about the needs and interests of other people.

The only problem I have here is that you are using "It follows" too loosely - very few of your points actually "follow" from one another. I'm not saying they contradict each other, but for something to logically follow means it must be apparent by the previous statement that this is the next step, that the two are not only similar thoughts, but inseparable beliefs.

E.g. "All dogs have spots" -> "It follows that my dog has spots". This follows logically.
vs.
E.g. "I am wearing red shoes" -> "It follows that my favourite colour is red". This does not follow and is called a non sequitur.

Thank you for your advise soycrates.

Soycrates wrote:Say Hitler has a goal of eradicating all Jewish people. Does it follow that the ethical thing for Hitler to do is the thing that increases the chances of him fulfilling that interest, that goal?

I have adapted the premises to deal with his problem.

PREMISES

• 3. Beings tend to have a greater interest in issues related to negatives rather than positives. The interest in continued life is greater than the interest in astatic pleasure.

• 4. Interests should be generalised in order to assure the maximum number of ways to achieve a goal or interest. If the interest includes the means than it is likely a specific rather than general goal. One does not have an interest in eating meat; one has an interest in pallet pleasure, and sustaining health/nutrition.

CONCLUSION 2

• Issues involving loss should be given more weight than issues regarding gaining or sustaining wealth or pleasure. So the item with the most utility is the item with the maximal number of beings meeting their general interests in regards to avoiding negatives.

I hope you understand how this fixes the Hitler problem.

Soycrates wrote:I don't think there is any ethical way to change this fact about humans, so it probably should be left out of the moral debate. That people should also care, at least minimally, about strangers is important. Caring about our loved ones does not negate the ability to care about the needs and interests of other people.

I do not argue that it makes an action moral, I argue that it makes the action excusable. I disagree with your stating that it is a concept that should be left out of moral debate. I see your point with the whole "at least minimally" thing, this is my position however I may not have made it clear.

-----------------------------------------

I have eradicated the term "It follows" from the logic.

All you've really done is redefine interests to specify the sorts of interests you approve of.

Also, even though you've eliminated the phrase "it follows", you need to be aware that premises are supposed to follow from their conclusions, so you are now only implying "it follows" rather than implying it AND stating it. Your conclusions do not follow directly from your premises - I don't feel like you've fleshed out your reasoning process for them - so you're still committing a non-sequitur.