Relativity of morals / ethics

[JJM 777]

When people discuss ethical issues, they often say that some action is "wrong", or in someone else's opinion "right". Black and white vocabulary, very uninformative.

More than ten years ago I began making attempts to describe ethics / morals in more objective and informative ways. In 1998 the system was reviewed by a Finnish Professor of Philosophy, who described it as the most sophisticated effort to rationally describe ethics that he has ever seen anywhere. (When this topic was discussed at JREF some years ago, CFLarsen naturally asked for "evidence", and got the contact details of this now emeritus Professor.)

The system has slowly but remarkably evolved after those years: in 1998 I had a 2-dimensional system that included 5 basic levels of morals. Nowadays I use a 3-dimensional model that contains 17 basic levels of morals.

A brief introduction to the system (written in 2004) is available on this page:
http://www.moralbalance.com/English/ch_04.html

---

Summary of the basics:

The three most important indicators of ethical issues are:
1) level (category) of morals
2) moral weight
3) moral responsibility

"Moral weight" is the importance or impact of the action. For example, the moral weight of murder is 100% of human life, while the moral weight of stealing is usually much less than that.

"Moral responsibility" (of an individual) can be anything between 0% (pure accident) and 100% (fully intentional action taken by a socially independent adult person).

"Level (or category) of morals" can be gradually anything between crime and victim of crime. Between these extremes there are (at least) 17 basic categories of morals:

INTENTIONAL:
- crime
-> victim of crime
- legal egocentricity
-> victim of legal egocentricity
- active pursuit of equality

UNINTENTIONAL:
- accident
-> victim of accident
- passively reached inequality
-> victim of passive inequality
- passively reached equality

VOLUNTARY:
- voluntary mutual barbarism
-> victim of mutual barbarism
- voluntary competition
-> victim of voluntary competition
- voluntary self-denial

RECONCILING:
- active self-sacrifice on behalf of others
- forgiveness or reconciliation of crime

---

CFLarsen would certainly be glad to hunt for evidence, sniff for any possible superstitions, debunk everything, and wish that I had never been born into this world. I hereby give him the golden chance to do so.

(I use the words morals / ethics as the synonyms of each other, as well as immoral / unethical. If I am asked what "ethics" is, I answer that it is the study of how circumstances affect the emotions or existence of living creatures.)

[Dancing David]

Hiya!

Welcome to the Forum.

Don't take CFL too seriously, we all like to argue and that is why some of us post here.

So is the system just descriptive?

Right and wrong and discussed here quite frequently as being social values.

How does the level of morals work?

As in verbal abuse?

Since it has a high emotional impact, does it rate a 99%? I mean extreme verbal abuse; constant denigration, threats to kill, that sort of thing.

Thanks!

[JJM 777]

Don't take CFL too seriously
A barking dog won't bite, they say.

So is the system just descriptive?
In academic jargon the expression "descriptive ethics" means polling people and making statistics of what (normative) beliefs they have about ethics.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blfaq_phileth_cat.htm

A more correct term would be "analytic ethics" -- but even this term covers a much wider area of study than just describing the moral nature of actions.

While my system is (intended to be) analytic and neutral, it becomes a practical tool for non-neutral normative ethics (such as legislation) at the moment when a decision is made where the line between right and wrong shall be set (in each issue).

How does the level of morals work?
The core of the system is the set of five basic levels, which are:
0) neutral activity, or pursuit of equality

c) destructive activity
... and its counterpart, which always exists when c) exists, and never exists when c) does not exist:
-c) victim of destructive actvity

b) egocentric activity, free competition, freedom from the obligation to pursue equality 0), yet without engaging in destructive activity c)
... and its counterpart, which always exists when b) exists, and never exists when b) does not exist:
-b) victim of egocentric activity, loser in free competition

As in verbal abuse? (...) threats to kill, that sort of thing
Verbal abuse, if done by a drunk person, would probably be 50% intentional (because the person is drunk and not able to think soberly). If done by a sober adult person, then probably 100% intentional. This is one of the three dimensions: intentionality & moral responsibility for the action.

The moral level (or category) of the action would be destructive (criminal).

The moral weight of death threats is an extremely heavy issue, if there is reason to believe that action will follow the threat. But mere talk of drunkards would be next to meaningless. Publishing death threats in the media, especially as a religious fatwa, would have great moral weight, because of the high risk of the threats inspiring someone to action.

Here we notice that "moral weight" is very difficult to estimate by looking directly at the issue under discussion. Assessing the moral weight with satisfactory accuracy would require collecting data about many diverse moral issues, then arranging the data into a logical order from least impact to heaviest impact into people's lives. Then this logically ordered data could be rated as having different "moral weights" starting from zero and ending to 100% of a human life (murder).

In legislations, different crimes are rated with diverse punishments -- corresponding to the assessment of "moral weight".

[Atlas]

It does present itself as a model worth pondering. Especially for lawmakers.

It's interesting how barbarism like that exposed in Gaza recently carries a moral responsibility factor of 50% because it is done with a belief that it is right. Even where it leads to hunger, pain, sorrow and the death of self and others, both sides fight for what is "right" - for "Allah" or against "Allah's thugs".

I don't wish to derail the thread but I was struck how an Islamic society can appeal on moral responsibility and sacrifice moral weight (prosperity) in the belief that moral responsibility (submission) will lead to prosperity (Allah's blessing) naturally. Likewise, a capitalist society might hold to the moral weight dimension toward prosperity but employ crimes against humanity like slavery to achieve it.

It's certainly a tool that we might employ as we wrestle with big legislation like the comprehensive immigration bill and HillaryCare. It would be interesting to see politicians point to a square and debate why the legislation would lead us there. That is, it would give a frame and focus to the debate if each side argued over the same playing field.

[Crowbot]

I think your ethics cube art is awesome. I noticed that your measurement of moral weight is expressed in percentages relative to the value of human life as well as a monetary value. Would you mind plotting a basic crime scenario for me on the cube to help me understand it better?

The scenario is a hungry person steals an apple from a store.

mutations of the "crime":
A) The hungry person is homeless (+2.0 level for 'involuntary poverty'?)
B) The hungry person is a successful and wealthy businessman (-2.0 level for 'egocentricism'?)

mutations of the "victim of the crime"
1) the store is a road-side apple stand (+2.0 level for 'poverty'?)
2) the store is a successful and wealthy chain business (-2.0 level for 'prosperity'?)


Additional questions:
1. Do you believe that the punishment for the crime should fit the moral/ethical plot point on the cube? (Would plot points A1 and A2 be significantly different than plot points B1 and B2?)
2. Because laws vary by location (in the united states for example, many laws vary state by state) do you believe the values of the cube are subject to change based on location of the crime? If so, could you add some geographical locations as mutations to the scenario?
3. Am I totally missing the entire concept of this? lol.

[JJM 777]

barbarism like that exposed in Gaza recently carries a moral responsibility factor of 50% because it is done with a belief that it is right. (...) for "Allah" or against "Allah's thugs".
The texts written on the vertical sides of the cube are exemplary only. But if we think about a militant islamist blowing himself up in a crowd of innocent people, some of the responsibility certainly falls to those who brainwashed him and sent him. (Otherwise he would have never gone -- the crime would have never happened.) Part of the moral responsibility having gone to the brainwashers, less than 100% remains for the terrorist himself.

a capitalist society might hold to the moral weight dimension toward prosperity but employ crimes against humanity like slavery to achieve it.
One of the most debated issues is, whether the socialist pursuit of equality actually leads to greater prosperity of the individuals or not. The standard of living may go down while the moral standards go up.

It would be interesting to see politicians point to a square and debate why the legislation would lead us there.
This is the main purpose of the system: to provide a helpful tool for explaining moral issues first to oneself, then to others.

I noticed that your measurement of moral weight is expressed in percentages relative to the value of human life as well as a monetary value.
Personal Moral Weight (circumstances affecting a person) and Impersonal Moral Weight (circumstances affecting money, property and dead matter) are two separate issues, which can be added up for statistical purposes (using an agreed monetary value for personal suffering or loss of life), or when agreeing about economical compensation after a violent crime etc.

The scenario is a hungry person steals an apple from a store.
As for the action itself, here we have a crime (-2.0) with apparently 100% intentionality and moral responsibility, the moral weight being the market price of an apple.

As for the other circumstances, for statistical purposes it may be interesting to calculate the Total Moral Balance of the person (or the entire society), but it will not make the crime greater or lesser. The crime must be dealt with properly and separately in any case.

---

A) The hungry person is homeless

To determine his moral status on the cube, we would need to know why he is homeless? 1) A self-caused problem, drinking all his money? 2) Voting for the Communist party, but darn the Capitalists won the elections? 3) Voting for the Capitalist party -- voting for the very kind of ethics that have led him where he is?

Of these only the option 2) would make him a "victim of involuntary poverty". Option 3) would make him a "victim of voluntary competition" -- he voted for Capitalists. Option 1) would make him an enjoyer of equality (if his income is average), but darn how stupid he is to waste all his income to alcohol.

---

B) The hungry person is a successful and wealthy businessman

Assuming that the person is extremely wealthy and pays no taxes at all, his moral status would be 100% legal egocentricity (-1.00). More probably he is not a billionaire, and he pays many kinds of taxes, which in turn will be directed to help the poor in the society. This would make his moral status higher than the lowest possible legal egocentricity (-1.00), but lower than the pursuit of full equality 0.00.

---

1) the store is a road-side apple stand
2) the store is a successful and wealthy chain business

Basically similar circumstances as cases A) and B).

1. Do you believe that the punishment for the crime should fit the moral/ethical plot point on the cube? (Would plot points A1 and A2 be significantly different than plot points B1 and B2?)
I assume that you want to ask whether the Total Moral Balance of the person should affect how his crime is handled in court.

No, the crime must be treated separately from the other circumstances, unless the other circumstances actually force him to commit the crime.

2. Because laws vary by location (...) do you believe the values of the cube are subject to change based on location of the crime?
No, this would make the system subjective.

If legislation changes, it is the moral status of the legislation that changes, not the moral status of the action.

However, the moral status of actions can be greatly modified by making contracts -- and legislation can be viewed as a "national contract" signed by at least those who voted for the politicians currently in power. (The common doctrines of democracy take it as granted that this national contract legally applies also to those who lost in elections. I would not fully agree with that.)

If we assume that 100% of population vote for criminalizing action X (whatever it may be), action X becomes a crime (-2.0), namely a contract breach.

Likewise, if 100% of population vote for legalizing action Y (whatever it may be), its moral status cannot in any way be technically criminal (below -1.0) -- e.g. voluntary mutual barbarism.

It should be noted that the term "crime" used in this system does not refer to any legislation. It refers to destructive action against a person, against his will, in a way that would be generally considered a violation of his basic human rights.

---

Yes, it took me 10 years to create this system. Don't ask why.

[l0rca]

How much do you know about cognitive biology, gene-expressive behavior, and modern ideas about consciousness? If you don't know much about the former two, I highly suggest The Tangled Wing, the second edition.

Personally, I don't take any arbitrary dialogue very seriously when it comes to morals, and tend to be of the Particularist genre in the debate. I'm more concerned with rooting good axioms for ethics, and constructing moral judgements and actions on a subjective, non-prescribed manner. But you and I could argue about this endlessly, probably perfectly understanding each other but seeing our own stance as most reasonable, and justifiably so. So I won't.

But so far as ethics goes, and your placement of your values and their scales, how do you fit scientific evidence which suggests that some people are genetically inclined to more easily do 'wrong' than others? And how we've evolved the tendency to favor immediate moral choices over more pragmatic and deeper-moral choices (such as mudering an innocent man to prevent the death of two other innocent men)? Where does psychology enter into the picture, and how much attention to do you give it to the seemingly average person?

I understand you're only suggesting a model, but I don't see the good of so technical a scheme if it isn't dynamically correlate to what we're learning about why people do the things they do, and especially on possible directions such as Multiple Drafts of consciousness -- which is one good reason I favor particularism. Also, what makes your model better, accuracy wise, than other models out there; and also other forms of moral awareness, which might not rely on models (like I said, I don't intend to argue any disagreement with you here)? Finally, I'm curious of how fully you mean the word "objective" so far as your system is concerned.

[Loss Leader]

Okay ... um ... I'm utterly lost.

How does the EthiCube work? Does it result in a final score that we can talk about? If so, you don't really need to represent it as a cube. You just give the action a score on each of three scales and then add or multiply them together for a final score. I assume as we go from the top left edge to the bottom right edge of the MoralsQuare, actions are more disfavored. At least as you represent it in EthiCube form, all three axes have equal weight.

Consider please the case of James Kopp who murdered Doctor Bernard Slepian. Kopp, believing he was protecting unborn babies, hunted and shot Dr. Slepian in his home. Consider two scenarios: 1) Kopp wanted to kill Slepian; and 2) Kopp, an excellent marksman, tried carefully just to wound Slepian and his death was a freak medical accident. Does your system assign different moral weight to scenarios 1 and 2?

Last, how does the Virtuebox 3000 take into account the almost infinite factors that go into the smallest human action? Assume the legislature of California is considering a bill to legalize prostitution. Some considerations might be: legalization protects the welfare of women who would be prostitutes anyway; legalization may cause more women to become prostitutes than otherwise; marriages might be harmed by easy access to hookers; marriages might be saved by letting men blow off some "steam"; prostitution is a gateway crime that might bring drugs into the area; prostitutes are on drugs and legalization might make it easier for them to get help; taxation of prostitution would raise money from the government; raising money from "sin" might lead the government to want to legalize other "sins"; some prostitutes were abused as children; even if there is a decrease in percentage of violence against prostitutes, the increase in prostitution will mean that more prostitutes total are the victims of violence; ad nauseum.

How does your system deal with that level of complex causes and unknown and unintended consequences?

[JJM 777]

cognitive biology, gene-expressive behavior (...) how do you fit scientific evidence which suggests that some people are genetically inclined to more easily do 'wrong' than others? (...) Where does psychology enter into the picture
These aspects would affect the dimension of "moral responsibility" of the individual. Remember the three dimensions: 1) what is happening, 2) how much is happening, and 3) who is responsible for what is happening, and to what extent?

what makes your model better, accuracy wise, than other models out there
This question can only be answered by testing the said models for a chosen task. Then we could report how easy the systems were to use, and how powerful they were for demonstrating the findings to experts or the ignorant general public. (It might turn out that a different system is the best one from each of these viewpoints.)

My system opens the door for statistical sciences by handling all data in a mathematical format.

how fully you mean the word "objective" so far as your system is concerned.
Objectivity is a goal in science, which is seldom reached by anyone though (other than mathematicians). Any known subjectivity would be removed when noticed.

How does the EthiCube work? Does it result in a final score that we can talk about?
The traditional black & white moral discussion results in a simple final score, such as "right" or "wrong". The "Cube" would result in a location that represents the "rightness / wrongness" on one axis, "responsibility / mutuality / voluntarity / accidentality" on another axis, and the "importance / insignificance" of the event on another axis. The output contains more information than just "right / wrong", and many essential details that some people would easily ignore.

Consider two scenarios: 1) Kopp wanted to kill Slepian; and 2) Kopp, an excellent marksman, tried carefully just to wound Slepian and his death was a freak medical accident. Does your system assign different moral weight to scenarios 1 and 2?
Intentions and attempted actions are a moral issue. The actual results of the action are a matter of luck, skill, interference by other people (such as the police), etc.

If you try to kill a person, then you have made your moral choice, you are a (potential) murderer. If the bullet then hits the heart and kills the victim instantly -- or if you miss the heart by 5 cm and the victim survives thanks to modern health care -- or if the victim dies even though you missed the heart because the ambulance got stuck in a traffic jam -- these circumstances have nothing to do with your morality.

Therefore, in case 1) Kopp is a murderer, and in case 2) he is less than a murderer (intentionality less than 100%), but criminal in any case -- since he risked the life of another person in a way not authorized by law.

take into account the almost infinite factors (...) considering a bill to legalize prostitution (...) How does your system deal with that level of complex causes and unknown and unintended consequences?

The more complex the issue is, the less an average human can logically handle it without powerful statistical tools. In this example of yours, all data would be converted into the mathematical format that this system uses, after which it would be possible to play with the factors and see how it affects the final outcome (Total Moral Balance).

... more logical and informative than the wild and headless debate that would otherwise result from the issue.

[Dancing David]

Perhaps you need to take death threats more seriously. The intent may not be to kill but to intimidate or control the other individual, therefore you would need a repeated expression of anger variable. A drunk who blows up one time, expresses remorse and changes behavior is very different than a drunk who repeatedly threatens and controls their spouse.

Alcohol is subject to the standard of care, you can not get a free pass on intent just because you are drunk. The standard of care would apply this way:
1. You know that when you get drunk, you give your self permission to engage in dangerous and threatening behaviors.
2. You are aware of the consequences of your behavior. People have told you that it is wrong, you hurt your spouse, and you have been arrested.
3. You engage in drinking despite the known negative consequences of behavior.

So I totally have to say intent is more complex and dependant upon those four factors:
A. True accountability, acceptance of destructive behaviors and changing them.
B. Personal, if unadmitted to others, knowledge of the consequences of destructive behaviors.
C. Outside communication and consequences of the destructive behavior.
D. Persisting in destructive behavior despite B and C.

The issue is that in most cases of violence there is a long trail of intent, planning, covering and active manipulation of the situation. People with violence problems very rarely have an "anger management" problem that would absolve them of intent, being drunk is just the excuse and cover for their destructive behavior.

Accountability for behaviors is an important variable in risk assessment.

When conducting crisis assessments for suicide risk there are three main variables you look at.

-Judgment
-Insight
-Impulse control

Judgment is the ability to make rational choices and perceptions.
Insight reflects the ability of the person to recognize the consequences of choices and the dynamics of the situation.
Impulse control is based upon history of past choices that indicate impulsive behavior.

Then there is the gauging of actual intent.

The point is this, when working with people who are threatening suicide and making a risk assessment, especially in a jail population, you have to judge their ability to take responsibility for their actions, IE accountability.

If the person you are interviewing has broken a razor and tried to cut their wrists and you need to decide if they can return to the general population in jail or if they need to be in the padded pokey it is important to judge their insight by their ability to take accountability.

A person who says things like "I dropped the razor and stepped on it by accident" is covering and not acknowledging their behavior, because they are not accountable you can't trust their ability to follow through on a no harm contract. No harm contracts are basically worthless anyhow, you only use them to reinforce with the person that they will seek help.

People who won’t take accountability for their actions are usually doing so with intent, they are trying to manipulate others into agreeing with the false justifications for their behavior.

Like when a sexual perpetrator says that the four year old led them into the sexual abuse.

So intent is not accidental and the standard of care applies.

[Dancing David]

double post

[the PC apeman]

... But if we think about a militant islamist blowing himself up in a crowd of innocent people, some of the responsibility certainly falls to those who brainwashed him and sent him. (Otherwise he would have never gone -- the crime would have never happened.) Part of the moral responsibility having gone to the brainwashers, less than 100% remains for the terrorist himself.
...Perhaps it's just the way you've worded it here but introducing partial responsibility seems like a problematic approach. Where do you draw the line of who gets a share of the pie? Would it not be better to talk in terms of additional responsibility? One then might consider the sum of all individual responsibilities (each above an arbitrary threshold) but where is the utility in doing so?

[calebprime]

this is a fascinating subject.

before I strain my brain too much, I ask some questions about language.

on the upper face of the cube, you have values:
2,1,0,-1,-2

and with those, you have phrases:

voluntary mutual barbarism, voluntary competition, voluntary self-denial, victim of voluntary rivalry, victim of voluntary barbarism

just starting here: these aren't parallel!

i.e. the last two mention a victim, but the first two mention a sort of system, and the third, (value 0, i guess) is voluntary self-denial, which might involve only one person.

??

so it doesn't make sense to have a list like this with incommensurate things, which are given numeric weights.

have you considered re-wording this stuff so it makes more sense?

I'd be happy to try to help--or maybe someone else with more philosophical expertise.

Perhaps things are getting lost in translation?

[calebprime]

"Level (or category) of morals" can be gradually anything between crime and victim of crime. Between these extremes there are (at least) 17 basic categories of morals:

INTENTIONAL:
- crime
-> victim of crime
- legal egocentricity
-> victim of legal egocentricity
- active pursuit of equality

UNINTENTIONAL:
- accident
-> victim of accident
- passively reached inequality
-> victim of passive inequality
- passively reached equality

VOLUNTARY:
- voluntary mutual barbarism
-> victim of mutual barbarism
- voluntary competition
-> victim of voluntary competition
- voluntary self-denial

RECONCILING:
- active self-sacrifice on behalf of others
- forgiveness or reconciliation of crime




I have the same difficulty with this list. The items aren't parallel--there's nothing intuitive about a list with (gradations) "between crime and victim of crime."

what do you mean by this?

[calebprime]

to explain my difficulty a little more:

'intentional' vs. 'unintentional' functions, at least on the surface, as an intelligible opposition--until the JREF vultures begin pecking at it.

but 'voluntary' has no opposite here.

anyway, 'voluntary' is similar to 'intentional', so that's confusing.

'reconciling' is something else again, it's not even the same part of speech as 'intentional'.

'reconciling' is a verb, 'intentional' is an adjective--although my knowledge of grammar is pretty meagre.

So, before we do any real consideration of this, you should explain why this list is intelligible at all.

cp

eta: upon further thought, 'reconciling' could function like an adjective, but I don't know if it is here!

[calebprime]

same criticism for the spectrum that goes from:

criminality--egocentricity--equality--involuntary poverty

you've given these things a numeric weight, but this is like saying:


fame--musicality--trusting--spatulas

[Loss Leader]

same criticism for the spectrum that goes from:

criminality--egocentricity--equality--involuntary poverty

you've given these things a numeric weight, but this is like saying:


fame--musicality--trusting--spatulas


Ditto for me. I really don't understand these three axes. The gradations do not appear to me to be intuitive in any way. Maybe it's your use of language that confuses me. I'm not sure why egocentricity and criminality are on the same spectrum. Please detail exactly the gradations on each spectrum and what you believe each means.

The EthiCube (seriously, how has this not caught on?) also seems to make each spectrum equivalent to the other two. That's why its a MoralsQuare and not a RectanglEquitabilizer. Is there a reason for this?

[JJM 777]

I'm not sure why egocentricity and criminality are on the same spectrum. Please detail exactly the gradations on each spectrum and what you believe each means.
Quite detailed explanations (written back in 2004 though) are given on this page:
http://www.moralbalance.com/English/ch_04.html

Egocentricity and criminality are on the same "spectrum" (dimension of the 3D cube), because they describe the same thing: the basic moral attitude of a person (or an action).

Beginning from the worst possible, the grading goes "destructive" (criminal) ... "legal egocentricity" (as nasty and selfish as you can legally be) ... "pursuit of equality" ... and then the counterparts (victims / losers) of the first two, in reverse order.

This grading is logical from worst to most noble, and freely gradual -- which means that if the five basic levels are marked -2, -1, 0, 1 and 2, then also a level like -1.6786879 is possible (being the average of level -2 action with moral weight X, and level -1 action with moral weight Y).

The EthiCube (seriously, how has this not caught on?)
When I saw that word "EthiCube" for the first time, it was love at first sight. It's catchy.

(...) seems to make each spectrum equivalent to the other two.
Now I can't follow what you mean.

introducing partial responsibility seems like a problematic approach. Where do you draw the line of who gets a share of the pie? (...) where is the utility in doing so?
The necessity of defining a person's responsibility gradually between 0% and 100% becomes evident in court of law. Not every killer is convicted of first class murder to the maximum penalty. It needs to be rationally planned over a longer time. Acting on an impulse when drunk (or in a fit of rage after a quarrel) will not jail you for the maximum time. Juveniles are generally regarded as having a low level of responsibility -- yet more than 0%, they will not be acquitted of all charges.

voluntary mutual barbarism, voluntary competition, voluntary self-denial, victim of voluntary rivalry, victim of voluntary barbarism

just starting here: these aren't parallel!

i.e. the last two mention a victim, but the first two mention a sort of system, and the third, (value 0, i guess) is voluntary self-denial, which might involve only one person.
The "voluntary" categories (placed on the axis for 50% moral responsibility) are identical copies of the categories with 0% moral responsibility (accidental) and the categories with 100% moral responsibility (intentional: crime, egocentricity, equality etc.).

When you move on the cube from one square to another, the only factor that changes is the dimension along which you are moving, and all other factors remain the same. For example, if you move from the red square marked "crime ag. human rights" to the square marked "accident", the nature of the action remains "destructive" (-2), and the moral weight remains the same -- the only changing factor is the amount of responsibility that can be blamed for any persons.

The "voluntary" categories are placed in the middle between 0% responsibility (accident) and 100% responsibility (intentional). What they exactly represent is most easy to understand by thinking what the categories with 100% responsibility mean (crime, legal egocentricity, pursuit of equality, and the victims of these), and then just make it voluntary.

A practical example of "voluntary mutual barbarism" would be a boxing match. While it is normally a crime to smash another person into the face with full force, the moral nature of the action changes when there is an agreement that both parties voluntarily participate in barbaric behaviour towards each other. The person that hurts the other one here, practices "voluntary mutual barbarism", and the one that gets seriously hurt becomes a "victim of voluntary mutual barbarism". Most probably both persons hurt and get hurt.

Likewise, competition (e.g. economical) is not always against the will of the participants. If the participants agree to the terms of competition (by voting for the Capitalist party, for example), they are practicing "voluntary competition" rather than the most selfish legally possible "egocentricity".

As for the last square, exactly at the center of the cube top, this is a square that represents aspects outside of the 3 dimensions handled by the cube -- it should be hanging in mid-air together with the two reconciling cubes. (The cubes hanging in mid-air are logically outside of the 3 dimensions handled by the cube, yet they have a tangible impact on the 3 dimensions handled by the cube.) Voluntary poverty reconciles economical issues, by not demanding its fair share of the wealth existing in the world.

There should be three cubes hanging in mid-air, and maybe I will update the image one day if I find the energy to do so. The center square of the cube top should contain "equality" which has been reached with 50% moral responsibility. Call it "voluntary mutual pursuit of equality".

(The heretically placed square, which should be hanging in mid-air but now occupies the spot "voluntary self-denial", comes very close to this idea though, because "self-denial" is actually pursuit of happiness if it is genuinely voluntary, and it leaves the existing sources of happiness for the use of other people, thus increasing their well-being.)

'intentional' vs. 'unintentional' functions (...) but 'voluntary' has no opposite here.
These three are not opposites of anything, not even of each other. "Intentional" and "unintentional" are not opposites of each other, they are simply two ends of a gradual scale from nothing to everything, where "voluntary" is in the middle.

The two far ends of the scale appear to be the "opposites" of each other, and the center point of the scale appears to have no "opposite" at all. This is natural, because no "opposites" are intended for any of these.

'reconciling' is something else again
Something else indeed -- something that is outside of the 3 dimensions handled by the cube.

As I mentioned above, there should actually be three cubes hanging in mid-air, because also "voluntary self-denial" has a reconciling impact on the rest of the society.

Think about two cookies and two children. If one child takes both of the cookies, mom would cry foul and reprimand this selfish brat. But if the other child practices "voluntary self-denial" and says that he does not want any cookies today, it _reconciles_ the selfish act of the other child. The child eating two cookies cannot be said to be selfish or injust by eating both cookies, because there would be no takers left for the other cookie.

The three "reconciling" categories (the three cubes hanging in mid-air, of which one is now missing) have the following impact on the other categories on the cube:

- Voluntary self-denial (+1) leaves existing property for other people as free prey to take, and thus statistically converts some legal selfishness (-1) into neutral equality (0).

- Active self-sacrifice (+1) is otherwise similar to voluntary self-denial, with the difference that the person does not merely leave property (etc.) behind for anyone to take, he actively chooses a target for his benevolence.

- Forgiveness of crime (+2, "voluntary victim") is an attitude that makes crime no longer a crime (converting -2 into neutral 0). It is not a crime to take money from a person who volunteers to give it away. What would otherwise be a theft, loses its moral meaning and becomes simply a donation.

criminality--egocentricity--equality--involuntary poverty
you've given these things a numeric weight, but this is like saying:
fame--musicality--trusting--spatulas
The replies above should already have proven otherwise. But if not, ask for more clarification.

[the PC apeman]

The necessity of defining a person's responsibility gradually between 0% and 100% becomes evident in court of law. Not every killer is convicted of first class murder to the maximum penalty. It needs to be rationally planned over a longer time. Acting on an impulse when drunk (or in a fit of rage after a quarrel) will not jail you for the maximum time. Juveniles are generally regarded as having a low level of responsibility -- yet more than 0%, they will not be acquitted of all charges.I may have been unclear. I have no problem with different levels of individual responsibility. My qualm is with the implication that the sum of one's responsibility plus the responsibility of others is a meaningful value.

In the terrorist bomber example you say "[p]art of the moral responsibility having gone to the brainwashers, less than 100% remains for the terrorist himself." The way this is worded it sounds like you have assigned X amount of moral responsibility to the event and that X is to be apportioned to the bomber and brainwasher. If so, we can discuss problems that will arise from there.

On the other hand, you could be merely saying the bomber is something less than 100% responsible and the brainwasher is something more than 0% but those two numbers needn't add up to 100%. I got the feeling you saw a relationship between those two numbers. Is there one?

[JJM 777]

All right, now I have updated the 3D cube image, to place the heretically located square elsewhere:
http://www.moralbalance.com/English/ch_04.html

Crap, now that I looked at the image (drawn 3 years ago), I realize that I had marked the criminal and egocentric moral categories with positive values (2 and 1), and their victims with negative values (-2 and -1). But in this JREF discussion thread I have been doing exactly the opposite, marking crime and egocentricity with negative values (-2 and -1) and their victims with positive values (2 and 1).

It really does not make any difference, but the symbols must remain unchanging of course. Otherwise total confusion follows. From now on I will use the values as introduced on the website (since 2004) and in the cube image: crime and egocentricity are marked with positive values, their victims with negative values, and the reconciling categories with negative values.

I'm curious of how fully you mean the word "objective" so far as your system is concerned.
Another viewpoint: imagine that you are the doctor in a hospital where a 10-year old girl is brought in critical condition. Just as you prepare to cut open the blood containers to begin emergency treatment, in runs a JW who happens to be the father of this girl. "No blood, please. Let her die as a saint rather than survive with the help of sinful technologies."

You might want to have an objective standing in such a situation, and the ability to logically demonstrate your viewpoint to anyone who might disagree, including the general public or the politicians who write the laws.

A quote from my intro website: "In the same way as 'everyone shall be considered innocent until proven guilty', also every deed must be considered morally neutral ('0'), unless it can be proven to have a negative or positive effect on the equal happiness of human beings, or it contains a remarkable statistical risk of doing so."

In this case, the JW claims that your treatment is evil, but you believe that it is a) good or at least b) neutral. Your viewpoint wins if a) evidence supports it or b) no evidence supports anything. The viewpoint of the JW wins only if evidence supports his viewpoint. Which will not be very likely.

This is the difference between an objective and a subjective approach to an ethical issue.

My qualm is with the implication that the sum of one's responsibility plus the responsibility of others is a meaningful value.
(...)
you could be merely saying the bomber is something less than 100% responsible and the brainwasher is something more than 0% but those two numbers needn't add up to 100%.
There are accidents, moral responsibility 0%.
There are fully intentional crimes, moral responsibility 100%.
There might be a factory worker watching TV instead of the security monitor, resulting in an explosion and deaths -- not a first class murder, neither a pure accident. Something between them, perhaps moral responsibility 50%.

Moral responsibility cannot always be 100%. Most evidently not in natural disasters, which are totally out of the control of humans. Not in cases where the person is so extremely young that he cannot possibly understand what is taking place, except that it just feels interesting. Therefore, moral responsibility will not be a "meaningful value" in the way that you probably meant it to be -- something like always 100% shared between the persons involved.

Example, an ex KGB agent is lying in a hospital bed. A murderer arrives at night at 1 a.m. and injects poison to his veins. An hour later another murderer does the same, without knowing about the first murderer. And again an hour later another murderer comes and tries to poison him dead.

In the morning the ex KGB agent wakes up, having been informed of the danger and taken a number of antidotes before going to sleep.

All the three nightly visitors would be (potential) murderers, each with 100% moral responsibility, deserving the full penalty for a first class murder.

[the PC apeman]

There are accidents, moral responsibility 0%.
There are fully intentional crimes, moral responsibility 100%.
There might be a factory worker watching TV instead of the security monitor, resulting in an explosion and deaths -- not a first class murder, neither a pure accident. Something between them, perhaps moral responsibility 50%.

Moral responsibility cannot always be 100%. Most evidently not in natural disasters, which are totally out of the control of humans. Not in cases where the person is so extremely young that he cannot possibly understand what is taking place, except that it just feels interesting. Therefore, moral responsibility will not be a "meaningful value" in the way that you probably meant it to be -- something like always 100% shared between the persons involved.

Example, an ex KGB agent is lying in a hospital bed. A murderer arrives at night at 1 a.m. and injects poison to his veins. An hour later another murderer does the same, without knowing about the first murderer. And again an hour later another murderer comes and tries to poison him dead.

In the morning the ex KGB agent wakes up, having been informed of the danger and taken a number of antidotes before going to sleep.

All the three nightly visitors would be (potential) murderers, each with 100% moral responsibility, deserving the full penalty for a first class murder.Okay, just my misreading then -- and one cannot do maths across or between multiple individuals' responsibilities. Right?

[calebprime]

all right, I looked at moralbalance.com

what follows is after 10 minutes--more than a glance, less than a semester.

you have 3 dimensions.

would you agree that each dimension should be logically separate from the other two?

if so, there's a problem, because:

'Level of morals' gives information about the practical effects of a deed.

'Moral weight' indicates the relative importance of the moral issue, and the practical impact that a deed has on the lives of people.

'Moral Responsibility' --A deed can be a fully conscious decision, a pure accident, or then something between these two extremes. This issue is discussed more closely in chapter 3, section moral responsibility.

'Level of morals' has in common with 'Moral weight' the practical effect or impact that a deed has. So these two dimensions are not really separate things.


'Moral Responsibility' has to do with degree of intent, or 'intentionality'.


So now you have two logically related--if not identical--things on two different dimensions. These both are related to practical impact. And a third dimension that has to do with intentionality.

Is that a fair summary? (I suspect it's not a fair summary.)

perhaps the solution is to reword the definition of the first two dimensions so that they are logically separate...?

[slingblade]

A) The hungry person is homeless

To determine his moral status on the cube, we would need to know why he is homeless? 1) A self-caused problem, drinking all his money? 2) Voting for the Communist party, but darn the Capitalists won the elections? 3) Voting for the Capitalist party -- voting for the very kind of ethics that have led him where he is?

Of these only the option 2) would make him a "victim of involuntary poverty". Option 3) would make him a "victim of voluntary competition" -- he voted for Capitalists. Option 1) would make him an enjoyer of equality (if his income is average), but darn how stupid he is to waste all his income to alcohol.

What if he doesn't drink, and doesn't vote?

What if the parties in his country are both capitalists?

What if he votes for the loser every time, so his vote never gets represented?

What if he's a she, was born into generational poverty, had no cultural capital, was systematically abused on various fronts, was severely restricted in her choices, and was led by religious belief to understand she deserved all this because she was born without a penis?

How does all that fit onto the cube?

[JJM 777]

one cannot do maths across or between multiple individuals' responsibilities. Right?
The idea of "sharing the responsibility" between several persons is most suitable in issues where the moral weight is "impersonal" (usually economical) rather than "personal" (directly affecting a person). What would be "shared" here is the moral weight, not moral responsibility:

If three people cooperate to steal a car, with the intention to sell it and share the money between themselves, they are all committing a crime (+2) with full moral responsibility (100% each, not "33% each"). But the moral weight (price) of the car would be divided between these three thugs, each of them being responsible for attempting to criminally gain 33% of the value of the car.

You may have been thinking about something like a mob of 1000 people beating a person to death. Then each of them would get a sentence only 1/1000 of what would be given for impulsive manslaughter in a fit of rage.

I would never share personal moral weight (directly affecting the life of a person) into smaller pieces. Manslaughter is 100% manslaughter, no matter how many uncivilized thugs are simultaneously doing it. Social slander, mob violence, gang rape -- you name it. Everyone participating in it is responsible for 100% of the moral weight of the action (excluding what would not have happened to the victim if the said person had been acting alone without any partners in crime).

Someone might use my system contrary to these principles -- I would find it difficult to endorse it. Peer review of a wider scientific community would decide the final outcome.

'Level of morals' gives information about the practical effects of a deed.

'Moral weight' indicates the relative importance of the moral issue, and the practical impact that a deed has on the lives of people.

'Level of morals' has in common with 'Moral weight' the practical effect or impact that a deed has. So these two dimensions are not really separate things.
Intention is the key in legal ethics, not so much actual consequence. (Remember the failed murder attempt of the KGB agent -- and the shots fired at a person who either died instantly, died in ambulance, or was luckily saved by a skilled physician at the hospital.)

"Level of morals" indicates the basic nature or intention of action -- destructive, competing etc.

"Moral weight" indicates the importance of the issue (economical value, potential damage to human life, etc.).

As far as I can see, these are completely separate issues, without any common factors.

What if he doesn't drink, and doesn't vote?
If he is homeless because he is placed in economical competition where he has poor success, he is either a "victim of competition" or a "victim of voluntary mutual competition". Not voting would indicate voluntary submission to the political circumstances (of economical competition).

If he is homeless because he has sufficient income but he somehow wastes all his money, then he is not a victim of competition. He enjoys an equal share of the goodness of life (category "0"), but spends it in mysterious ways.

What if the parties in his country are both capitalists?
What if he votes for the loser every time, so his vote never gets represented?
Sounds like the person is a victim of competition (+1).

What if he's a she (...) systematically abused on various fronts
A victim of crimes against the basic human rights (+2).

[calebprime]

"Level of morals" indicates the basic nature or intention of action -- destructive, competing etc.

"Moral weight" indicates the importance of the issue (economical value, potential damage to human life, etc.).

As far as I can see, these are completely separate issues, without any common factors.



i'm understanding a little better, but still not clear. 'moral weight' is importance. 'level of morals' is basically a scale of good to bad. no?

if that's the case, how about:
1 dimension labeled 'good' to 'bad'.
1 dimension labeled 'important' to 'unimportant'.
1 dimension labeled 'intentional' to 'unintentional'.

no? yes?

[Loss Leader]

Intention is the key in legal ethics, not so much actual consequence. (Remember the failed murder attempt of the KGB agent -- and the shots fired at a person who either died instantly, died in ambulance, or was luckily saved by a skilled physician at the hospital.)

"Level of morals" indicates the basic nature or intention of action -- destructive, competing etc.

"Moral weight" indicates the importance of the issue (economical value, potential damage to human life, etc.).

As far as I can see, these are completely separate issues, without any common factors.


I'm not so sure I follow all that.

Consider the case of the abortion doctor. The moral weight of his actions hinge on whether one believes he is killing a living person or not. His level of morals has to do with his intentions but we know that his intention is to remove the fetus. He may not intend to murder a human being but he certainly intends to do the act which, to some people, is the killing of a human being. Or this particular doctor may believe life starts at conception and may be performing abortions because he enjoys killing. Or this particular doctor refuses to think about it. Or this doctor wants to provide the best health care to women in which case he intends to do the act but for humanitarian and medically ethical reasons.

In these cases, his intent and the moral weight of the action all seem hopelessly bound up in each other while also being unquestionably subjective.

I just don't see your taxonomy helping out in this case.

[volatile]

Is this published in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal? I'm a PhD student and would love to read a chunk of your "real" research if it's available.

[the PC apeman]

You may have been thinking about something like a mob of 1000 people beating a person to death. Then each of them would get a sentence only 1/1000 of what would be given for impulsive manslaughter in a fit of rage.No. That's not at all what I was thinking. It seems we're having some difficulty communicating but I do thank you for having tried.

[JJM 777]

'level of morals' is basically a scale of good to bad.
Nearly so... good is at the center of the scale though, and what is on the right are the victims of what is on the left.

how about:
1 dimension labeled 'good' to 'bad'.
1 dimension labeled 'important' to 'unimportant'.
1 dimension labeled 'intentional' to 'unintentional'.
A dear child can have many names, no problem. But the label "good to bad" would not work very well, because unlike the other dimensions, this dimension has its origo (neutral zero point) in the middle.

Consider the case of the abortion doctor.
(...)
His level of morals has to do with his intentions but we know that his intention is to remove the fetus.
(...)
He may not intend to murder a human being but he certainly intends to do the act which, to some people, is the killing of a human being.
(...)
his intent and the moral weight of the action (...) being unquestionably subjective.
The doctor kills a creature, which:
- has the genes of a human being
- so far does not have much of a brain (depending on how old the fetus is)
- so far has no life history, therefore no one is emotionally attached to it

I have defined ethics as "study of how circumstances affect the emotions or existence of living creatures". We are now very close to the reasons why I have chosen such wording. Emotions are possible only where brain cells are present, and the potential extent of emotions depends on the size and quality of the brain.

Suppose that a person is shot in the head, and he is pronounced brain-dead in the hospital. What happens next is that the doctors allow also the body to die, possibly collecting some organs to be donated to those who need them. Brain is what makes a human person, without a brain it would be a plant only. Also human egg cells and sperm cells are plants only, lacking brain and awareness.

The first brain cells develop two weeks after fertilization of the egg cell. From this point on the creature theoretically has some awareness, less than a gnat would have, but when time passes and the moment of birth comes near, its awareness will exceed that of any animal.

When an embryo is killed at a stage where its awareness corresponds to that of a mouse, what actually happens is that a creature dies whose awareness is on the level of a mouse. It can be objectively observed that this creature does not suffer more than a killed mouse would have suffered. Neither does it have a life history that would make it emotionally important for other humans.

The claim that more happens than can be observed is subjective. From the statement "any action shall be considered innocent and neutral unless proven otherwise" it follows that the burden of proof rests on the party that claims an action not to be morally neutral. More cannot be proven than the fact that a creature with a low level of awareness died.

This notion can be challenged by claiming that the embryo was in the process of becoming a human being, and after some time it would have had a higher level of awareness. Correct, but these events never took place, so they never existed. Some time later the awareness of the creature would have been higher, but the action was taken now, so it is this moment that matters.

While my system describes ethical reality -- with the amount of objectivity that is psychologically possible for us -- a person still makes his subjective decisions, only equipped with more information about his potential decisions.

Is this published in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal? I'm a PhD student and would love to read a chunk of your "real" research if it's available.
I have not studied in universities, so I am outside of these inner circles. Such a journal would probably require submissions in a certain standard format, in which this work is now not written.

If someone who is part of such academic circles became interested in this project, and submitted it for such peer review, it would certainly produce valuable feedback in a short time.

[calebprime]

Nearly so... good is at the center of the scale though, and what is on the right are the victims of what is on the left.


A dear child can have many names, no problem. But the label "good to bad" would not work very well, because unlike the other dimensions, this dimension has its origo (neutral zero point) in the middle.


...

...

I have not studied in universities, so I am outside of these inner circles. Such a journal would probably require submissions in a certain standard format, in which this work is now not written.

If someone who is part of such academic circles became interested in this project, and submitted it for such peer review, it would certainly produce valuable feedback in a short time.


I've been reading and posting at the JREF for not too long--less than a year. I've seen many conversations that were polarized between crackpots/trolls/madmen vs. cynics/rationalists. Your theory interests me because it doesn't fit this common JREF pattern. You seem to have a genuine idea which would benefit from being worded more clearly.

Whether or not I understand your ideas yet (I probably don't) I'm certain that you need to edit your writing to present your ideas more clearly.

It doesn't matter whether you are in the academic mainstream except:
You might find that the exercise of talking with academically-informed people helps you clarify your ideas. Maybe there are more people than you realized who have thought along similar lines.

I myself have reinvented the academic wheel many times--in music theory. After I got done admiring my fine new wheel, I would realize that it had already been invented by so-and-so. If you want a complete list of my "original" music theory ideas, I'd be happy to provide it. Going to school and talking with some of the best theorists helped me sort out what parts of my thinking were new. As it happened, maybe 5% of my ideas were new. The other 95% were things that others had already thought of. This is a common pattern.

Now, to the cube.

Perhaps there's nothing wrong with having two dimensions that are linear ('intentionality' and 'importance') and one which is...more complicated.

We've established that it has to do with 'better' to 'worse'. But it is seems to be mixing tangerines and kissing.

You're saying:

Perpetrators........................Good.......... ...............Victims ??

I don't understand why you would want to have a scale that mixes two different kinds of things.



maybe you want a fourth scale with:


'Do-er'.........to...........'Do-ee'
or
'Agent'..........to...........'receiver'/'recipient'
or
'Actor'...........to...........'Target of action'

something like that



How about if you had 4 dimensions:

'intentional' to 'unintentional'
'important' to 'unimportant'
'better' to 'worse'
'do-er' to 'do-ee'


The first step is to make your ideas as clear as possible.

The second step is to subject your ideas to the same criticism you would apply to someone else's ideas.

I will share a thought about scales or measures of abstract concepts.

Sometimes, it seems intuitively obvious that there is a way to rank some abstract concept precisely.

Consonance and Dissonance is one of my favorite examples. It seems obvious that an octave is more consonant than a minor ninth. A fifth is more consonant than a tritone or augmented fourth.

But--even excluding all other musical issues of context--when you get down to ranking every interval, things break down.

The most you can achieve is an arbitrary ranking system, or a "fuzzy" ranking.

I suspect ethics is something like this.

But, your 20's are the time to build systems, and your 30's are the time to apply them, and your 40's are the time to kick back and realize your folly.

I like 'a dear child can have many names'. :)

eta: upon further reflection, do-er to do-ee (or whatever) doesn't seem fit on a scale. It just seems to be two distinct things.

[Loss Leader]

When an embryo is killed at a stage where its awareness corresponds to that of a mouse, what actually happens is that a creature dies whose awareness is on the level of a mouse. It can be objectively observed that this creature does not suffer more than a killed mouse would have suffered. Neither does it have a life history that would make it emotionally important for other humans.

The claim that more happens than can be observed is subjective. From the statement "any action shall be considered innocent and neutral unless proven otherwise" it follows that the burden of proof rests on the party that claims an action not to be morally neutral. More cannot be proven than the fact that a creature with a low level of awareness died.

This notion can be challenged by claiming that the embryo was in the process of becoming a human being, and after some time it would have had a higher level of awareness. Correct, but these events never took place, so they never existed. Some time later the awareness of the creature would have been higher, but the action was taken now, so it is this moment that matters.



I find your answer exceptionally confusing. I used the case of the abortionist in order to ask you whether two axes in your scale were measuring the same thing. I asked how the abortion doctor's intent could be separated from the moral weight of his action. I asked if there was a moral difference between the doctor who performs an abortion to aid the welfare of his patient or the doctor who performs the same abortion under the same circumstances because he enjoys killing. Or the the doctor who refuses to think about any of this and just does the same abortion because it's a legal way to make money.

Your answer, however, appeared to be nothing more than your subjective views on abortion. You couched them in objective terms, but they were just your own (debatable) opinions. Many, many people disagree with you.

Even worse, you gave your opinion about abortion without any reference at all to your drawing. Your analysis was "scientific" in that it relied on an understanding of fetal development but it was not "scientific" in that it didn't get cranked through your machine in order for you to come up with your conclusion.

I am about ready to pronounce my opinion regarding your Block of Justice but I will be glad to give you another oportunity to clear up my confusion before I do.

[JJM 777]

I asked how the abortion doctor's intent could be separated from the moral weight of his action.
As these two have no common factors, they are separate.

Destructive action becomes neutral when the moral weight is zero. If I destroy a stone, the action is neutral because it has (virtually) no moral weight. (Moral impact is the multiplication of "moral level" x "moral weight". The result is neutral zero when either of these is zero, no matter what the other factor is.)

Destroying a fetus is "destroying a fetus". Destructive action (in relation to the fetus) -- but what is the moral weight? This is the only debatable issue here. Subjective opinions about the moral weight of the action do not mean that we are absolutely lost, or that the cube is not describing the issue with the best accuracy that is possible for us humans.

I asked if there was a moral difference between the doctor who performs an abortion to aid the welfare of his patient or the doctor who performs the same abortion under the same circumstances because he enjoys killing. Or the the doctor who refuses to think about any of this and just does the same abortion because it's a legal way to make money.
The moral status (or moral weight) of abortion is not linked in any way to the circumstances that you have presented. You try to group different actions together: abortion, economical welfare, earning a living. Yes, a Total Moral Balance can be statistically calculated of a multitude of actions. But this would be statistical information about the general situation only -- it would not affect the absolute moral status of each separate action (unless these actions are linked by direct causality, such as aborting the fetus to save the life of the mother).

If the doctor is serving a poor patient for free, he is practicing "active self-sacrifice (-1)" -- what comes to economy, and this single action only. If he charges a high fee from his less wealthy client, he is practicing "active competition (+1)" -- concerning economy, and this single action only. How much he "enjoys" it makes no essential ethical difference (unless this somehow affects intentionality or his mental stability).

you need to edit your writing to present your ideas more clearly.
I am not satisfied with the presentation (done back in 2004), but I have a life and this project has a relatively small place in it. I am doing the best I can with the limited resources that I have: the website and this discussion are examples of what has been possible for me.

two dimensions that are linear ('intentionality' and 'importance') and one which is...more complicated.
We've established that it has to do with 'better' to 'worse'. But it is seems to be mixing tangerines and kissing.
This "complicated" dimension is linear just as all the others, only the origo (zero point) is located elsewhere, simple elementary school mathematics.

It is logically similar to old-fashioned scales (a common theme in the emblems of courts of law), the neutral center of gravity being at the center (origo, zero). Anything placed off the center causes the scales to go off balance -- there is direct causality, the left side going down causes the right side to go up.
http://www.moralbalance.com/pics/MoL_five.gif
http://www.moralbalance.com/pics/MoW_five.gif

If you have a crime (on the left side of the scales) => you also have a victim (on the right side of scales). If you have a winner in competition (on the left side) => you also have a loser in competition (on the right side). This becomes an objective measure for the ethical status of an action: we cannot simply say that something is "good " or "bad". An action is destructive if it has a victim, and competing/egocentric if it creates a loser or outcast. Where such causality cannot be proven, the action must be placed at the center of the scales, on the neutral origo (zero point).

Then we have the "reconciling" categories, which logically act like counterweights placed on the right side of the scales -- neutralizing the effect of crime or egocentricity.

This is simple and straightforward, no "tangerines and kissing".

[calebprime]

ok.

how about this?

1 dimension intentional to unintentional
1 dimenison important to unimportant
1 dimension better to worse, with a zero point in the middle

3 dimensions.

and then, you simply don't account for who is the perp and who is the victim in the cube, you just use simple language:


two true examples from recent life:

"I was the beneficiary of a somewhat intentional, not very important,
pretty-good act (located at such-and-such a point on my cube)--a young woman smiled at me and said she liked my music."

(impact on me: absurdly disproportionate)

"I was the perpetrator of a somewhat intentional, not very important, pretty-good act (located at such-and-such a point on my cube)--a neighbor's car broke down, and I gave them some rope to secure a door that wouldn't close."

one imaginary example:

Two boxers fight 10 rounds, one wins a decision. Neither is seriously injured, although both will certainly suffer brain-damage over the years if they continue. They make x dollars. Don King makes x^2 dollars. Pay-Per-View and Trump Casinos makes x^3 dollars. (or whatever) Many people are entertained, and forget their troubles briefly. Waitresses benefit from big tips. Several fights occur in sports-bar parking lots--but this time, no one is seriously hurt. The 'sweet science'--a barbaric pastime, no doubt--is perpetuated.

Where do we locate this on the cube?

And more seriously, do you think a scale (or three scales) can accurately rank everything in importance, intentionality, and positive/negative worth?

Is the better/worse scale bound up with altruism, or is it somehow objective?

I know from looking at the other posts yesterday that you were doing a lot of arguing. Here, I'm only mildy skeptical--I'm just asking you to clarify.

I'm sorry if having to repeat yourself or explain things in very simple terms is annoying, but on the other hand, I'm probably less of an oaf than most.

[vexed]

When people discuss ethical issues, they often say that some action is "wrong", or in someone else's opinion "right". Black and white vocabulary, very uninformative.

More than ten years ago I began making attempts to describe ethics / morals in more objective and informative ways. In 1998 the system was reviewed by a Finnish Professor of Philosophy, who described it as the most sophisticated effort to rationally describe ethics that he has ever seen anywhere. (When this topic was discussed at JREF some years ago, CFLarsen naturally asked for "evidence", and got the contact details of this now emeritus Professor.)

The system has slowly but remarkably evolved after those years: in 1998 I had a 2-dimensional system that included 5 basic levels of morals. Nowadays I use a 3-dimensional model that contains 17 basic levels of morals.

A brief introduction to the system (written in 2004) is available on this page:
moralbalancedotcom/English/ch_04dothtml

---

Summary of the basics:

The three most important indicators of ethical issues are:
1) level (category) of morals
2) moral weight
3) moral responsibility

"Moral weight" is the importance or impact of the action. For example, the moral weight of murder is 100% of human life, while the moral weight of stealing is usually much less than that.

"Moral responsibility" (of an individual) can be anything between 0% (pure accident) and 100% (fully intentional action taken by a socially independent adult person).

"Level (or category) of morals" can be gradually anything between crime and victim of crime. Between these extremes there are (at least) 17 basic categories of morals:

INTENTIONAL:
- crime
-> victim of crime
- legal egocentricity
-> victim of legal egocentricity
- active pursuit of equality

UNINTENTIONAL:
- accident
-> victim of accident
- passively reached inequality
-> victim of passive inequality
- passively reached equality

VOLUNTARY:
- voluntary mutual barbarism
-> victim of mutual barbarism
- voluntary competition
-> victim of voluntary competition
- voluntary self-denial

RECONCILING:
- active self-sacrifice on behalf of others
- forgiveness or reconciliation of crime

---

CFLarsen would certainly be glad to hunt for evidence, sniff for any possible superstitions, debunk everything, and wish that I had never been born into this world. I hereby give him the golden chance to do so.

(I use the words morals / ethics as the synonyms of each other, as well as immoral / unethical. If I am asked what "ethics" is, I answer that it is the study of how circumstances affect the emotions or existence of living creatures.)

I simply don't agree with this idea, but don't worry there are many ethical models I disagree with (there are usually times when any ethical model simply doesn't work).

[blobru]

In the same way as "everyone shall be considered innocent until proven guilty", also every deed must be considered morally neutral ("0"), unless it can be proven to have a negative or positive effect on the equal happiness of human beings, or it contains a remarkable statistical risk of doing so.

Utilitarianism, then? Calculating ethics almost solely from consequences may produce some strange results.

Referring to middle line top of the EthiCube: "voluntary barbarism, voluntary competition... victim of..." and following up calebprime's example [voluntary barbarism], where boxing, on the utilitarian scale you employ, must be morally laudable because it makes so many people happy; here's another simple example that seems, to me at least, morally complex, to illustrate why there may be more to ethics than mere consequence:

Moe and Joe play cards for money [voluntary competition]. Moe doesn't take games very seriously, Joe does. Moe wins $10, no big deal for him; Joe, however, a very bad loser, is extremely upset, and begins to weep inconsolably. Employing the EthiCube, do we now rate their playing cards as immoral because Joe, the victim of the voluntary competition, is so unhappy? If by chance he had won, and were extremely happy, would the card game then become moral?

Doesn't seem obvious to me. Some might say Joe shouldn't have played in the first place, as he had a 50% chance of losing and hates to lose so much. Or that it's Joe's responsibilty as a grown-up not to take silly games so seriously. Or that Joe is emotionally unstable and needs help. Or that Moe shouldn't hang out with such a poor sport. In other words, that there's more to ethics than just consequences: it also involves rational decision-making, responsible behavior, psychological factors, etc...

Plus minor proofreading note: on the Cube, "moral weight" is the 3rd dimension and "responsibility" the 2nd, but in the write-up that order is reversed. (Really good thread btw; nice to have a pure philosophy topic like this!) :)

[JJM 777]

(Really good thread btw; nice to have a pure philosophy topic like this!)
Thanks to the extremely boring nature of this topic, those who want to make fun of everything, spend their time elsewhere.

Utilitarianism, then? Calculating ethics almost solely from consequences may produce some strange results.
Intention is the main point, less the consequences. (If you did read my story about a KGB agent being poisoned by three murderers, and yet surviving thanks to antidotes. Three people jailed for attempted murder, while no actual harm resulted to anyone.)

It is possible to work with the Cube while focusing solely on the intentions or consequences. In criminal courts they would focus mainly on the intentions of people. But someone making statistics about the economical ethics in different countries would need to focus quite solely on the consequences -- because the consequences of economy are easily available as statistical data, but measuring people's intentions would require polling millions of people for the survey.

Employing the EthiCube, do we now rate their playing cards as immoral because Joe, the victim of the voluntary competition, is so unhappy?
"Victims" usually are unhappy about their situation. Having become so unhappy, this person is a victim -- but whose victim? Of his own decision to participate in the voluntary competition (assuming that participating was voluntary).

If you want safe equality without any competition, guaranteed smooth emotions and no tears any more, EthiCube offers you many interesting alternatives from "active equality" to "mutual equality" -- even "accidentally reached equality".

But just in case you find this life boring after a year or two, the CuteCube also offers you (with a harsh warning text and parental advisory) the chance of adventures into a variety of feelings ranging from glorious victory to a shameful defeat, from weeping of joy to weeping of disappointment.

By indicating Poker as "voluntary competition (+1)", CuteCube gives you the parental advisory that if you enter this game, one you will leave the table grinning of pleasure, the other one absolutely pissed off.

The most important point, ethically, is the freedom of these persons to quit the competition if they no longer enjoy it. Forcing people to competition against their will is a major ethical problem, often with grave consequences to people's happiness and sanity. (Suicides are often done for economical reasons in Capitalist states -- the unescapable competition was too hard to take.)

Totalitarian states usually go too far in regulating activities that potentially may make people "inequal" or "unhappy" (envious). Ultra-liberal states often make the opposite mistake, failing to protect citizens from competition in which they lose and never wanted to participate.

1 dimension intentional to unintentional
1 dimenison important to unimportant
Different names can be used in different situations (or for different audiences). Depending on the context, I refer to category (+2) as "destructive" or "criminal", and to category (+1) as "competition", "egocentricity", etc.

I like the term "moral responsibility", because the dimension basically answers the question: "Who is to blame for this?"

Preferences of words are matters of taste, to some extent. Two different academics writing on the same subject may sometimes choose very different vocabulary.

1 dimension better to worse, with a zero point in the middle
My oldest and still one of the best terms for this concept is "level of morals", answering the question "How high morals does he have?", which illustrates that higher is better than lower.

When we focus on the diverse actions of people on the "scales of morals" (excluding the victims, because becoming a victim is not "action", it is the consequence of someone else's action), we get the following list from most noble to least noble:
-- -2 forgiveness of crime (voluntary victim)
-- -1 voluntary self-sacrifice (benevolence)
-- +0 pursuit of equality
-- +1 legal egocentricity
-- +2 crime

(I am still unsure if it would be more useful to have the negative values on crime and egocentricity, and positive values on the reconciling categories.)

This list can be described as "from good to evil", but in common speech the word "good" makes people think about beautiful things like equality (+0). The top of the list is not only "good" as the common sense understands this concept, it is actual sainthood, voluntary suffering.

Two boxers fight 10 rounds, one wins a decision. Neither is seriously injured
(...)
They make x dollars.
(...)
Many people are entertained, and forget their troubles briefly.
(...)
Where do we locate this on the cube?
As for the boxing itself, it is voluntary mutual barbarism, theoretically having the moral weight of 100% of a human life at stake (but statistically the damage done to persons will be far less than that).

As for the money that these diverse people make (and diverse others lose), I assume that a number of people become big winners in economical competition, and some others become losers in mostly voluntary (?) economical competition. The moral weight of these transactions being the sums of money involved.

As for those who are entertained -- they are having a life. A life that moves on the Cube within certain safe limits.

And more seriously, do you think a scale (or three scales) can accurately rank everything in importance, intentionality, and positive/negative worth?
Every serious issue, yes. And every less serious issue would get moral weight zero, after which the other factors lose their mathematical importance, and need not be even studied.

Is the better/worse scale bound up with altruism, or is it somehow objective?
Objectivity of the scale relies on these principles:

1) What cannot be proven to cause a victim, must be presumed innocent and neutral (+0).
(In subjective morals any action can be said to be evil, without proving the case in any way.)

2) The left side of the scale indicates the (objectively observable) extent of moral restraint and respect of the well-being and basic human rights of other human beings.

Starting from zero moral restraint ("crime" +2), the person acts extremely selfishly, and may destroy other humans or their property as he chooses.

Gradually continuing to legal egocentricity (+1), the person practices an evident amount of moral restraint, to the extent that is required by legislation. (The person does not necessarily agree with the moral goals of legislation. Obeying the law is also a learned reaction to being punished for violations, thus being another form of selfish opportunism. Most people truly respect some laws, but opportunistically break some other laws whenever there are no policemen around.)

Gradually continuing to pursuit of equality (+0), the person practices a remarkable extent of moral restraint, avoiding any action that would be directly against the good of other people around him.

Psychologically, criminal morals takes least mental maturity or effort, and is typical for newborn babies and animals generally. Legal egocentricity requires the mental task of understanding what the rules are, and the motivation to obey them. People with some mental disabilities are unable to fully obey the law, even opportunistically. Otherwise healthy creatures of all kind usually can learn to avoid behaviour that is repeatedly punished, but it takes a lot of time and work. Altruistic pursuit of equality (+0) is most complex of these mental tasks.

It is difficult to imagine a serious effort to challenge the logical order of these categories (from most evil to most noble).